almost bug free?

Yeah, I too have been experiencing random crashes in both ZC and ZQuest for the last several builds.
If the developers don't find a way to fix these random crashes, they would be admitting defeat, just like they did when 2.10 was infamously released with still so many (old and new) bugs in it, and I seriously don't want to see the developers admit defeat again. In other words, we would not want to see an unstable final 2.5.
Besides, I think that all the random crashes that have been happening in both ZC and Zquest for no reason are due to none other than a memory leak.

I think it might be your computer then. Build 1089 runs just fine for me (on my laptop). It has not crashed once on my laptop, and I actually use it quiet a bit (contrary to quest progress). The only issue I have is if I run ZQ in big mode in full screen, it botches some of the colors. However, this is a Windows issue, not a ZC issue, and it can be fixed by Right clicking ZQ-> Compatibility-> 'Run in 256 colors'. That works for the player as well, which runs in full screen just fine too. So seriously, instead of whining about how many bugs you have encountered, see what you can do on your end first. The devs work hard enough, and they don't need to be told that their product is a "Bug infested piece of.."

I made a topic expressing my thanks to the devs. This is a free program. You get what you pay for, for better or for worse.

I don't see why you make these posts when you know how they'll be received. It would be different if you actually, I dunno, maybe tried to report some of these issues instead of throwing a temper tantrum every time. To be frank, why don't take some wisdom from the proverb, "If you can't say something nice (or in this case, constructive) then why say anything at all?"

Nothing wrong with my computer, and I've spent years of my life testing and reporting bugs.
Have you?
The problem remains the same, instead of trying to fix what is there, more things get added and existing things get changed, and the program remains the same, no more than a graphics play toy.
My posts, as you say, may not be well received, but they've turned out to be prophetic, exactly what I said would happen almost 3 years ago, has happened.

Let me put it this way for you Anthus...
I have 2 quests in my computer here, with over 2 years of hard work combined in the two.
One of them was close to release with the 211-10b, and moving it to the b12 corrupted it beyond repair, so I started another which meant going back to an older version of my tileset and then having to update it to where I now was.
The nature of the corruption was such that it also got my back ups, because it was in the combos and wasn't noticed right away.
Just last night with the 1099 it almost happened again, to the newer of the two quests.
The program may be free, but if it continues to destroy years of work, then it is overpriced at that.
I give my quests away for free too.
If I decide to adopt your attitude, then that tells me that it's ok for me to release them buggy as hell, so instead of people enjoying them, they just end up frustrated beyond belief, and then when they get frustrated my reply can be... "hey, what the fuck did you expect... it's free"
I guess you haven't noticed the growing lack of interest, the bug forums get less posts in a week then they used to get in a day, and there hasn't been any notable quests released in a long while.

I really would like to release this quest one day, but I guess you're right, bitching hasn't worked, helping hasn't worked, and being silent hasn't worked, so I guess that only leaves acceptance that it's just never going to happen.

I can't say I entirely disagree with you, its just your way of insulting the developers. As for back-ups, I actually tend to duplicate the quest file manually, and give it a new name. This completely separates it from the whole thing. The only problem is if the corrupting factor exists before hand, and it triggered by something, then it is always there. Either way, backing up is kinda like a bullet proof vest. Bad shit still happens, so don't get a false sense of security.

But seriously, I can understand your frustration. As I already, I just think it is rude to say things in such a way about the program, even if it is what you feel is true. Also, I don't think they are adding any more new features, and I don't think they have for quite sometime. The last big thing added was probably Big Mode, but I actually don't follow updates as much as I used to, so I could be wrong.

you're right, what's the point in complaining, all been said before, and didn't matter then either.

The backup system should have no limit on the number of backups that can be created at any time. Instead of having say a total of 10 backups, the limit should be set to 9,999,999,999 backups. Aside from being able to create backups it shouldn't be able to interact with backup files until the user requests it to do so.

Maybe create backups as read only? that way after they are made, they can't be changed at a later point making them a truer backup?

