About the possibility of open Source code

[Spale69]

In which language is the game written...I presume C++, or even C if the majority of the code is so old? Is the code written in object-orientated manner?

Is there any more general ui framework present or everything is custom?

I came to this gem very recently (in contrast to most of the people here as I see, experienced wargaming grognards...respect! ... and also do not have much time to play it as much as I would like to do due to rl preoccupations. But from what I see and experience, it has really very serious depth and to anyone who likes tactical/strategical thinking mixed with little bit of history - is a gem indeed. Requires time and patience for the real value to be appreciated.

It will always have relat. smaller number of devoted people, and it would be pitty to let it go. But I guess, for the revival, much more is required than 1 or few devoted programmers. There would have to be tutorials, tournaments with scenarios that can be competed in reasonable amount of time, social media time investments...I hope Matrix would decide to go on with it. I was really positively surprised to see someone from the company joining here and opening possibilities!

Regards to you all!

[Lobster]

Lines of code is irrelevant. Customers don't care. Project management and shipping code is all that matters to the consumer. I do this for my living. I know.

It is relevant when the opening of this thread was to claim that development has "stagnated" since 2006. And lines-of-code is currently the only metric I"m allowed to post.

Now, if Erik thinks the time is right, I'll happily post all sorts of details. But I still think that golden moment is not yet here.

I'm not aware of us putting any restrictions on discussing the work you've been doing. Normally we would do that if it were part of a new commercial release, but that's not the case here, so you are welcome to do so. I would expect that discussing it with the community and providing a public beta in the future would be more helpful than keeping it under wraps.

Regards,

- Erik

We have been operating as though there were an NDA. Erik's comments shows this is not the case. There is no NDA even though people have been called out for violating a non existant NDA. Also Erik said this is not part of a commercial release. What then is it? Is this a mod or free upgrade with the company's blessing? Paint me confused.

[Curtis Lemay]

We have been operating as though there were an NDA. Erik's comments shows this is not the case. There is no NDA even though people have been called out for violating a non existant NDA.

Including (in my case) being chewed out by Erik! I'm pretty sure there is still an NDA.

Also Erik said this is not part of a commercial release. What then is it? Is this a mod or free upgrade with the company's blessing? Paint me confused.

Look more carefully: He said it is not part of a NEW commercial release.

When it comes to sharing code with anyone else, that does have to go through us.

And note the above. All that crap about me blocking coders...

[ncc1701e]

When it comes to sharing code with anyone else, that does have to go through us.

And note the above. All that crap about me blocking coders...

Honestly I am not a professional coder. But what I can do with Godot so easily, a hex grid plus drag, zoom in less than 100 lines of code makes me think that this is a big time gain. And it supports Vulkan API already, cross platform… Going back to C or C++, to adapt it to this century, is really not something I am interested in.

I prefer to start from scratch.

[Lobster]

Sorry I wasn't aware Erik had been presented with people's names who had volunteered to help you code. So no, you didn't block anyone from helping you because no one was given the chance to help you code. So yeah, you didn't block anyone.

[Spale69]

Honestly I am not a professional coder. But what I can do with Godot so easily, a hex grid plus drag, zoom in less than 100 lines of code makes me think that this is a big time gain. And it supports Vulkan API already, cross platform… Going back to

I would not hurry with conclusions. It is not just about making a hex grid + zoom. There is an editor with really a lot of features, huge amount of maps already existing that would need compat coding for new engine, unit properties relationships... it is not that simple just to decide on "let's start from the scratch". Finally, the whole math/algorithmic logic behind...and TOAW is indeed complex below when you scratch the surface just as a gamer.

Maybe if the "business logic" (as we say in my branche, I am softw. dev for business data/server large scale applications) could be uncoupled from the UI and made separate (smth like model-view-controller pattern, adjusted to gaming concepts) - then for UI some bright nice things could be made.

I mean, completely to start from the scratch would mean throwing everything away what is really good already now. Hard decision, think twice.

There are things already existing for C++ (I asked above if it is c or cpp) like SFML, SDL2, these are proven grahic frameworks. It does not have to be fancy thing, 3d and stuff (e.g. Panzer Corps 2 is built in Unreal engine!!! ...overkill and performance stupidity, my personal opinion).

But my bet is if Matrix wants to go on seriously with this, they need first dedicated designer, code analysis with overview diagrams (components, activities, at least topmost logic flowthrough) and then someone to sit down and do a brainstorming how to reorganize old code....separate backend from ui...those kinds of things. To have couple of programmers + resource designers doing work comes at the end.

I am afraid, other ways you just add complexity on top of old layers - recipe for catastrophe and time/resource waste.

The other best alternative is to let Curtis Lemay work and maybe help him. It won't hurt the game. I do not know histories and bad feelings I read here in the forum, not interested in looking at past and your relationships. The game is good, should be improved and continue to live any way possible. Alternatives are: proper company-backed serious redesign, supporting person(s) who are the only one on this planet with some knowledge about current inner workings - or simply going for open source.

