[QUOTE=Portugalotaku;51729626]Speaking of BSP, what is the feasibility of allowing the engine to load multiple BSP versions at once?[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure we already support that with different games we mount like TF2 and HL2. Increasing limits for the most part would require a new BSP version. It's pretty straight forward, all things considered.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;51730445]Pretty sure we already support that with different games we mount like TF2 and HL2. Increasing limits for the most part would require a new BSP version. It's pretty straight forward, all things considered.[/QUOTE]
interestingly, vindictus actually uses a bsp format that isn't too wildly different from the standard. the biggest change is that they swapped out almost all use of shorts to ints, so it's not like increasing limits that way is an unheard of thing.
[url]https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Source_BSP_File_Format/Game-Specific#Vindictus[/url]
[editline]26th January 2017[/editline]
i'm actually kinda curious how vindictus works as a whole given every area is a new map, the server setup there must be a little ridiculous :v:
[QUOTE=Revenge282;51730445]Pretty sure we already support that with different games we mount like TF2 and HL2. Increasing limits for the most part would require a new BSP version. It's pretty straight forward, all things considered.[/QUOTE]
This was what I thought about back in October: Is it feasible to have a loader capable of loading both the older bsp versions as it does now, and also the newer(csgo,portal2) ones? This is what I am most curious about.
[QUOTE=Joeyl10;51730902]interestingly, vindictus actually uses a bsp format that isn't too wildly different from the standard. the biggest change is that they swapped out almost all use of shorts to ints, so it's not like increasing limits that way is an unheard of thing.
[url]https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Source_BSP_File_Format/Game-Specific#Vindictus[/url]
[editline]26th January 2017[/editline]
i'm actually kinda curious how vindictus works as a whole given every area is a new map, the server setup there must be a little ridiculous :v:[/QUOTE]
I'd have to look at the SDK again, but last I checked, even keeping shorts, a lot of the limits could be raised. I use some of the tricks on custom compiler tools, but there's only so much you can change without having to change the client too.
Obviously, in GMod's case, that would be easy to implement. I'd love some Linux binaries for VBSP/VVIS/VRAD too...
[editline]26th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Portugalotaku;51730962]This was what I thought about back in October: Is it feasible to have a loader capable of loading both the older bsp versions as it does now, and also the newer(csgo,portal2) ones? This is what I am most curious about.[/QUOTE]
Well the difficulty with loading new engine maps is adding ways to implement the new features they rely on. This was an issue a while ago when RB added support for the new TF2 maps. But, we are talking about just increasing the pre-defined limits on our engine. As long as we don't change the size of the header by doing it, it should be backwards compatible.
Once we change the size of the header, we would need our own BSP version, and while that isn't *impossible* it is a bit more of a hassle.
What you guys think about this [URL="https://youtu.be/ZH6s1hbwoQQ"]https://youtu.be/ZH6s1hbwoQQ[/URL]
and would it be possible to implement it?
[QUOTE=salza;51746833]What you guys think about this [URL="https://youtu.be/ZH6s1hbwoQQ"]https://youtu.be/ZH6s1hbwoQQ[/URL]
and would it be possible to implement it?[/QUOTE]
From the video:
"It's not integrated into LightmappedGeneric or anything yet, just a custom (unlit) shader that does a basetexture read and corrected envmapping, so that's why there's no effect from the normal map on the corrected part of the video."
It might not be able to apply to everything it should in its current state.
yeah but for some surfaces it would certainly fit.
Something tells me that is only working because the rooms are boxes. I'm skeptical until they show a video with more complex scenery.
Are you aware it requires to recompile map, surfaces are unlits and it's not an apply and see update right?
Although parallax as it would really neat
[QUOTE=gonzalolog;51747524]Are you aware it requires to recompile map, surfaces are unlits and it's not an apply and see update right?
Although parallax as it would really neat[/QUOTE]
It would be a feature for new maps.
I think it would be neat until you spawn a prop and not see its reflection
This Awesomium replacement business is getting disgusting.
