BZFlag 2.x isn't worth it...

All things BZFlag - no [OT] here please
Post Reply
SilentSwan
Private First Class
Private First Class
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:23 am
Location: Gone

BZFlag 2.x isn't worth it...

Post by SilentSwan » Sat Feb 12, 2005 12:42 am

Sorry guys, but this game was fun until 2.x came out. You lost me. It's agonizingly slow sometimes, the new flags are just plain silly, and then there's the Mac crashing problem. I *know* I'm not the only one with these issues.

I think we need a return to "simpler times". Until then, I give up. Too bad.

--
Engelchen - lil' Angel of Death
*Former* bzflag player.

LibrarianBrent
Private First Class
Private First Class
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 11:57 pm
Contact:

Post by LibrarianBrent » Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:24 am

What?
The new flags bring even more skill into the game.
And IMHO the crashing problem is relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things, the new graphics more than make up for it.
And then, as we aimed at each other, in the moment of truth, I knew...

that someone had stolen my wallet.

User avatar
JeffM
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 5187
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 4:11 am
Location: https://github.com/OmniTanks
Contact:

Post by JeffM » Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:33 am

Engelchen
1.10.x is still there for ya to play, have at it.

or you could help make it better, rather then just complining baselessly.
ImageJeffM

SilentSwan
Private First Class
Private First Class
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:23 am
Location: Gone

Post by SilentSwan » Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:57 am

LibrarianBrent wrote:What?
The new flags bring even more skill into the game.
Ok, I can live with that...
LibrarianBrent wrote:And IMHO the crashing problem is relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things, the new graphics more than make up for it.
I'm sorry, but that's a pretty stupid statement. Just my $0.02

SilentSwan
Private First Class
Private First Class
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:23 am
Location: Gone

Post by SilentSwan » Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:59 am

JeffM2501 wrote:Engelchen
1.10.x is still there for ya to play, have at it.
Oh sure. I'll just do that - no servers will be running it before long, so I'll just do that.
JeffM2501 wrote:or you could help make it better, rather then just complining baselessly.
1) I'm not a coder.
2) How am I complining [sic] "baselessly"? Seems I have a pretty darn good reason to be complaining. But I guess it's all relative.

User avatar
JeffM
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 5187
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 4:11 am
Location: https://github.com/OmniTanks
Contact:

Post by JeffM » Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:00 am

well your just making blanket statements, your not providing the why's of why you don't like the new flags, your not offering any ideas how to make them better. You don't have to be able to code to offer ideas.

The crash can be fixed, the mac port is still relitivly new. I personaly don't have any crashes on my mac, but I have a clean 10.3 install, not an upgrade ( something that seems to be common with those who crash ), yet noone seems willing to try a clean install to see if that is even the problem. I haven't been follwing the moment to moment details of that thread, but I feel it has something to do with that. It could be related to SDL as well.

Yes there arn't many servers for 1.10.x, so that means that the rest of the players DO think it's worth it. You could allways start your own server.

my point is, why come in here and just bash, what does that buy you? Other then apearing to be a drama queen.

But I guess some people just live to complain...........
ImageJeffM

SilentSwan
Private First Class
Private First Class
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:23 am
Location: Gone

Post by SilentSwan » Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:25 am

Alright, sorry for coming across so harshly, but it's pretty frustrating when it locks down my computer and won't accept a kill signal for one thing. Yeah, I know I complain a lot. It's in my nature. I have a lot to complain about.... Anyway, that much aside...

Ok, here's an update. I just downloaded the latest CVS code and built that. So far, it hasn't crashed... we'll see. I've found that making sure lighting is off and depth buffer is on makes the game almost playable. I'll have a go at it and see how it works. If I find anything else odd or that fixes a problem, i'll post it.

Hope this helps.

rr
Private First Class
Private First Class
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:18 am

Post by rr » Sun Feb 13, 2005 5:43 am

Sadly I have to agree with the original poster. This game has gone to hell in the new version. No real thought given to gameplay and no marked improvements in graphics or response (i.e. frame rates, lag, etc...). Other than some fancy new flags which do more to hurt things than help and a login system which doesn't seem to have much of a point, nothing has changed for the better.

The collision routines still seem off, especially with pyramids and narrow tanks, teleporters are still hit or miss if you approach them at an angled other than 90 degrees, and tanks with seemingly normal lag still drive off in one direction for a few seconds and then reappear in a completely different location a second later. The GUI is hard to read with the scores of people taking up half of the screen no matter what font size is selected. Switching tabs breaks the console requiring a restart of the client. The default blue radar color is still unecessiarly difficult to see requiring a change. Team score remains a meaningless number on all servers since it does not represent the current teams playing. Other problems remain and will be left as an exercize for the reader to point them out.