All viable solutions.

[ncc1701e]

Fudge #2. Completion date, a fool’s errand? I find it astounding that you would express such a distain for project management.

Just to give an example: When I began the project I estimated the completion time to be three months. We're at 63 months currently - off by a factor of 21 and counting. It's a fool's errand.

Bob,

Has the crash-to-desktop bug associated with placename fonts and failure of TOAW to release allocated RAM been found and fixed as part of your efforts ?

Cheers

Since when this is existing? It may help to search somewhere in the 71% or in the 29%. It reminds me the huge size placename that is cut at its bottom at maximum zoom level, minor but annoying for the eyes.

Note that 17,253 + 1,518 + 38,200 + 12,410 = 69,381 lines of code I’ve written since starting. Since the entire code of TOAW is about 239,074 lines, I’ve written about 29% of TOAW’s code.

[ncc1701e]

I would not hurry with conclusions… All viable solutions.

Of course, this is just computer science. I have no personal problems with any solution.

The based code is from 1998. This is great it was ported to Windows. But, as you said, this is another layer:

I am afraid, other ways you just add complexity on top of old layers - recipe for catastrophe and time/resource waste.

TOAW4 is a new layer of TOAW3 with a brand new UI yes BUT, on my computer, I have still few UI glitches linked to code or linked to the low OS layers used? That’s my question.

When I see the amount of lines of coded written by Bob, I can’t imagine the difficulties he is facing to add new features.

You highlight the scenario database. Yes, this is important. But, does insuring retro compatibility of all scenario is not what is making the code so complicated? Look at the number of options possible when you start a scenario, the rule for supply, advanced supply, or I don’t even remember. There are options I am never using. And I even wonder if some are used.

Another thing, TOAW4 was advertised as a big UI refresh. But look at the 3D view. It is the same than the one of 1998. I think nobody is using it. Well remove it, simplify the code to maintain.

If the coder is tied with plenty of options to support, an equipment database that is not evolving, scenario not to break, … I can’t imagine the number of conditions to implement.

As I said, and that is my personal opinion, I am not interested in debugging 239000 lines of C++ to maintain the game alive whereas one day a driver update will stop the game to run.

Using a game engine like Godot will prevent things like this. When I say starting from scratch, this is more do a list of what is really used in the game options and what’s not.

What’s not is what could be removed, and when I say this, I am not even sure this is simple to perform in the 239000 lines of code.

Meanwhile, I have just coded a minimap for my hexagon map game experiment. Guess how many lines of code it took me in Godot?

[MonkeyBrain3]

I would not hurry with conclusions… All viable solutions.

Of course, this is just computer science. I have no personal problems with any solution.

The based code is from 1998. This is great it was ported to Windows. But, as you said, this is another layer:

I am afraid, other ways you just add complexity on top of old layers - recipe for catastrophe and time/resource waste.

TOAW4 is a new layer of TOAW3 with a brand new UI yes BUT, on my computer, I have still few UI glitches linked to code or linked to the low OS layers used? That’s my question.

When I see the amount of lines of coded written by Bob, I can’t imagine the difficulties he is facing to add new features.

You highlight the scenario database. Yes, this is important. But, does insuring retro compatibility of all scenario is not what is making the code so complicated? Look

Another thing, TOAW4 was advertised as a big UI refresh. But look at the 3D view. It is the same than the one of 1998. I think nobody is using it. Well remove it, simplify the code to maintain.

-----

Nope. We will not remove it!

I am using it and plenty of other players is using it.

And I am playing TOAW since 1998. TOAW vol 1 lol

I know a thing or two about TOAW.

3D view should be brought to the hi res - like 2D.

It is STUPID to remove it - because not all players will like only 2D. Yeah I know how wargames purist think but that's not how it should be.

So, 3D view will STAY.

I can offer also my view on TOAW development if anyone is interested to hear. Because some of us have been with TOAW from beginning and WE do care about TOAW

[fulcrum28]

This is a fantastic game ("Hex of Steel" ) with great graphics, clean UI, and the best zoom I have ever seen in a wargame. Of course simpler in many ways than TOAW but very inspiring, specially when you know that it is done by a single-programmer (one-man made game). I wish future developments of TOAW could find it inspiring.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1240 ... _of_Steel/

[ncc1701e]

3D view should be brought to the hi res - like 2D.

It is STUPID to remove it - because not all players will like only 2D. Yeah I know how wargames purist think but that's not how it should be.

So, 3D view will STAY.

I can offer also my view on TOAW development if anyone is interested to hear. Because some of us have been with TOAW from beginning and WE do care about TOAW

Yes please, I want to hear your opinion. 3D view should be brought to hi resolution. That’s fine. Not sure this is on a wishlist. By its time to speak up.-

But you know what’s that mean. Every scenario designer should create its own 3D model for equipment not by default in the game. Or use a generic model that is not necessarily the correct one.