All those attempts to please GMod devs with more and more options.
Pathetic.
[QUOTE=vigi8;51749748]This Awesomium replacement business is getting disgusting.
All those attempts to please GMod devs with more and more options.
Pathetic.[/QUOTE]
What? I don't understand what's pathetic, what do you even mean?
[QUOTE=Noi;51749782]
Hell, even content is not a problem if we (group of people who are interested in making gamemodes) made an open-source equivalent of Half-Life 2 content (textures, props, etc).[/QUOTE]
There is [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1490195"]this[/URL] that looks somewhat promising
[QUOTE=Noi;51749782]While CEF-based solution was in the works and showed a good promise, garry just killed it because he's garry (an asshole) and because it's his mod.
Then people started suggesting various ideas, which look like workarounds than a proper replacement for old ass shit Awesomium that probably has some 0day exploit.
They way people usually talk to GMod devs, "please please maek this", spending large amount of time while doing their (GMod dev's) job for them.
How much of arselicking you're going to give to garry about this? That's what's pathetic.
It is clearly shown that neither Garry, nor the rest of GMod team has any interest in replacing Awesomium in foreseeable future.
And Garry is not willing to hire more people into GMod team. Even voluntary (unpaid).
[editline]30th January 2017[/editline]
Garry's mod is built on old ass shit engine called Source Engine. It will not survive the porting to Source 2, don't even hope.
The best I could suggest to you is to try to make your gamemodes in Unreal Engine 4 instead, and share your info and code for it on forums like TIGSource or something.
[editline]30th January 2017[/editline]
Hell, even content is not a problem if we (group of people who are interested in making gamemodes) made an open-source equivalent of Half-Life 2 content (textures, props, etc).[/QUOTE]
I genuinely didn't understand what he meant. I though he was calling developers (us) pathetic because of all the features added to the game it something.
Doesn't even make sense when I read it over again, I should probably refrain from posting at 4am before work.
[QUOTE=Noi;51749782]because he's garry (an asshole) and because it's his mod.[/QUOTE]
Garry was too blunt, but he was [u][b]right[/b][/u]. CEF isn't going to happen. Not because of Garry's ultimate desire of being an asshole, but because of the problems with OSX.
I'm gobsmacked to see that you portray this decision, with the long discussion history it's had in the all the Next Update threads, as something from the whims of [b]ONE[/b] person whose apparent ~dream~ it is to be an asshole.
You were there when it was discussed. How could you forget it all and blame it all on the [i]one single sentence[/i] post that drew the (right) conclusion from the discussion?
[QUOTE=FPtje;51750126]Garry was too blunt, but he was [u][b]right[/b][/u]. CEF isn't going to happen. Not because of Garry's ultimate desire of being an asshole, but because of the problems with OSX.[/QUOTE]
Is there a reason why [url=https://github.com/Facepunch/garrysmod-requests/issues/791]this ('Add new VGUI browser panel using ISteamHTMLSurface API')[/url] is a bad solution?
[QUOTE=vigi8;51750156]Is there a reason why [url=https://github.com/Facepunch/garrysmod-requests/issues/791]this ('Add new VGUI browser panel using ISteamHTMLSurface API')[/url] is a bad solution?[/QUOTE]
I don't know.
[editline]30th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Noi;51750138]OS X support is negligible. Declare it's dropped and move on. They still have the game and they can play it on Windows/Linux.
[/QUOTE]
Holy shit.
I cannot fathom how much of a cartoon villain you must be to do this. People who have bought the game for their Macs and Macbooks would suddenly find themselves with an update that says "[i]yeah OSX is declared dropped. Fuck you. You still have the game and you can play it if you install Windows or Linux[/i]". As a software developer there's [i]little[/i] you can do to fuck people over more.
But can you at least understand that Garry isn't stupid enough to fuck over thousands of people over a web framework?
[QUOTE=Revenge282;51730971]I'd have to look at the SDK again, but last I checked, even keeping shorts, a lot of the limits could be raised. I use some of the tricks on custom compiler tools, but there's only so much you can change without having to change the client too.