Hopefully some improvements will be made for 2.2.0 or whatever the next milestone release will be, maybe I'll come back then to check it out.

So long squares.

Barneys
Private
Private
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:53 am

does this help?

Post by Barneys » Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:34 pm


User avatar
SilverFox
Private First Class
Private First Class
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 6:51 pm
Contact:

Post by SilverFox » Sun Feb 13, 2005 7:16 pm

rr wrote:So long squares.
Wow. Do you collect some sort of wellfare and b*tch about it and you're right to it too?

Contribute (constructively) or shut up.

User avatar
netochka nezvanova
Private First Class
Private First Class
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 4:58 pm
Location: NL

Post by netochka nezvanova » Sun Feb 13, 2005 8:13 pm

my mac version does work well!

the new flags are just new. get used to it
wings is a bit irritating.

with the small font you can read all .
the standard font is bad.

i like the big fired shot inb the radar much better view
Image

User avatar
JeffM
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 5187
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 4:11 am
Location: https://github.com/OmniTanks
Contact:

Post by JeffM » Sun Feb 13, 2005 9:10 pm

ohh RR has allways been a grumpy player. He comes and goes.
ImageJeffM

User avatar
Saturos
Art Master General
Art Master General
Posts: 1111
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:48 pm
Location: Berlin/Germany
Contact:

Post by Saturos » Mon Feb 14, 2005 9:27 am

I agree with all those who complain about the new bzflag. Its hard for me to say that - you know I am a fanatic (maybe you remember my bzflag advertising-spot with the self made tank or you visited my webpages www.bzflag.de and www.bzflag.info) - but 2.0.0 is in contrast to 1.10.X allmost exceptional. We dont need circles, colored boxes, blinking objects, transparency, rounded boxes, water, mines, etc, etc - we need bzflag! And bzflag is the game which has boxes and pyramids. All this new stuff decreases gameplay in my eyes. I dont want to play in a forest of trees where I have no idea how the ricochets work for example.
And what gets really on my nerves: The smaller tanks on the radar. Why did you decrease the size of the "points" which show the tank's position? Its horrible hard to see if an enemy jumps or not now.

But I could overlook that graphical aspect. My problem with 2.0.0 is that it doesnt run well on my PC. 1.10.X was well playable on 1024x768 with all things turned on except of Depth Buffer and Shadows. There were absolutely no problems.
But when 2.0.0 came the game started to have real low FPS after some playing. Normally the start is fine but after a while it starts to become unplayable. I turned off the ligthting, I switched the quality to medium, I disabled everything in the effects-options. Nothing got better. And remember: Its on the same machine, on which 1.10.X was absolutely fine.

I think when my favorite server bzflag0.gamesunited.de:5154 upgrades to 2.0.0 I will stop playing bzflag which makes me very, very sad. 1.10.X was the best multiplayer game ever made. 2.0.0 is just another crappy 3D-game like thousands of others before.

User avatar
The Red Baron
Sergeant First Class
Sergeant First Class
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2002 6:21 am
Contact:

Post by The Red Baron » Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:44 pm

Saturos wrote:I agree with all those who complain about the new bzflag. Its hard for me to say that - you know I am a fanatic (maybe you remember my bzflag advertising-spot with the self made tank or you visited my webpages www.bzflag.de and www.bzflag.info) - but 2.0.0 is in contrast to 1.10.X allmost ----. We dont need circles, colored boxes, blinking objects, transparency, rounded boxes, water, mines, etc, etc - we need bzflag! And bzflag is the game which has boxes and pyramids. All this new stuff decreases gameplay in my eyes. I dont want to play in a forest of trees where I have no idea how the ricochets work for example.
And what gets really on my nerves: The smaller tanks on the radar. Why did you decrease the size of the "points" which show the tank's position? Its horrible hard to see if an enemy jumps or not now.

But I could overlook that graphical aspect. My problem with 2.0.0 is that it doesnt run well on my PC. 1.10.X was well playable on 1024x768 with all things turned on except of Depth Buffer and Shadows. There were absolutely no problems.
But when 2.0.0 came the game started to have real low FPS after some playing. Normally the start is fine but after a while it starts to become unplayable. I turned off the ligthting, I switched the quality to medium, I disabled everything in the effects-options. Nothing got better. And remember: Its on the same machine, on which 1.10.X was absolutely fine.

I think when my favorite server bzflag0.gamesunited.de:5154 upgrades to 2.0.0 I will stop playing bzflag which makes me very, very sad. 1.10.X was the best multiplayer game ever made. 2.0.0 is just another crappy 3D-game like thousands of others before.
your FPS problem is due to depth buffer being off! also the radar... Bzflag has a completely customizable radar. If you don't like the size or zoom of it, change it. You can easily do this in your Config file. if you run windows, you can find it under "my Document" and "my bzflag files" folder "2.0" and viola "config.cfg' open it with notepad and edit away.