Equipment database is the first thing I would rework imo. Even in WITE2, they have stopped putting equipment icons using generic ones instead. That’s funny I was thinking equipment icons are an unnecessary additional work and you just prove me the contrary.

[Lobster]

3D does not have to have equipment icons.

67pcScreenHunter 401.jpg (698.69 KiB) Viewed 2487 times

[MonkeyBrain3]

3D view should be brought to the hi res - like 2D.

It is STUPID to remove it - because not all players will like only 2D. Yeah I know how wargames purist think but that's not how it should be.

So, 3D view will STAY.

I can offer also my view on TOAW development if anyone is interested to hear. Because some of us have been with TOAW from beginning and WE do care about TOAW

Yes please, I want to hear your opinion. 3D view should be brought to hi resolution. That’s fine. Not sure this is on a wishlist. By its time to speak up.-

But you know what’s that mean. Every scenario designer should create its own 3D model for equipment not by default in the game. Or use a generic model that is not necessarily the correct one.

Equipment database is the first thing I would rework imo. Even in WITE2, they have stopped putting equipment icons using generic ones instead. That’s funny I was thinking equipment icons are an unnecessary additional work and you just prove me the contrary.

Thank you. As I roll on Turn 9 of Gary Grisby Wite2 - I am playing it along TOAW Dir 21 - I am glad that we have some discussion about future of TOAW.

With that being said - first we must aknowledge - it is Stradivari Violin of Norm Koget design - it would be disastreous to make the game too sausage design that would stray away too much from Norm Koger vision. In that venue I found amusing Bob Cross verbage about this or that much written code.

This is first and foremost Norm Koger game.

With that being said I think that even Matrix Games management doesn't realize what a Gold Mine is TOAW as Intellectual Property.

Once, when that Lunatic from Kremlin start shooting ICBĐ nuclear bombs dont forget to put TOAW code in one of Elon Musk rockets and save it for Humanity

With also that being said here is my thoughts:

- Improvement of Design of New ProtoStarship TOAW I would rather skip now - but TOAW as a franchise could decelop into two ways:

One is NATO Professional version with new AI.

The second is commercial version.

And I would make a Tournament and give 5% of all sales to Scenario Designers for new scenarios.

Bringing TOAW to some modern wargame design is something for all new EXE file.

[cathar1244]

@NCC1701e

Regarding how long the bug has existed, it has been a few years at least.

Just my quick take, but I don't believe it was present in TOAW III.

Something in the TOAW code is old in terms of RAM management when it comes to the use of the fonts. Probably needs a call to a more recent built-in Windows routine ... lots of new Windows versions since 1998.

Check out Shadrach's comments here, from 2019 (5 years ago ...):

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... k#p4473458

Equipment database is the first thing I would rework imo.

Which aspects of it ? User "JosAnt" has done much fine work in that regard.

Cheers

[Lobster]

Which aspects of it ? User "JosAnt" has done much fine work in that regard.

Cheers

What about yours?

[cathar1244]

Hi Lobster,

Well, my old "WW2 database" is a bit dated. There is more information available today to do a better version.

I may look at updating it.

If anyone working with equipment in scenarios has a question, they're welcome to give me a shout. If I can help with some information, I'll gladly do so.

I imagine you did quite a bit of tinkering yourself with your massive 1941 scenario.

Cheers

[ncc1701e]

With also that being said here is my thoughts:

- Improvement of Design of New ProtoStarship TOAW I would rather skip now - but TOAW as a franchise could decelop into two ways:

One is NATO Professional version with new AI.

The second is commercial version.

And I would make a Tournament and give 5% of all sales to Scenario Designers for new scenarios.

Bringing TOAW to some modern wargame design is something for all new EXE file.

Perfectly in line with this, if TOAW could turn into a training tool to study past battles and extrapolate the future, it could turn like Command is today.

This is exactly what I have said to Erik in my mail to him about what Matrix could do for the future of TOAW if they would like to invest into it. Unanswered email so far. I am curious, Larry, did you get an answer to yours?

[larryfulkerson]

Not yet. as of Aug, 18 2024 09:36.

But I have high hopes. I'm looking into using Unreal Engine or Unity or whatever available game engine might be used in the future for TOAW development. No luck so far.

pilot ejection.gif (803.74 KiB) Viewed 2327 times

[Franciscus]

Not yet. as of Aug, 18 2024 09:36.

But I have high hopes. I'm looking into using Unreal Engine or Unity or whatever available game engine might be used in the future for TOAW development. No luck so far.
pilot ejection.gif

No direct knowledge, but my daughter (major in physical and technological engineering) said to me that the game engine to look for now is Godot (open source)
https://godotengine.org/

[larryfulkerson]

Thank you very much. Also, thanks for the link. I'll look into it and give you a full report.

dog bone in bowl & dog.gif (8.54 MiB) Viewed 2316 times