Obviously, in GMod's case, that would be easy to implement. I'd love some Linux binaries for VBSP/VVIS/VRAD too...
[editline]26th January 2017[/editline]
Well the difficulty with loading new engine maps is adding ways to implement the new features they rely on. This was an issue a while ago when RB added support for the new TF2 maps. But, we are talking about just increasing the pre-defined limits on our engine. As long as we don't change the size of the header by doing it, it should be backwards compatible.
Once we change the size of the header, we would need our own BSP version, and while that isn't *impossible* it is a bit more of a hassle.[/QUOTE]
So it seems the primary challenge is adding support for the new entities and features in the newer engine versions am I correct?
When you talk about pre-defined limits on the engine, on a mapping front, are you talking about brush/entity limits, actual grid size or both? Because increasing either would be fantastic.
[editline]30th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Noi;51749782]
Garry's mod is built on old ass shit engine called Source Engine. It will not survive the porting to Source 2, don't even hope.
The best I could suggest to you is to try to make your gamemodes in Unreal Engine 4 instead, and share your info and code for it on forums like TIGSource or something.
[/QUOTE]
I always felt like the best bet for gmod going forward is doing what sven coop did and just keep upgrading it's own custom engine version rather than attempting any radical switch, but that's just what I think.
[QUOTE=FPtje;51750175]
But can you at least understand that Garry isn't stupid enough to fuck over thousands of people over a web framework?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, can't screw over those thousands of people, that'd be evil as fuck. Clearly the better option is to screw [I][B]everyone (mac users included lol)[/B][/I], instead. And if the Cinema gamemode/Media Player/YouTube/anything somewhat web reliant dies? Welp, can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.
I am loosing track of how many things have been cut or not made better because of Mac users. I understand it would not be good if they suddenly tell the Mac users they can't play the game anymore. But the question is WHY? Why did Garry even advertise or try to make a Mac compatible?! Macs can barely run a browser game without lagging, how do they even run Gmod? Also the Mac version right now barely even works, is there a chart of how many different users are launching GMod each month using a Mac? I am just wondering how many of them play Gmod
[QUOTE=Coment;51750285]Yeah, can't screw over those thousands of people, that'd be evil as fuck. Clearly the better option is to screw [I][B]everyone (mac users included lol)[/B][/I], instead. And if the Cinema gamemode/Media Player/YouTube/anything somewhat web reliant dies? Welp, can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.[/QUOTE]
I don't agree that not updating the web framework is screwing people over. It's a shame that things all over the internet are dropping support for the stuff that chromium works with, sure. GMod would be better if it had a more modern web framework, sure.
But in no way, shape or form does this situation fit the rhetoric of screwing people over, let alone screwing [I]everyone[/I] over. Saying you want something after all is way easier than actually implementing it. Regardless of the name or brand of the new web framework, [B]someone[/B] will have to put a [I]significant[/I] amount of effort into implementing it.
I dare you to claim that Willox, RB or even Garry are actively screwing [I]everyone[/I] over for not implementing a newer web framework. Call them out on their malice if you truly believe that they are screwing people over.
And if you do, come up with something better than this nonsense:
[QUOTE=Noi;51749782] because he's garry (an asshole) and because it's his mod.
[/QUOTE]
Or we could just, you know, [URL="https://github.com/Facepunch/garrysmod-requests/issues/791"]add support for ISteamHTMLSurface[/URL] and then the concerns about CEF and macOS become moot. It is literally the easiest, and in my opinion best, solution. The GMod Devs don't have to deal with CEF's lack of support for macOS, add external dependencies, replace all the code used with Awesomium, or even keep it up to date manually (Steam updates do that for them). All they have to do is add a VGUI panel and the Lua hooks for it and it's done.