I side with Freedom on this one.
I too was a victim of Quest corruption and was very pissed that I had to redo everything over again. The total lack of quest admissions, at least in the betas, in disconcerting. They still come in 2.10 and lower. But I haven't seen anything in a beta for about 2 years now.
It's about time we stop trying to add things and get down and clean up whats already there. Stabilize it there first then add if need be.
I do believe the testers are very frustrated and have "run away". Which gives the effect of what Freedom implies. Total lack of posting issues. Only the hope and prospect of a stable release may bring them back. Maybe a hypothetical date would work. But we've been down that road too.
I appreciate what the devs do. I really do. It's hard work and there's no profit in it for them. Only the joy of creation.
I salute them for it. But people are growing impatient. Empty promises fuel the fire of discord.
Make a promise and stick to it. It may bring people back to it again.

I pretty much agree here. it's just the way of wording it. As I said, I do think they are working on hammering out the new features as opposed to adding more new features.

franpa wrote:The backup system should have no limit on the number of backups that can be created at any time. Instead of having say a total of 10 backups, the limit should be set to 9,999,999,999 backups.

Anyway. Let me tell you this. It's been a long long time since I needed to use one of the backups, and I've had timed backups turned off for a long time (since they're so obtrusive). I'm far more worried about corruption in my ZC.sav file than in my quests.

Obviously, it's still a concern down the road, so perhaps a better proposal tuned to the way I suspect most people work (Open ZQuest, modify quest, save, open ZC, test, F6 quit, modify quest, save, test, etc.) is in order:

Create a "special" backup when the quest is opened or saved the first time in a session, and set it aside. Then, each time you save, create a normal backup. If you notice corruption, you can roll back to the speical backup which will be there forever, if you never close ZQuest.

Freedom wrote:I've been playing around with 1099 the last few days and find it to be far from anywhere close to bug free.
Why the 1099 you ask, because the 1121 crashes every 5 minutes.

Jman said the new betas were close to bug free...
which versions would those be?

It's a bug infested piece of....
well you know the rest, it ain't bug free, it's just not getting tested anymore because you ran all the testers off when they realized they weren't going to get rewarded for their hard work with a stable release.

been what.... 3 years now?

there's my rant.... I'll check back again in another 50 versions or so, good luck.

As for bugs in the engine, I agree that it's not bugfree. And, more than the "it will never be bug free, stop bitching" level, too. And, more than it was the last time you posted this thread. However, I trust they will stop making large sweeping changes, and focus on fixing bugs soon, right?

Anyway, I always run the latest beta, so that I can find bugs and report them. Anyone running an old beta is not doing anyone a favour by doing so. Bugs get fixed, new ones get introduced, it's the cycle of software development! *cue lion king music*

I don't find this extended period between releases particularly bad for two reasons:

1. We're getting interim builds to test stuff and report bugs, because...
2. Previous releases have not exactly been bug-free. Everyone of them has had show-stopping bugs (the crash-the-second-time-you-look-at-the-map bug, the DMap continue bug, the midi-instruments-are-fucked bug) which I don't want to see in an eventual 2.5 release.

Okay, random stream of thoughts, over.

To be honest I just can't understand the direction ZC has taken for the life of me.

If you really think about it, it doesn't make any sense at all.

I understand and appreciate all the features that have been added, it's a much better program today then it was with the 210
BUT it isn't getting a finalized version that can actually be used for it's intended use.

PureZC won't even allow quests to be added to the data base when they are built in one of these betas, so even if I decide to stick with one beta and build a quest, then I'd have to host it on my own for the most part, and release that beta with it.

IF there was a release, then quests could be built and released again for ONE common version and additions to the betas could continue as before.

ALL the major quest builders of old are waiting for that release
Players are waiting for the quest builders.

If it was a business then think of it like this...
It's 100 times harder to get back a customer you've lost, than it is to get a new customer, and if you've ever run a business, then you know how hard it is to get new customers.

