New ACC 1.47!

News about ZDoom, its child ports, or any closely related projects.
[ZDoom Home] [Documentation (Wiki)] [Official News] [Downloads] [Discord]
[🔎 Google This Site]

Moderator: GZDoom Developers

User avatar
bagheadspidey
Posts: 1490
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 10:31 pm

Re: New ACC!

Post by bagheadspidey »

And how much covers specialized equipment able to scan a sometimes physically destroyed hard drive for data?
about 500 to 1000 bucks for a platter exchange tool which is probably what they'd use for this kind of thing...
User avatar
randi
Site Admin
Posts: 7749
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 10:30 pm

Re: New ACC!

Post by randi »

Graf Zahl wrote:I would have liked to see that. Not so much for enhanced polyobject capabilites but it would allow infinitely more flexible portals, at least with a hardware renderer.
It was about a week's worth of work done over a year ago. I would like to get that in the engine at some point, along with Build's physics routines, which don't have all the side-effects of Doom's and do a more correct (albeit, still 2D) volume sweep for moving boxes. (Obviously, the map would have to opt-in to use them.) Then we could have proper sector-over-sector (or even sector-inside-sector).
I still think that any work on ZDoom itself should be in a branch of the SVN repository
Well, there's no work on ZDoom now that isn't in the repository. The scripting stuff at the moment is just a half-finished grammar and a half-finished VM interpreter. I want to get the bugs forum cleaned up some more before I pursue it further.
In case this is 'too sensitive': can access to SVN-subdirectories be restricted to non-anonymous users just in case this shouldn't be visible to the general public?
I have no idea.
MartinHowe wrote:For Blood, this may be of some help: Blood Tools
I'm afraid not. That doesn't do anything that ZDoom can't already do. What I had done was figure out what all the bits in the XSECTOR, XWALL, and XSPRITE structures were for--all the extensions that Blood added to the Build map format. In other words, I had all the information necessary to properly implement all the behavior of a Blood map (sans "dudes").
User avatar
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Posts: 49194
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: New ACC!

Post by Graf Zahl »

randy wrote:
Graf Zahl wrote:I would have liked to see that. Not so much for enhanced polyobject capabilites but it would allow infinitely more flexible portals, at least with a hardware renderer.
It was about a week's worth of work done over a year ago. I would like to get that in the engine at some point, along with Build's physics routines, which don't have all the side-effects of Doom's and do a more correct (albeit, still 2D) volume sweep for moving boxes. (Obviously, the map would have to opt-in to use them.) Then we could have proper sector-over-sector (or even sector-inside-sector).
:yup: I'd like to see that, too. As I said, I have been toying around with this as well recently but all I got so far is a subroutine that organizes sectors in a more build-like way. But it requires GL nodes to work so that it doesn't have to fold when encountering the various rendering hacks that are so common in Doom maps.
I still think that any work on ZDoom itself should be in a branch of the SVN repository
Well, there's no work on ZDoom now that isn't in the repository. The scripting stuff at the moment is just a half-finished grammar and a half-finished VM interpreter. I want to get the bugs forum cleaned up some more before I pursue it further.
Ok.
I'm just wondering: Is there anything in my recent DECORATE replacement stuff that might help to jump-start a real scripting language. So far this is only a nearly 1:1 alternative for DECORATE but using a Lemon grammar as a parser. It reuses most of the DECORATE code that's parser independent but the rest is mostly quickly hacked-in throwaway code to make it work with what was there already.
CoTeCiO
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:28 am

Re: New ACC!

Post by CoTeCiO »

Hey, have you tried to use the unit as a Slave in another computer? maybe you got problems with some cable or stuff like that. If that doesn't work... well, do more backups next time! It's sad to hear that, I was expecting a new release before new year but oh well... At least we got the ACC that I'm going to check right now :P

So, do that, put your drive as a Slave in another computer to see if that works!
User avatar
Remmirath
Posts: 2561
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 3:53 am
Graphics Processor: nVidia with Vulkan support
Location: My house

Re: New ACC!

Post by Remmirath »

This method could work, if the hard drive was detectable by the motherboard.
But have you tried changing the cable? Unless we are talking about SATA hard drives.
If you have an ATAPI hard-drive, you can try to change the main IDE cable. Use one of the cables from the CD-ROM drives.
User avatar
randi
Site Admin
Posts: 7749
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 10:30 pm

Re: New ACC!

Post by randi »

All my drives are SATA now (including my DVD burner), and yes, I did try it in two other machines with identical results.
User avatar
Rachael
Posts: 13854
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:31 pm
Preferred Pronouns: She/Her

Re: New ACC!

Post by Rachael »

I went researching the problem. There's no reason why drives should crap out after being only 4 weeks old, especially being a rather sum of them in similar models/capacities. In most cases, it seems to be a firmware issue, and it does affect your model, Randy.

Apparently, a new firmware is only available through Seagate Tech support (currently). Seagate shows no indication of knowing that their firmware is bad (but that really says nothing), and when people have purchased drives with upgraded firmware they apparently have no problems. I think in your case, you may want to go the firmware route, because it might be the only chance you have at recovering your data. Hopefully, though, it will not affect your warranty. (And hopefully, maybe the current firmware will respond to the upgrade, despite being in its current state)

On some devices there is a "firmware" or "config" reset switch. I doubt you have one on that unit, but you might check anyway. It should just reset the settings to normal and stop whatever is causing the problem with the drive's internal BIOS "starting up" in the first place.

I do not think all hope is lost, yet!