P.S. Happy 6 month anniversary for that GitHub Issue
[QUOTE=FPtje;51750418]
But in no way, shape or form does this situation fit the rhetoric of screwing people over, let alone screwing [I]everyone[/I] over. Saying you want something after all is way easier than actually implementing it. Regardless of the name or brand of the new web framework, [B]someone[/B] will have to put a [I]significant[/I] amount of effort into implementing it.
I dare you to claim that Willox, RB or even Garry are actively screwing [I]everyone[/I] over for not implementing a newer web framework. Call them out on their malice if you truly believe that they are screwing people over.[/QUOTE]
Just so we're on the same page: We agree that your thousands of people and my everyone is talking about the group of people who is affected by awesomium's flaws (mentioned before), rite? Of course, the average Joe with DarkRP and ULX MOTD won't be too troubled with it. But that's not what we're talking about.
And "someone will have to put a big amount of effort into implementing it"? I've read otherwise, but for the sake of it let's assume so... And? It's an update that fixes problems within Garry's Mod. Seems like a pretty fair way to earn your paycheck from Facepunch St. I don't know what the current gmod devs are working on (hell, they might be on this and just not have said anything!!), but if the requests github & likes & amount of times it has been mentioned is of any importance, it sure could get the spotlight.
And no, I can't call Rubber and/or Willox on their malice, because they definitely aren't, what with one of them having done a semi functioning replacement and the other not being against the idea.The issue I have with is stopping one of them [i]just because![/i], with no reason at al. It can be due to technical difficulties, it can be out of malice... Nobody can know, and your guess is as good as mine.
[QUOTE=FPtje;51750175]I don't know.
[editline]30th January 2017[/editline]
Holy shit.
I cannot fathom how much of a cartoon villain you must be to do this. People who have bought the game for their Macs and Macbooks would suddenly find themselves with an update that says "[i]yeah OSX is declared dropped. Fuck you. You still have the game and you can play it if you install Windows or Linux[/i]". As a software developer there's [i]little[/i] you can do to fuck people over more.
But can you at least understand that Garry isn't stupid enough to fuck over thousands of people over a web framework?[/QUOTE]
This was discussed almost a year ago. Thousands of people is a ridiculous overestimation, so I will go over it again.
As of the Sept 2015 survey (the last survey to significantly record the declining number of OSX 10.6 users):
Steam reports 3.23% of users are Mac. Of those users, 1.99% are on Snow Leopard, released in 2009 and the last 32-bit OSX. Garry's Mod has 1,329,620 active players in the last two weeks. 44,010 are Mac users, and 854 (at the absolute most) are Snow Leopard users. For a grand total of... 0.064% of our users.
Keep in mind, this 0.064% is likely significantly smaller now since the data is over a year old for an OS that was outdated in 2011. Not to mention, the only people ineligible to upgrade from Snow Leopard are those on the Intel Yonah architecture, which is less than 0.73% of Steam Mac users (313 Garry's Mod users, 0.02%).
So we would lose the ever-faithful support of no more than 0.02% of our player base, which is a very optimistic view in the Mac users favor.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;51751030]:snip:[/QUOTE]
The reason wasn't because of 32-bit OSX, it's because CEF doesn't come in a 32-bit version for OSX. This makes it [I]impossible[/I] to put into Gmod because it's a 32-bit process.
Why not both?
Is there a reason GMod can't use Awesomium for Mac with discontinued support and CEF for windows?
[QUOTE=Rocket;51751093]Do you really think it's entirely OK to completely break the game for over 26,000 players, without giving them a refund?[/QUOTE]
I think you've misinterpreted it. If I got it right,
Steam Mac users on Snow Leopard: 44,010
Steam Mac [I]Gmod [/I]users on Snow Leopard (est.): 854
Steam Mac Gmod users on Snow Leopard not able to update: 313
[QUOTE=bigdogmat;51751049]The reason wasn't because of 32-bit OSX, it's because CEF doesn't come in a 32-bit version for OSX. This makes it [I]impossible[/I] to put into Gmod because it's a 32-bit process.[/QUOTE]
[t]http://i.imgur.com/BSPdzeo.png[/t]
?