It's said that "no new features are being added"
BUT in reality that isn't true.
With each update in the channel log you see that the scripting is being added to and improved.
That could go on forever, and each time a release comes out there are new bugs as a result of that.
So because of that, I have no hopes any longer that a stable release will ever come, and that "some" developers are bullshiting people by saying otherwise, and that adds to hard feelings

When I make posts I'm attacked for coming down on the developers.
well... there are some developers that have blown smoke, and brought that on themselves.
I don't bullshit them.

I'm not the only one, there are fewer posts here now in a week than there used to be in a day, across the board in all areas.
I'd like to see ZC come back, but that isn't up to me.

Well, of course, you guys know where I stand but, I have to at least put something on this thread.

So 2.10 was released in I forget... 2004 I think. Okay, so me, I want to make games, that are accessible and will be for all crowds to enjoy. When I made HoD, I got 2.10 and I designed my game. Now 2.10 had bugs. It had the music bug, the Din's fire bug, sometimes crashed, Link Tile Mods, etc. But that was an official release. 2.10 was official. So I made my game, and I worked around the bugs. I worked my damnest to make the game with as few bugs as possible, and I think I made a pretty damn good game.

I am now making EotM. I still haven't really dove into production because the final release hasn't came out yet. Things were changing all of the time in the production that I had to keep forcing myself to update my game. Update bugs, new version, update bugs, etc. I am actually not mad about that, whatever, that is how betas are. So I wait for a release. There hasn't been a release since 2004, and I waiting for the next one. Then I will make my game on the official release and I will work around the bugs (as I know we can't get rid of them all), just like I did with 2.10. But, I just need an official release.

So, every year was going by, and we keep on hearing different things from the developers. Official release is 3 months (2006), after this addition we will focus to the official release, etc. etc. It is now 2010, 6 years after an official release, and we are still waiting. Yes, I am sorry, that we are impatient. But can you really blame us. Especially because we seem to be getting lied to. I just want someone to say, this is what we still need to add, and this is the estimated time. Instead of just ignoring us.

What I put together to create a timeline myself is this. Large Mode still has some additions needed to be added (old topic), and after that then they would go to the official release. That was more than a year ago. So, I check the ZC log every day, to see if those additions were put in. Still no, so I am thinking, that whenever that is done, probably 6 months of testing after that and then a release.

But I still want to hear some sort of plan, a timeline if you will, on 2.5. When do you think it will be done? What do you still need to add? How much time do you think that will take?

And those are just serious questions. I think we deserve to know, then rather being left in the dark and brushed off by: "Soon". I like to work with deadlines and timelines, I will help test if there was one, but honestly, I actually don't think there is a official release in my lifetime because that is how in the dark I feel, so I don't want put my time and effort if I don't think it will mean anything. I just need some sort of feedback, but I probably will still get the cold shoulder.

Freedom wrote:ALL the major quest builders of old are waiting for that release
Players are waiting for the quest builders.

I'd be ultra-willing to test rigorously if a timeline were set, or a plan initiated. Right now everything is in limbo (as it's been for 4 years), but if an honest effort were initiated to get this done, we could do it quickly. Hopefully there are enough devs...

Pineconn wrote:I'd be ultra-willing to test rigorously if a timeline were set, or a plan initiated. Right now everything is in limbo (as it's been for 4 years), but if an honest effort were initiated to get this done, we could do it quickly. Hopefully there are enough devs...

Pineconn, I've filed several bugs based on playing through your quests. You could do a world of good just by playing through them in 2.5 and filing bugs!

pkmnfrk wrote:Why not test now, like I am, and like others are?

Pineconn, I've filed several bugs based on playing through your quests. You could do a world of good just by playing through them in 2.5 and filing bugs!

been there done that, and then more is added or changed and those very same bugs are reintroduced.
How many times do you plug a tire before you say this is BS and go get another one less troublesome?

Until a concerted effort is made to fix bugs and ONLY bugs and add no more and make no more changes, then what is the point?

Believe me, I want this release to happen too. I do wish they'd do a feature freeze as well, but there are certain things that are left half-implemented, which would arguably be worse! If people work around a half-baked feature, then suddenly it becomes difficult to fully implement it, because it would break every quest that worked around it.