But i have a feeling you don't run windows... but i posted that anyway for anybody else who runs windows so they can read.


and guys. 2.0 is not the end of bzflag or the world... Yes it has some issues, some major revisions, change is hard... But bzflag is not going to end here! when 1.10.0 came out there were several major changes, aches and breaks. we survived them! guys, this is not a some soap opera tragedy! This is part of programming, change, and progress! Give the devs time and respect to work the bugs out.

Next time help them out by testing the builds the made for us. 1.11.X. we have bugs in 2.0 because we couldn't get enough people to test 1.11. so the devs did what they thought best. Make it as stable as possible release it publicly, and murphy's law will have it that the public will find very bug possible... So far, its going according to plan. But please please please, bear with us! Don't write bzflag off yet. Its not done, not by a long shot.
Beware! I'm going to clone myself and spread those clones all over the world!

User avatar
SilverFox
Private First Class
Private First Class
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 6:51 pm
Contact:

Post by SilverFox » Mon Feb 14, 2005 6:24 pm

The Red Baron wrote:and guys. 2.0 is not the end of bzflag or the world... Yes it has some issues, some major revisions, change is hard
I find it interesting that the majority of the "issues" and "bugs" are out of ignorance. The default settings in most games are rarely ideal for each player by default. That's why there are options. Hence, the complaints about radar size, just change the size to whatever you like. Use the new zoom option if you don't want to change the config. Not everyone plays on an older PC, and not everyone is afraid of change (hence their new PC's)

Overall there has been suprisingly few legitimate "bugs". The most impacting of which have been patched in CVS already.


I refer back to my original post:
silverfox wrote:Contribute (constructively) or shut up.

User avatar
DTRemenak
General
General
Posts: 625
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 4:54 am
Location: U.S.
Contact:

Post by DTRemenak » Mon Feb 14, 2005 7:59 pm

Anyone who is experiencing slow behavior should post their hardware configurations. We know there are some problems with certain hardware setups and there are some bugs in 2.0. Off the top of my head, here are the known performance issues with 2.0 (#2 and #3 are the most common issues):

1. Riva128 support is probably broken, and likely will not be fixed. Use software rendering.

2. Performance on recent video cards sucks with the depth buffer turned off. Turn it ON. Note that this is OPPOSITE from 1.10, where turning the depth buffer OFF helped performance.

3. Older ATI cards (Radeon 7k and earlier, RAGE series, etc) have a hard time with...something that changed. I'm not sure what, maybe someone else does...could be excessive gl state resets. This issue is still under investigation.

4. Matrox cards and Mesa's software render don't like the large number of display lists used by the new font renderer. Use "set useBitmapFontRenderer 1" in your config.cfg file to enable an alternate font renderer which might or might not work better for you.

5. Certain versions of the open-source Radeon drivers cause funny rendering of the ground. This is a driver bug, which only appears in Experimental mode.

As for new features: if you don't like them, don't use them. Don't play on servers that use meshes if you don't like thinking about the ricochets. Don't play on servers that use excessive wings jumps if that bothers you. It's all up to the server owners, and you choose what servers you play on. Ducati is still popular folks, that's not gonna change.

User avatar
tadd
Master Sergeant
Master Sergeant
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC
Contact:

ignorance?

Post by tadd » Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:52 pm

I find many postings in here from developers who know many answers that are not in the doc files/man pages. So much for ignorance.

I love v2.
It is slower on some things but there are many outstanding features that the available worlds are just beginning to touch.

People who find it slow aren't thinking about upgrade cycles. You'll all have faster computers before v2 is as old as v1 was!

It is an issue for me, a map creator, that many of the features are not documented or are just plane unsupportable without tools that I don't have yet. I'll get over it.

I love the teleports. I love random teleports. I love not having to sort TPs and the link statements. I love color surfaces. I can make text now! I love shapes vertices and faces and all of that stuff. Thanks developers!

Once I'm done with my current project (around June i suspect) i would love to get on the phone 1:1 with anybody close enough to know many of the answers and work to create a decent operator's manual for the game. We need a solutions guide that tells a determined map maker how to go get started making a Half Life quality world. This should include where and what tools to get. Also we need to provide a complete and easy to read reference for all of the BZW primitives. The manpages are NOT complete.

Example of text: kaffeecontrol.de: 5154 go to the north end and through the teleport in the green box.

