Zandronum

Posted: **Sun Apr 12, 2015 8:20 pm**

Torr Samaho wrote: I raised the internal limit on the script numbers, here is a testing binary. While this is still not intended to support named scripts, it is intended to make 2.x accept mods that worked in 1.3. This version also doesn't seem to crash on nextmap with your example wad. BTW: Mentioning the nextmap crash was very helpful. It showed that I needed to do more changes than I initially expected.

Still, this needs thorough testing. I can't guarantee that there are no side effcts of this change.

I've tried it real quick with named ENTER and OPEN scripts. Yet it seems to work pretty fine. :)

Posted: **Sun Apr 19, 2015 12:57 am**

Torr Samaho wrote:
Watermelon wrote: I don't think its fully ready yet. Theres some issues with the DB that are being ironed out right now. I think Alex is looking into it (but I could be wrong).
The account system itself is ready, but we still don't have a proper GUI / front-end to log in. That's why we aren't hosting an official auth server yet.

Ahhhh. I guess we'll all know when that does happen. I'll stave off my growing anticipation until then.

Posted: **Sun Apr 19, 2015 2:50 pm**

Drakeman1234 wrote:
Torr Samaho wrote:
Watermelon wrote: I don't think its fully ready yet. Theres some issues with the DB that are being ironed out right now. I think Alex is looking into it (but I could be wrong).
The account system itself is ready, but we still don't have a proper GUI / front-end to log in. That's why we aren't hosting an official auth server yet.
Ahhhh. I guess we'll all know when that does happen. I'll stave off my growing anticipation until then.

I'm not sure one of your original questions was answered properly, you asked:

" And I don't quite understand how to have the server use the auth server."

To use one of the several unofficial auth servers, you just need to use the 'authhostname' parameter, and ask the host for the address to point to. There are auth servers on Funcrusher and Grandvoid.

Posted: **Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:30 pm**

Torr Samaho wrote: I raised the internal limit on the script numbers, here is a testing binary. While this is still not intended to support named scripts, it is intended to make 2.x accept mods that worked in 1.3. This version also doesn't seem to crash on nextmap with your example wad. BTW: Mentioning the nextmap crash was very helpful. It showed that I needed to do more changes than I initially expected.

Still, this needs thorough testing. I can't guarantee that there are no side effcts of this change.

Thank you! I am one of these people who do not want a script limit. I also tested 2.1 and it works flawlessly for me so far. Fix this for the next 2.1 update. Please consider NOT putting a script limit in future updates!

Posted: **Fri Apr 24, 2015 6:29 am**

gjk-23__ wrote:
Torr Samaho wrote: I raised the internal limit on the script numbers, here is a testing binary. While this is still not intended to support named scripts, it is intended to make 2.x accept mods that worked in 1.3. This version also doesn't seem to crash on nextmap with your example wad. BTW: Mentioning the nextmap crash was very helpful. It showed that I needed to do more changes than I initially expected.

Still, this needs thorough testing. I can't guarantee that there are no side effcts of this change.
Thank you! I am one of these people who do not want a script limit. I also tested 2.1 and it works flawlessly for me so far. Fix this for the next 2.1 update. Please consider NOT putting a script limit in future updates!

Zandronum 2.X only properly supports script numbers up to 999.
However, 3.X should support numbers up to 32767.

Posted: **Fri Apr 24, 2015 1:38 pm**

supporting 32767 should be fine, but why not 65536? (are these 32769 scripts reserved to named scripts?)

EDIT: Still 999 scirpts is a fine number, but a 16bits number would be nioce too

Posted: **Fri Apr 24, 2015 7:58 pm**

A switch can bump the number of scripts you can stuff into one script number, so the problem isn't that huge?

Posted: **Sat Apr 25, 2015 1:13 am**

Switch statements can be really handy. IMO people should learn to pass arguments and use switch statements than have a script for every little thing and require more than 999.

I've tried to use scripts past 999, but 10-20% of the time, it would crash with no exception.

Posted: **Sat Apr 25, 2015 1:40 am**

Dark-Assassin wrote: Switch statements can be really handy. IMO people should learn to pass arguments and use switch statements than have a script for every little thing and require more than 999.

Exactly...

Posted: **Sun Apr 26, 2015 7:45 pm**

Any chance of minor releases seeing althud features that aren't in ZDoom itself?

Posted: **Sat May 02, 2015 10:39 am**

line horizon is not in zandronum, i've noticed that.

Posted: **Sat May 02, 2015 1:08 pm**

SparkerBoy wrote: line horizon is not in zandronum, i've noticed that.

It is, line action 9.

Posted: **Sat May 02, 2015 3:52 pm**

ibm5155 wrote: supporting 32767 should be fine, but why not 65536? (are these 32769 scripts reserved to named scripts?)

EDIT: Still 999 scirpts is a fine number, but a 16bits number would be nioce too

It is 65535.

Posted: **Sun May 31, 2015 9:31 pm**

Torr Samaho wrote:
Torr Samaho wrote: I raised the internal limit on the script numbers, here is a testing binary.
No feedback? Does this mean the demand for high script numbers was greatly exaggerated or did just nobody notice the testing binary since I didn't make a separate thread for it?

I also NEED this fix so thank you as without it i kept getting the 999 error and crashes! I don't want to lose my fav mods from 1.3 and now everything seems to work as expected so thank you very much!!

Zandronum

Zandronum 2.0

RE: Zandronum 2.0

RE: Zandronum 2.0

RE: Zandronum 2.0

RE: Zandronum 2.0

RE: Zandronum 2.0

RE: Zandronum 2.0

RE: Zandronum 2.0

RE: Zandronum 2.0

RE: Zandronum 2.0

RE: Zandronum 2.0

RE: Zandronum 2.0

RE: Zandronum 2.0

RE: Zandronum 2.0

RE: Zandronum 2.0