Or, they could drop those features, but that's not possible in some cases, and would provoke responses like "They killed a feature I relied on, how the fuck am I supposed to build a quest if everything keeps changing?!"

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

But, rest assured, I want a stable release as much as anyone else.

pkmnfrk wrote:Believe me, I want this release to happen too. I do wish they'd do a feature freeze as well, but there are certain things that are left half-implemented, which would arguably be worse! If people work around a half-baked feature, then suddenly it becomes difficult to fully implement it, because it would break every quest that worked around it.

Or, they could drop those features, but that's not possible in some cases, and would provoke responses like "They killed a feature I relied on, how the fuck am I supposed to build a quest if everything keeps changing?!"

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

But, rest assured, I want a stable release as much as anyone else.

Thanks for making my point.
We were told we were within 2 weeks of a stable release back with the 211b10b
I just checked, that was in 2005.
The half implemented things you speak of didn't even exist then, now because they do, I guess another 5 years is in order to get it up and running.

pkmnfrk wrote:Why not test now, like I am, and like others are?

Pineconn, I've filed several bugs based on playing through your quests. You could do a world of good just by playing through them in 2.5 and filing bugs!

After reading through this thread, I've come to realize people are right. At the rate it is going, it's likely ZC will never be finished. I really wish they would stop adding features, and to be honest, scripting has to to be the worst thing added. It is a mess, and will constantly need updating, and checking for consistency with older versions, which when certain outstanding bugs get fixed, this would break some quests relying on older scripting mechanics. People would bitch about broken scripts and quests, and as long as there are always updates, this will always happen. As far as features go, it's the same thing. If something that an older version relies on is changed, then bam, quest broken. This happened with one of my projects, when I realized that for some reason, permanent triggers aren't actually permanent in dungeons, or whatever it was. This was a game stopping bug that prevented me from completing a dungeon in Zelda TD. I did find a work around, but still, I'm sure it will be undone.

As much as I like the new stuff (except scripting) it is making alienating the user base, and slowing the progress of something we were supposed to get four years ago.

And perhaps the worst tidbit is that there has been no dev commentary in this thread. Please, let's just have a concentrated effort to clean up 2.5. I'm finishing up my quest, so I'll be able to help beta test like no other.

pkmnfrk wrote:Believe me, I want this release to happen too. I do wish they'd do a feature freeze as well, but there are certain things that are left half-implemented, which would arguably be worse! If people work around a half-baked feature, then suddenly it becomes difficult to fully implement it, because it would break every quest that worked around it.

Anyways yes I agree that 6 years is way too long, script additions and half working features related to scripting, should be ignored. Scripting is what sent the product along this 6 year joy ride and script development should be stopped to end this joyride. How long was it between stable releases before scripting was implemented? how long was the time gap between 1.90, 1.92b183/4, 2.10 and even older versions?

If you like to script either use what you have or continue to wait, all your doing is making it take an eternity to release a stable version because your always after a script language that can do everything and you want it done for a product that was never originally designed for scripting.

edit: I still think random corruption protection is worth more then saving disk space since people have said, they spend aaaages, years even, developing quests for us. Most quest authors who are good at ZQuest, likely know how to use Windows Expllorer and manage files also and can choose to delete old backups if they wish. Heck you could add a culling system that culls backups that are older then 'x' amount of months or something and have it enabled by default, but allow people to disable it if wanted, allowing infinite amount of backups of any age.

Make it so when a backup is made it is marked as "read only", that way future or current versions can't modify them in any way making them a true backup.

Alright, I guess I'll reply here about some of these responses.

Something good: A few days ago I upgraded my quest file 'Grikarugun' to the newest build from build 887. The quest file is around 7MB and the script files alone are 3/4ths a MB. You might say there is a whole bunch of things going on inside that it could be easy for something to break. ...Well, I opened it in the player and played through it in it's entirety. Perfect. Not a single bug to speak of. In fact, I rarely come across any issues in zc lately. If people didn't report them, I might not even believe that they existed. Freedom, you might of just had some bad luck where 1121 didn't like you very much. I *think* all those problems have been since fixed and it at least shouldn't crash anymore. If it does you just have to post it and then the shit cabbie makes another detour. It's not perfect but it's the best that there is right now.

