What next?

bojster · Post by **bojster** » Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:06 am

OK, so I know what plans are... but honestly, it's the 100%-compatible Supaplex engine what I miss the most in RnD... Therefore I thought we might do some voting over this, just to get some picture of what people expect... let's go then!

Zomis · Post by **Zomis** » Thu Dec 30, 2004 10:21 am

I voted 100%-compatible Supaplex engine because I'd like to see the other engines (including BD/EM/SP) have 99.9% or more compatibility before new CE-features should be implemented (since RND originally was built for BD-emulation)

Rockford4ever · Post by **Rockford4ever** » Thu Dec 30, 2004 1:46 pm

I'd like BoulderDash/Emerald Mine 100%,But i'm a geust ...

Martijn · Post by **Martijn** » Thu Dec 30, 2004 1:52 pm

poll doesn't work... but I would choose the supaplex engine because Supaplex is a 'golden oldie' for me for I play it since I was very young! I've never played the old boulderdash or emerald mine.
and... supaplex is the most original clone (for emerald mine is more similar to the old boulder dash).

Post by **Holger** » Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:22 pm

> poll doesn't work... but I would choose the supaplex engine

Hmm, no idea why the poll does not work for you. I've just tried it, successfully adding your vote for Supaplex to this poll. ;-)

So we have a 3:1 result for SP:BD (aslo counting Rockford4ever's guest vote) for now...

bojster · Post by **bojster** » Thu Dec 30, 2004 4:21 pm

How come the poll doesn't work?

Well, anyway, I think that Supaplex engine should be implemented asap for at least a few resons: it's unified, so implementing it will cause *all* Supaplex levels (and there are quite a lot of them out there) to work properly; also it can't be that hard to code, because the current engine has only a few issues in fact; so far it's the popular choice. ;-) And the last but not least: Supaplex is the best BD-like game ever (not couting RnD, which is more like a mega-mix than a casual game ;-).

BTW, Martijn, are you sure it's Murphy on your avatar?

Post by **Holger** » Thu Dec 30, 2004 7:35 pm

> Well, anyway, I think that Supaplex engine should be implemented asap for at least a few
> resons: it's unified, so implementing it will cause *all* Supaplex levels (and there are quite a lot
> of them out there) to work properly;

This should hold true also for the BD engine (relatively simple rules) and the EM engine (most EM style levels are in fact EMC style levels), too. (But the EM/EMC engine is already done, so it's no competition here.)

> also it can't be that hard to code, because the current engine has only a few issues in fact;

Well, don't underestimate the effort to get the missing 10% (or even 1%) accuracy done! Usually one can calculate around 90% of the effort for the last 10% of precision here!

But I hope it's not _that_ hard, as I have the source code of a Supaplex engine that is known to be 99% compatible. (The hard part is that this code is a mixture of VisualBasic and Assembler... :-o )

> so far it's the peopular choice. ;-)

Indeed it seems you're right here.

Martijn · Post by **Martijn** » Thu Dec 30, 2004 8:52 pm

bojster wrote: BTW, Martijn, are you sure it's Murphy on your avatar?

Because Supaplex is situated in a computer (a very weird one, though). And don't ask me what this is, but it's something technical. You could see that orange thing as Murphy. It's just fun!

bojster · Post by **bojster** » Thu Dec 30, 2004 9:45 pm

Holger wrote:This should hold true also for the BD engine (relatively simple rules) and the EM engine (most EM style levels are in fact EMC style levels), too. (But the EM/EMC engine is already done, so it's no competition here.)

Ok, but what I meant is that in SP levels there are only a few incompatibilities, which in fact are mostly caused by original engine's flaws anyway, and in DX BoulderDash levels enclosed in RnD package like 99% levels are unsolvable ;-)

Well, don't underestimate the effort to get the missing 10% (or even 1%) accuracy done! Usually one can calculate around 90% of the effort for the last 10% of precision here!

Sorry, I didn't mean to be ignorant. I know the 80/20 rule - you do 80% work in 20% of the time and the remaining 20% takes 80% of the time ;-) Still, I hope it's not that hard...

But I hope it's not _that_ hard, as I have the source code of a Supaplex engine that is known to be 99% compatible.

Ehm... as I said ;-)

(The hard part is that this code is a mixture of VisualBasic and Assembler... :-o )

Uh, are you going to re-write it all into C? :-o

Martijn wrote:Because Supaplex is situated in a computer (a very weird one, though). And don't ask me what this is, but it's something technical. You could see that orange thing as Murphy. It's just fun!

Well, ok, I take your word for it. But the avatar is just far too small to notice it (even now).

Martijn · Post by **Martijn** » Thu Dec 30, 2004 9:54 pm

ok maybe I'll change my avatar. A laughing murphy would be better.

Post by **Holger** » Thu Dec 30, 2004 11:15 pm

> > Well, ok, I take your word for it. But the avatar is just far too small to notice it (even now).
> ok maybe I'll change my avatar. A laughing murphy would be better.

In my humble opinion, Martijn's avatar is one of the best avatars in this forum (beside the "real" user's photo avatars, which give a nice personal touch), because it's simple, but memorable. :-)
(And if you know what to search for, you can see Murphy immediately, I think... :-) )

Post by **Holger** » Thu Dec 30, 2004 11:21 pm

> Ok, but what I meant is that in SP levels there are only a few incompatibilities, which in fact are
> mostly caused by original engine's flaws anyway, and in DX BoulderDash levels enclosed in
> RnD package like 99% levels are unsolvable ;-)

Yeah, that's right. But it doesn't matter that much if the incompatibilities are bigger or smaller, as the new native engines are completely independent from the existing R'n'D engine and rewritten from scratch (well, from existing source code of engines that are more compatible).

> Sorry, I didn't mean to be ignorant. I know the 80/20 rule - you do 80% work in 20% of the
> time and the remaining 20% takes 80% of the time ;-) Still, I hope it's not that hard...

I hope so, too... :-)

> > (The hard part is that this code is a mixture of VisualBasic and Assembler... :-o )
> Uh, are you going to re-write it all into C? :-o

Yes, there's no other way (as R'n'D is a platform-independent project).

That's also the reason for the implementation order of the new engines: Start with the easy one (EM -> C source), continue with a bit more difficult one (BD -> Pascal source) and at last do the hard stuff (SP -> VB/ASM).

But maybe I could give the SP engine a try before the BD engine, if there's such a great demand for it. :-)

bojster · Post by **bojster** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 1:54 am

You really shouldn't push the hardest work aside, the longer you procrastinate, the more work is left to do ;-)

BTW, when will the new EM engine be available for testing? Being bored recently I played a great many EM levels - I could have done it with the new engine already... but the good thing about it is that I exactly know the problems with the levels I played and I'll be able to see if they're solved directly after the fresh new RnD falls into my hands (provided there will be some of the levelsets I played included) ;-)

Post by **Holger** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 4:25 pm

> In my humble opinion, Martijn's avatar is one of the best avatars in this forum

Update: This opinion was about his old avatar showing computer components with an orange thingie between it, slightly hidden... ;-)

Martijn · Post by **Martijn** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 5:06 pm

You like to old one best? Well I could change it again... It doesn't matter me.

Rocks'n'Diamonds

What next?

What do you want to see next in RnD?

What next?

COFFFFFEEEEEEEEE! I mean,New Stuffz in RND