ZDoom

Having some fun times with my IBM Aptiva - I got it to run Windows 95, which somewhat eases the process of running the weirder Win16/Win32s games compared to running its factory Windows 3.1 install. Also gave it a new hard drive, and most importantly (to me), a new boot logo befitting its namesake: Tom "Biff" Wilson as Wing Commander's Todd "Maniac" Marshall.



By the way, not kidding about it not running Doom - this thing barely manages 15 FPS on E1M1! Probably the onboard video chip's fault.

When you get to building/scavenging a Y2K rig (Probably with WinME) you can probably theme that after Biessman.

Also don't 486s not use cache when the RAM amount is excessive on some boards? Given the general specs i'd stick to 16mb at most.

given the craptiva spec, the said Y2K machine could be one of those lousy 'internet PCs' that are just built only for running IE5 slowly (Think lowly Celeron 600s with 32MB with a small form factor), unprepared for the mass of flash/javascript banners/ads to follow a year after.

leileilol wrote:Also don't 486s not use cache when the RAM amount is excessive on some boards? Given the general specs i'd stick to 16mb at most.

64 MB was, in fact, the smallest stick of memory I had available that the motherboard would take - coincidentally, it's also the largest amount it will allow. I suppose it's not bad for spare parts, and if there's any real problems with excessive RAM, I can always waste it by spawning a couple of ramdisks.

given the craptiva spec, the said Y2K machine could be one of those lousy 'internet PCs' that are just built only for running IE5 slowly (Think lowly Celeron 600s with 32MB with a small form factor), unprepared for the mass of flash/javascript banners/ads to follow a year after.

I do have a weird old Compaq sitting in the other room, I think ~2002 or 2003 vintage - it only has PCI slots, and is running some kind of Celeron with onboard graphics. I have not yet even booted it up. I'm considering preemptively nuking it and putting Win2K on it, assuming I can find drivers for that, but the real hurdle is going to be that video hardware - I don't have any PCI 3D accelerator cards lying around.

wildweasel wrote:

leileilol wrote:Also don't 486s not use cache when the RAM amount is excessive on some boards? Given the general specs i'd stick to 16mb at most.

64 MB was, in fact, the smallest stick of memory I had available that the motherboard would take - coincidentally, it's also the largest amount it will allow. I suppose it's not bad for spare parts, and if there's any real problems with excessive RAM, I can always waste it by spawning a couple of ramdisks.

given the craptiva spec, the said Y2K machine could be one of those lousy 'internet PCs' that are just built only for running IE5 slowly (Think lowly Celeron 600s with 32MB with a small form factor), unprepared for the mass of flash/javascript banners/ads to follow a year after.

I do have a weird old Compaq sitting in the other room, I think ~2002 or 2003 vintage - it only has PCI slots, and is running some kind of Celeron with onboard graphics. I have not yet even booted it up. I'm considering preemptively nuking it and putting Win2K on it, assuming I can find drivers for that, but the real hurdle is going to be that video hardware - I don't have any PCI 3D accelerator cards lying around.

Compaq you say? god that takes me back... my first personal laptop (not school) was a compaq presario c700... had a dual core precessor with windows Vista on it.

I just discovered that if you override an actor's tick function and call super.tick() twice, the actor moves twice as fast.

I'm not sure what can be done with this cursed knowledge... but either way, i'm afraid to touch it.

(note: this has literally no practical use as you can't force an actor to call their tick function again through another class, as far as i'm aware)

Tartlman wrote:I'm not sure what can be done with this cursed knowledge...

Call super.tick() twenty times in a row.

Gez wrote:

Tartlman wrote:I'm not sure what can be done with this cursed knowledge...

Call super.tick() twenty times in a row.

i think i remember trying to call it 12 times in a row... but it looks like gzdoom just gave up and called tick once? Either way, if i keep tampering with this graf is probably going to have an aneurysm

I'm expecting to go mad from the revelation of this horrible knowledge soon, expect eldritch horrors and dimensional anomalies to start popping up near you

Tartlman wrote: i think i remember trying to call it 12 times in a row... but it looks like gzdoom just gave up and called tick once?

This is one of the things that is called an "undefined behavior". If it's not possible to predict what it will do then depending on this behavior is sure to lead your mod to being broken somewhere down the line - often sooner than later. Another example of undefined behavior is actively exploiting a bug in order to make the engine do what it was not designed to do to achieve a certain effect.

Tartlman wrote: Either way, if i keep tampering with this graf is probably going to have an aneurysm

He simply does not like it when people use undefined behaviors - but he does not get really that angry about it unless it becomes an established/popular mod that he has to support and can't change the behavior of (in order to try and introduce actual sanity to the system) without it breaking.

Basically, when a mod depends on broken behaviors in order to function, it leads him to inevitably having to choose between continuing to support the broken behavior, often by writing gross hacks into the engine in order to keep it working, or to deprecate the hack entirely and break the mod. The latter happens rarely, but it isn't unusual, especially when the hack required to support the behavior is so egregious that it actually becomes a roadblock for another important project.

TL;DR: These hacks sometimes get supported at the expense of new features.

thankfully, as i've said, there's literally no practical application for this (thank god).

Rachael wrote:

Tartlman wrote: i think i remember trying to call it 12 times in a row... but it looks like gzdoom just gave up and called tick once?

This is one of the things that is called an "undefined behavior". If it's not possible to predict what it will do then depending on this behavior is sure to lead your mod to being broken somewhere down the line - often sooner than later. Another example of undefined behavior is actively exploiting a bug in order to make the engine do what it was not designed to do to achieve a certain effect.

I honestly doubt calling "Tick" many times per tic would actually do that. There's no reason why it'd break and just call it once. I find it far more likely that he botched the test, tbh.
The behaviour of Tick is pretty well defined, so there's no reason why it'd break like that.

Just recently played Death Stranding, the very first game made by Hideo Kojima after Konami

So, I made a little poem picture thing, if anyone wants to see it:



I can explain more context that made me think about this recently, but it is obviously about my relationship/connection with various people in this world and in my life. People I needed really hurting me in this grief, and yet people I never expected stepping up and being there for me and being light in my life in so many countless amazing ways. I'll explain more later, but I thought I'd share the little thing I made.

working on Diablo 3D making it compatible with Wrath of Cronos 3.0...

That poem makes wonder if gift also can mean married in German.

dpJudas wrote:That poem makes wonder if gift also can mean married in German.

"[...] oder bist du Gift?" is "or are you poison?" I was playing on the different meanings of the same word between the two languages.