(semi relevant links) [1] [2] [3]
User avatar
zwouth
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:57 pm

Hard drive logic board swap

Post by zwouth »

Assuming you were able to get Seagate to cross-ship drives where they send you a replacement, and then you send back your dead drive... The important part is you have possession of both your dead drive and the replacement at the same time.

One thing I have done, for drives that seeming have failed from a board logic failure (ie: not a head crash) you can try swapping the drive electronics from your replacement to your dead drive to see if it comes up.

Most hardware stores sell "security bit" sets that include the small torx bits needed for this (cheaper overall then just buying the 1 you need, plus the other 19bits are good fun =). The WD and Seagate drives I have sitting in front of me use T-9 Torx screws.

This does require they send you an identical model/(board) revision of drive, this is rather critical obviously, hopefully firmware on board is same or 'compatible enough' to info written on 'reserved tracks' on your platters - most IDE drives store microcode on the platters themselves (often firmware itself suicidally enough) about how the platters are zoned and such. Also yes if the boards are physically different, then I probably wouldn't try this at all, usually though the board is "keyed" so that in such a case the board will not physically fit into an incompatible platter set.

This sometimes works. Even if it is a bit flaky it can be enough to get your data off your old platters. When you're done swap the boards back.

Obviously this is a warranty train wreck, and at own risk.
User avatar
Tubers
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 9:16 am

Re: New ACC!

Post by Tubers »

Fucking hell Randy, that sucks man. :(

The new ACC is good :wink:
User avatar
randi
Site Admin
Posts: 7749
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 10:30 pm

Re: Hard drive logic board swap

Post by randi »

zwouth wrote:you can try swapping the drive electronics from your replacement to your dead drive to see if it comes up.
So, any special technique for swapping the boards? I've never fiddled with taking hard drives apart before. Ahem. Just out of curiosity, of course.
User avatar
Rachael
Posts: 13854
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:31 pm
Preferred Pronouns: She/Her

Re: New ACC!

Post by Rachael »

That's all new territory to me, too, but it sounds like it could work. I'd probably try it just out of curiosity, but I don't have a dead drive laying around anywhere right now.
User avatar
zwouth
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:57 pm

Re: Hard drive logic board swap

Post by zwouth »

randy wrote:So, any special technique for swapping the boards?
Not really, other than having the torx bit that fits the screws, it's pretty straight forward. Here are some obvious pointers:

Keep the foam pad that's between the board and the drive so it doesn't short the board out on the drive.
All of the boards I've messed with are just surface contacts to the platter part, so yea it just lifts off. Be gentle and straight up.

Since they are surface contacts, be sure all the screws are snug at least before powering up. Since if the board is loose yea, bad things could happen.

There's a pretty good chance swapping boards won't help, but it's so easy that it's worth trying. Most drives I did this with had obvious damage to the board.

Also the only reason i even suggest it is I haven't killed a board doing this even when I did some really stupid stuff like putting a blatantly incompatible board/drive combo together.
SCSI drives on the other hand... are a different beast (and more fun to do this with).
User avatar
TOGoS
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2003 12:33 am
Location: Wisconsin

Re: New ACC!

Post by TOGoS »

Dang, that is lame. One of the reasons I have been moving my projects from SVN to Git is that git repositories seem a lot easier to branch and back up. I keep any work that *might* be important in git repos backed up to at least 3 different machines. :ugeek:
It was about a week's worth of work done over a year ago. I would like to get that in the engine at some point, along with Build's physics routines, which don't have all the side-effects of Doom's and do a more correct (albeit, still 2D) volume sweep for moving boxes. (Obviously, the map would have to opt-in to use them.) Then we could have proper sector-over-sector (or even sector-inside-sector).
The day ZDoom supports that I will cream my pants 10 times in one minute. Line teleporters are great until you start fragging your friends on coop.
User avatar
Spleen
Posts: 497
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 7:07 pm

Re: New ACC!

Post by Spleen »

TOGoS wrote:Dang, that is lame. One of the reasons I have been moving my projects from SVN to Git is that git repositories seem a lot easier to branch and back up. I keep any work that *might* be important in git repos backed up to at least 3 different machines. :ugeek:
It was about a week's worth of work done over a year ago. I would like to get that in the engine at some point, along with Build's physics routines, which don't have all the side-effects of Doom's and do a more correct (albeit, still 2D) volume sweep for moving boxes. (Obviously, the map would have to opt-in to use them.) Then we could have proper sector-over-sector (or even sector-inside-sector).
The day ZDoom supports that I will cream my pants 10 times in one minute. Line teleporters are great until you start fragging your friends on coop.
They won't telefrag anymore if you extend player and give him the -TELESTOMP flag (or to be more precise, take away the TELESTOMP flag by putting in a -TELESTOMP statement).
User avatar
TOGoS
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2003 12:33 am
Location: Wisconsin

Re: New ACC!

Post by TOGoS »

They won't telefrag anymore if you extend player and give him the -TELESTOMP flag (or to be more precise, take away the TELESTOMP flag by putting in a -TELESTOMP statement).
Unfortunately, if someone fails to teleport, the illusion of continuity would be destroyed in an even more serious way than getting telefragged. :P

So invisible line teleporters are still something that you want to use sparingly. If we ever get build-esque overlapping sectors, I think people would find ways to use them to make already awesome levels even awesomer in ways we haven't even thougt of yet, similar to what happened with the addition of bridge things and stacked sectors. It's not that multi-story buildings are inherently exciting, but that the little added bit of flexibility acts as a multiplier of possible awesomeness in a level. :wink:

Return to “ZDoom (and related) News”