Fun stuff. Thanks for all the hard work everybody!
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 800 character limit

Ice Wewe
Private First Class
Private First Class
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 10:17 pm

HardWare configuration

Post by Ice Wewe » Wed Feb 16, 2005 11:06 pm

Hey,

Not that my FPS are horrible, but they aren't great. Specs:

P3 600mhz
133mhz FSB (front side bus)
384mb RAM (133mhz)
(I don't think you need HDD size :D)
nVidia GeForce FX 5200 (128mb VRAM, 350mhz GPU) (driver # or what ever is 6629)
Fedora Core 2
Fedora Core 3

My Avg. FPS in FC2 is about 40, that is A OK with me, considering how much better the graphics got!
My Avg. FPS in FC3 is depressing. It stands around 15-20, it doesn't make any sence, they have the same configuration, the same driver, the same version of X11, and the same version of the X11 video driver. Also my FC3 tends to add 200-400ms of lag, while FC2 is fine, why?

Guest

Post by Guest » Thu Feb 17, 2005 1:57 am

SilverFox wrote:
rr wrote:So long squares.
Wow. Do you collect some sort of wellfare and b*tch about it and you're right to it too?

Contribute (constructively) or shut up.


HEHEHAHAhahahaahaha omg that was sooo funny

User avatar
SilverFox
Private First Class
Private First Class
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 6:51 pm
Contact:

Post by SilverFox » Thu Feb 17, 2005 4:54 am

Ice Wewe wrote:My Avg. FPS in FC2 is about 40, that is A OK with me, considering how much better the graphics got!
My Avg. FPS in FC3 is depressing. It stands around 15-20, it doesn't make any sence, they have the same configuration, the same driver, the same version of X11, and the same version of the X11 video driver. Also my FC3 tends to add 200-400ms of lag, while FC2 is fine, why?
Well if everything is truly identical except for the OS version, I'd look at resource utilization. Run top or some graphical equivelent to see where CPU cycles and memory (RAM) are being used. Maybe FC3 is using more resources, or is less effecient with them? Shooting in the dark since I've never really been a RH/FC guy.

SilentSwan
Private First Class
Private First Class
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:23 am
Location: Gone

Hardware Info

Post by SilentSwan » Thu Feb 17, 2005 5:07 am

Basically, a stock G4 system:

Hardware Overview:

Machine Model: Power Mac G4
CPU Type: PowerPC G4 (2.1)
Number Of CPUs: 1
CPU Speed: 800 MHz
L2 Cache (per CPU): 256 KB
Memory: 512 MB
Bus Speed: 133 MHz
Boot ROM Version: 4.3.3f2

ATY,RV200:

Type: display
Bus: AGP
Slot: SLOT-1
VRAM (Total): 32 MB
Vendor: ATI (0x1002)
Device ID: 0x5157
Revision ID: 0x0000
ROM Revision: 113-91701-222

Display:

Type: display
Display Type: CRT
VRAM (In Use): 32 MB
Resolution: 1280 x 1024 @ 75 Hz
Depth: 32-bit Color
Main Display: Yes
Mirror: Off
Online: Yes

User avatar
toaster
Private First Class
Private First Class
Posts: 457
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 4:44 pm

Re: HardWare configuration

Post by toaster » Fri Feb 18, 2005 1:11 am

Ice Wewe wrote:My Avg. FPS in FC2 is about 40, that is A OK with me, considering how much better the graphics got!
My Avg. FPS in FC3 is depressing. It stands around 15-20, it doesn't make any sence, they have the same configuration, the same driver, the same version of X11, and the same version of the X11 video driver. Also my FC3 tends to add 200-400ms of lag, while FC2 is fine, why?
Two things that occur, just off the tope of my head:

1. is the X11 config really the same, or are you using the frame buffering now?

2. is it possible that one or more of these components are in modules now instead of the kernel?

User avatar
menotume
Major General
Major General
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 7:48 pm
Location: SE Pennsylvania, USA
Contact:

Post by menotume » Fri Feb 18, 2005 2:14 am

Saturos wrote: ... And what gets really on my nerves: The smaller tanks on the radar. Why did you decrease the size of the "points" which show the tank's position? Its horrible hard to see if an enemy jumps or not now.
Yes, this is the only 'problem' that I can't get over yet. The size of tanks (and width of shots/trails) varies depending on your screen resolution and radar size. In some configurations, it almost looks like the tanks are only 1 pixel! It would be awfully nice is there were a config option for 'radar tank size'. Maybe there is and I just don't know about it. In the meantime, I'll just find a combination of radar size/resolution that works best for me.

In general, I find that I myself generally resist major changes, My first encounter with 2.x was less than appealing - just because I'm a stubborn old man, I suppose. However, it is growing on me, and I would expect that in a month or two, I'll be thinking "how did I ever play that old 1.10x version" :)

AS for lag, crash. etc. issues - the devs are always on top of these matters, and it will only get better.

Post Reply