Something else: I don't know when it will be at a 'release candidate' stage. I 'hope' it will come soon. As long as any part of the main engine gets changed there is a chance that bugs will emerge from it's dark depths and development time will lag even more, thus entering into a seemingly endless tunnel in which the path to daylight becomes a slow and torturous crawl. I believe we are above this though, and while sometimes to fix a bug it is easier to just add feature X to take care of it, I think everyone (I hope) is in the mindset of gearing for release by now. Another problem with lag time is just plain and simple arm strength.[Insert 'Tim Allen slogan' here]

..I don't even know where I'm going with this anymore. :\ To sum up and rant about the whole adding features thing at the same time...
I'm all for 2.5 being finished sooner rather than later for two reasons:

1) Personal selfish reason 1: I don't like fixing other peoples bugs. I have no idea what dev X during year Y was thinking when he/she implemented function Z then another dev W added additional feature Q to it that caused bug 403-1b. It takes me like 10 times longer to fix than if I did something that caused it. Nevertheless, in the long run it all adds up and a stable version will come sooner, so I endure.
Personal selfish reason 2: I'd like to add lots of new cool stuff and develop the functionality further. I can't do this until a release happens, therefore it is in my personal interest to try and see 2.5 come out without being delayed [insert some form of witty time frame comment here].

2) Then half of you get to say "I told you so" and all of you get to answer an onslaught of dumb questions from a bunch of new newbies. Theys be crazy gud wit fonics lol..

That's my $.02.

tl;dr version: I don't know. Yes. No. It's not that buggy. Try the latest build. That's what she said. That's silly; there's very little scripting bugs by comparison. That's what she said.

edit:

Pineconn wrote:And perhaps the worst tidbit is that there has been no dev commentary in this thread. Please, let's just have a concentrated effort to clean up 2.5. I'm finishing up my quest, so I'll be able to help beta test like no other.

Gleeok wrote:Something else: I don't know when it will be at a 'release candidate' stage. I 'hope' it will come soon. As long as any part of the main engine gets changed there is a chance that bugs will emerge from it's dark depths and development time will lag even more, thus entering into a seemingly endless tunnel in which the path to daylight becomes a slow and torturous crawl. I believe we are above this though, and while sometimes to fix a bug it is easier to just add feature X to take care of it, I think everyone (I hope) is in the mindset of gearing for release by now. Another problem with lag time is just plain and simple arm strength.[Insert 'Tim Allen slogan' here]

I like that at some point the builds got much more stable on newer O/S's, but still had very buggy features and stuff making it pointless to develop quests or experiment with it.

I don't know what your personal threshold for 'bugginess' is, but anyone expecting everything to work exactly as intended all of the time has never actually programmed before. Especially for a program of this nature.

Haven't we had this thread dozens of times before already?

EDIT - I realized that my post sounds more dismissive than it meant to be, so I'm sorry for that. I have a lot more to say but I'd prefer to just react to specific inquiries for the time being.

jman2050 wrote:I don't know what your personal threshold for 'bugginess' is, but anyone expecting everything to work exactly as intended all of the time has never actually programmed before. Especially for a program of this nature.

Haven't we had this thread dozens of times before already?

well... yea, it's been 6 years since a stable release.
As for the rest... the developers decide the threshold and when to release a version as "stable", as for everyone else they seem to agree that 6 years is just a bit too long to wait.

As for some people pointing out the 210 fiasco... and using that as reason to not release, hell there were only what... 4 serious bugs, why didn't ya'll just fix those and do a re-release and call it good?
And you all (developers) said you wanted to do a rewrite, so why are you investing so mych time in this one, release one, start your rewrite, and continue to tweak serious bugs in this until it is as stable as it can be, doesn't that make more sense?

See, I knew when I made that edit that I'd be too late with it!

Freedom wrote:well... yea, it's been 6 years since a stable release.
As for the rest... the developers decide the threshold and when to release a version as "stable", as for everyone else they seem to agree that 6 years is just a bit too long to wait.