[QUOTE=Noi;51750590]GMod never worked properly in OS X to begin with. It's hard to play on any server without crashes. I wouldn't say it a proper fucking experience.
What the fuck do you value more. Ability to have 1080p in gmod cinema, more overall stability and less exploits, or enjoying crashes on os x?
Supporting OS X was a mistake.
[b]Shit happens in commerce, non-relevant platforms get dropped there and there.[/b]
If you want to stay in ballpark and never grow up, then you're welcome.
Willox already had some good results on CEF, and it was really promising and everybody was happy.
We never had an actual proper opinion from garry other than lazy ass response, so stop fucking accusing me when I'm trying to guess what's going on in garry's mind. Do you read his mind better? Pathetic.[/QUOTE]
Pathetic? I refuse to commit myself to the useless exercise of trying to read the mind of someone I completely agree with. CEF is not going to happen, and no amount of portraying Garry as an asshole is going to change that.
The reason is simple:
You don't get to demand developers to drop support for an entire platform as part of a feature request, and you certainly don't get to substitute valid reasons for "[i]because he's garry (an asshole) and because it's his mod.[/i]".
And don't talk to me about fucking ballparks and growing up before you understand that you are in no position whatsoever to tell the GMod devs what to do.
[editline]30th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Coment;51750714]Just so we're on the same page: We agree that your thousands of people and my everyone is talking about the group of people who is affected by awesomium's flaws (mentioned before), rite? Of course, the average Joe with DarkRP and ULX MOTD won't be too troubled with it. But that's not what we're talking about.
And "someone will have to put a big amount of effort into implementing it"? I've read otherwise, but for the sake of it let's assume so... And? It's an update that fixes problems within Garry's Mod. Seems like a pretty fair way to earn your paycheck from Facepunch St. I don't know what the current gmod devs are working on (hell, they might be on this and just not have said anything!!), but if the requests github & likes & amount of times it has been mentioned is of any importance, it sure could get the spotlight.
And no, I can't call Rubber and/or Willox on their malice, because they definitely aren't, what with one of them having done a semi functioning replacement and the other not being against the idea.The issue I have with is stopping one of them [i]just because![/i], with no reason at al. It can be due to technical difficulties, it can be out of malice... Nobody can know, and your guess is as good as mine.[/QUOTE]
It's near impossible to implement CEF for Garry's mod in [I]any[/I] version of OSX, including the 64 bits and latest versions. It's been said a million times before: CEF isn't supported for 32 bits applications on OSX. Garry's mod is a 32 bits application, regardless of the OS you're running. Regardless of whether your PC supports 64 bits, regardless of whether the version of OSX you're running is 64 bits.
It seems that the ISteamHTMLSurface solution is much easier to implement. That might be a good idea. But CEF isn't, because there exists no version of OSX upon which you can run Garry's mod with CEF.
[QUOTE=Coment;51751117][t]http://i.imgur.com/BSPdzeo.png[/t]
?[/QUOTE]
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Yes they have an outdated version for 32-bit OSX, but it's 2 years old now, what happens when that becomes outdated to the point people want features it can't provide? Alongside that I'd wonder how much of a code change that would be on the Lua front for developers, i.e. having to specifically change code to work for OSX users.
[QUOTE=Rocket;51751093]Do you really think it's entirely OK to completely break the game for over 26,000 players, without giving them a refund?[/QUOTE]
Firstly, you added an extra digit to your number there. There would be 2,610 players of the 13m+ owners of GMod.
Secondly, how is what I proposed any different than a developer saying something like, "We no longer will be supporting PowerPC after the next update"? Can you imagine if Google Chrome had to support Windows 95 because 0.02% (two hundredths of one percent) of the Windows userbase was still using it?
I can't stress that enough, literally [B]0.02%[/B], using the most optimistic numbers, is how much of the GMod playerbase would be affected.
Trying to justify why 99.98% of your users cant have a feature because of the other 0.02% is, quite frankly, absolutely asinine.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
