Okay, I skimmed through the new posts (so sue me
) but I'd like to reply to a few bits.
Quote: "With that being said, what FPSC really needs is a new way to handle polygons, or at least a new way to stop the lag by having 80K polygons in it. I don't wan't to start a "It's how the dev uses the engine that makes the game good" I whole heartedly believe that, but I also believe they could do that much better with a system that can handle at least a little bit more."
Sure it does! I don't deny that the engine could use a tune up in many departments, but jumping to support a new DirectX is not going to solve this problem. It would more than likely just make things worse by adding more complexity to the engine without fixing the things that needed fixing in the first place.
Quote: "A question to you plystire and the rest of the moding community. I suspect that because of real life problems and other various things, along with the fact that making the same old mods with the same features just with another bell or whistle can get a little old, it may make you bored. I have always wondered though. Since nothing is being done about the lags situation over at TGC, why has the mod community gotten together to fix the problem? I mean, sure we have things like WASP and project blue, which allow you to push that extra thing or two. But what about the real problem as to why its limited? I know most would say "Well there is a lot to take into acccount, peoples hardware ect ect. But lets face it, Half lfe 1 had to have more polygons in one level than a FPSC game can. Asking one modder to fix it would be stupid, real life and other things get in the way. But what about if the whole mod community worked together? this would ease the time constraints that people have."
Okay, I was asked directly on this one, so I have to reply now.
Modders do to the engine what they desire to do to the engine. Some modders want to fix the speed issues (like s4real) while others want to add new things to it (Like me!). It just depends on that particular modder's taste in what sort of development they choose to partake in at the time.
I know two heads are typically better than one, but over the course of FPSC modding history (a few years) some of us have just experienced that it's far easier and less time consuming to have a single coder on the team. This eliminates the need to manage multiple sources, merge them together, re-bug test everything, etc. One man's code may not play well with another man's code, and who's left to deal with that? That's a one man job, no matter how you look at it, and it's one of those things that a multi-man modding team has to deal with. Some of the modders choose not to deal with that at all and stick to only dealing with their own code.
Quote: "Nice that everyone defends fpsc9 but you are the same people that trumpeted the arrival of fpscx10 with statements that fpsc9 had run its course.
It seems to suit you now to reverse."
I don't recall ever jumping on the bandwagon for FPSCX10. Not when it was announced, not when it came out, not when people were hailing it as the next-gen engine, and certainly not now.
I don't own FPSCX10. I tell everyone that when they ask for help with FPSCX10 scripts!
Surely you must be talking about someone else here. But in their defense, it is not
wrong for someone to change opinions on a topic or about a piece of software. Opinions are bound to change from first impression to experienced use of a product.
Quote: "The statement by one member that Lee was wrong in his decision that fpsc9 was not up to the job and a new fpscx10 was required does not make any sense.
He was right then and he still is right!
Modding a dead dog like fpsc9 might make it prettier looking but also makes it twice as hungry on the processing power."
Okay, this one is aimed at me, because I said that.
You blatantly stated that Lee said fpscx9
could not do the things that he put into fpscx10. I said that was wrong. I stated it as "Then Lee was wrong, wasn't he?" referencing your statement about what he "said". If he didn't say that, don't put words in his mouth. If YOU are the only saying that, then YOU are wrong. Lee himself has already proven that these things can be done in X9. They're in the official source now, aren't they?
If you take everything that's possible in the FPSCX9 source right now and put it into the FPSCX10 source, it will slow down as well. That is the nature of adding more features, my friend. FPSCX10 will benefit from GPU instancing and decrease the load of instanced objects, but that is only if you're using a DX10 capable GPU and the benefit will only really be noticeable if you're instancing the same object MANY MANY times. This probably won't be noticeable in very many practical levels, though, since placing the same object all over the place, or using the character all the time is bad level design and generally looks bad (Though, maybe some of the more clever level designers around here could make it work, but even they use tons of different models in one level)
Medusa, the mistake you're making here (and what I believe most of the users are trying to tell you) is that you're stuck on comparing FPSCX9 to FPSCX10, comparing DBP to DBPX10. What you're failing to see here is that what you SHOULD be comparing is DirectX9 to DirectX10. DirectX10, in and of itself, is not a big step up from DirectX9. The big differences between FPSCX9 and FPSCX10 lie mainly in the engine architecture, and
NOT in what version of DirectX they use!
You know, if you want to talk about DirectX11, then I would have something to be excited about (having seen the applications the advancement opens up). However, I would not be excited to hear about it being integrated into FPSC. That is a whole other can of worms. FPSC needs something right now, and I can tell you it's not a new version of DirectX to support.
The one and only,
Only those who sow the seeds of their desires will reap their benefits later.
However, I have seeds of my own to tend to. I don't have time to be someone else's watering can.