Indeed. And I've definitely made my share of mistakes. What's amazing about this is that I'm still only 23 and have quite a bit to learn about organizing a project of this nature. I came on when I was fresh out of high school and was basically playing by ear the whole time. As to be expected, many things didn't go quite as planned. Nevertheless, this whole ordeal is still mostly my fault, and I don't want people nagging on the efforts of people like _L_ and Joe and Gleeok because of my mistakes. That's the last thing I want here.

As for some people pointing out the 210 fiasco... and using that as reason to not release, hell there were only what... 4 serious bugs, why didn't ya'll just fix those and do a re-release and call it good?

Didn't DN do exactly that ages ago? :P

And you all (developers) said you wanted to do a rewrite, so why are you investing so mych time in this one, release one, start your rewrite, and continue to tweak serious bugs in this until it is as stable as it can be, doesn't that make more sense?

It's sort of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. I've been wanting to do this for a while now but there's always been hesitation because of how incomplete the current build is. If I recall we even made that option public to people, and based on the responses decided in favor of fixing up the current code base before doing anything else. Perhaps that ended up being a mistake.

Well then, screw it, I would be more than willing to start on a rewrite, but only if people would absolutely be satisfied with a new version of ZC that's missing 90% of its intended functionality but without random crashes and quest corruption bugs. I'd have to convince myself to do things that way.

jman2050 wrote:See, I knew when I made that edit that I'd be too late with it!

Indeed. And I've definitely made my share of mistakes. What's amazing about this is that I'm still only 23 and have quite a bit to learn about organizing a project of this nature. I came on when I was fresh out of high school and was basically playing by ear the whole time. As to be expected, many things didn't go quite as planned. Nevertheless, this whole ordeal is still mostly my fault, and I don't want people nagging on the efforts of people like _L_ and Joe and Gleeok because of my mistakes. That's the last thing I want here.

Didn't DN do exactly that ages ago? :P

It's sort of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. I've been wanting to do this for a while now but there's always been hesitation because of how incomplete the current build is. If I recall we even made that option public to people, and based on the responses decided in favor of fixing up the current code base before doing anything else. Perhaps that ended up being a mistake.

Well then, screw it, I would be more than willing to start on a rewrite, but only if people would absolutely be satisfied with a new version of ZC that's missing 90% of its intended functionality but without random crashes and quest corruption bugs. I'd have to convince myself to do things that way.

quoting on just the bold underlined here....
doesn't it have 90% more than it did when we were close to releasing the 211b10b?

People will never be satisfied that it has enough, but if you can't really build and release quests with what it does have, doesn't really matter what they want anyway.
IF they want MORE let them continue with the betas and do the testing

rewrite

I'm not sure a rewrite would do anything in terms of making a better Z1 clone. zc can do pretty much almost anything you'd want a LOZ1 editor to do and way more. Plus imagine trying to get the rewrite compliant with all the backwards compatibility issues of the older quests and releases. Patching up the remaining bugs would take far less time.

"Rewrite" to me sort of implies not even making a clone of Z1, but something that 'can' make a clone of Z1. (edit😊 I meant this in a optimistic way. To me there's no point in writing a book then rewriting the same book so that it can contain the same words. You have to make it better and not limit features based on quirky nes coding.

Gleeok wrote:I'm not sure a rewrite would do anything in terms of making a better Z1 clone. zc can do pretty much almost anything you'd want a LOZ1 editor to do and way more. Plus imagine trying to get the rewrite compliant with all the backwards compatibility issues of the older quests and releases. Patching up the remaining bugs would take far less time.

If anything, stability under modern O/S's is where the problem lies for legacy quests but for 1.90 there is always DOSBox.

Gleeok wrote:"Rewrite" to me sort of implies not even making a clone of Z1, but something that 'can' make a clone of Z1. (edit😊 I meant this in a optimistic way. To me there's no point in writing a book then rewriting the same book so that it can contain the same words. You have to make it better and not limit features based on quirky nes coding.