Wesnoth 1.9.8

[ivanovic]

This is another release of the 1.9.x development branch. As with normal development releases, it may include many more bugs than stable releases from the 1.8.x series — additionally, 1.8 content is not compatible with 1.9.x due to the many changes in the game engine and WML syntax between both branches. Don't be disappointed if the game crashes every now and then — "normal" players (those who want a stable gaming experience) should not use this release, and stick to the stable branch instead. However, if you want to test the future of Wesnoth and help us find bugs early, you are welcome to check out this release. We require your help for finding and fixing issues. If you find a bug, please do not assume that it is so obvious that we already know about it. Report it and make sure that we are aware of it.

This release includes various fixes and changes. There are not too many really huge changes. The one most interesting is probably the initial addition of joystick/gamepad support. I am sure that fendrin welcomes all feedback you have regarding the support of joysticks. Beside this some options were moved around and some things regarding the whiteboard were improved. Combine this with several bugs being fixed and you got this new release.

So far there are no known issues (besides the stuff listed in the bug tracker). So let's directly head over to the most important features of this new release (at least the most important things that the other devs do want you to know about ).

Of course there is also the full changelog listing (almost) all the changes since 1.9.7. A changelog for the most visible changes for users is the players changelog.

Known Issues (might be fixed in the next release(s))

There are no known issues at the moment.

Downloads

Source code:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/wesnoth/files/wesnoth/wesnoth-1.9.8/wesnoth-1.9.8.tar.bz2/download (323.2 MB) md5sum
Here is the XDelta for the sources:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/wesnoth/files/wesnoth/wesnoth-1.9.8/wesnoth-1.9.7.tar-wesnoth-1.9.8.tar.xdelta/download (1.9.7 to 1.9.8, 3.4 MB)
Check http://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?t=7034 for information on using XDelta.

The Windows package is already available. You can find it on the download page.

The MacOSX package is already available. You can find it on the download page.

The OpenPandora package is already available. You can find it on the download page.

Many of the Linux packages have already been created, and all known packagers have been contacted. Information about where to get the respective binaries or how to get them to work can be found in the Linux binaries page in the wiki. Download links for other supported systems will be available at the downloads page once the packages are created and published.

As a fallback you can also get the sources from http://files.wesnoth.org/ — but you should first try to get files through SourceForge.net to help us save bandwidth. Please get the files from SourceForge.net if possible.

The multiplayer server for 1.9.8 is up and running. This server can be only be used to play with other 1.9.8 users. If you do encounter problems, please report them.

A new add-ons server for 1.9.x is already running. It was started during the development of 1.9.0. If you encounter any problems with content from the add-ons server not working as expected, please notify the content's author — most of them should be here in the Scenario & Campaign Development forum.

If you find any bugs don't hesitate to report them, but please read the instructions on how to post bugs first! Instructions for bug reporting can be found at ReportingBugs. Again, we require your help for finding and fixing issues, no matter how trivial or complicated they are!

Enjoy!

PS: Within the next seven days anyone asking when the binary for xyz will be ready will be banned and the post will be deleted. Such questions just distract the developers and packagers and don't do any good, so better not ask them...

Bug reports in the forums tend to get forgotten. You will get better results by following the guidelines and report them in the bugtracker.

[Lord-Knightmare]

This version does not offer much change, to gameplay, so I will just stick with the previous one and wait.

[Kuchen]

Well, it's not like we needed to know that...

[raleeha]

Hello,

im now using 1.9.8 and download the newer version addon called geb but im not familiar with it. So if theres any help to play it ..

many ty & greetings

raleeha

[Pentarctagon]

@raleeha: Do a forum search, it shouldn't be that hard to find.

Also, stop posting useless junk here. This thread is not about whether or not you will download it, nor is it an add-on help thread.

[TheBladeRoden]

What is the thread unlocked for, if not feedback?

[Dixie]

Well that was hardly feedback, he was basically asking how to play a certain add-on... Feedback would more be along the lines of "I've noticed issue X with that version, which I didn't experience with the previous version", and it would actually be useful to be able to post such a thing here...

[PapaSmurfReloaded]

Is it possible to change back the way available recruits are shown in the list?

The fact they are now shown alphabetically using the name as reference sucks.

Before this version we actually could customize in which order units were shown(since it used ID to sort it), now we can't(unless you put an A, B, C, etc in the display name, and that doesn't look pretty)...

What was the point of changing that? Seriously.

[shadowmaster]

Fixing bug #18294 was the point, and the result is just really generalizing the sorting order in the English language (since type ids match the English name by convention except where it’s required due to name collisions) to localizations. I don’t see any reasons why scenario authors should be able to customize the list order with dirty invisible hacks like that either; if they think they need a specific list order then perhaps they shouldn’t be using a recruit list in the first place.

[PapaSmurfReloaded]

Fixing bug #18294 was the point, and the result is just really generalizing the sorting order in the English language (since type ids match the English name by convention except where it’s required due to name collisions) to localizations. I don’t see any reasons why scenario authors should be able to customize the list order with dirty invisible hacks like that either; if they think they need a specific list order then perhaps they shouldn’t be using a recruit list in the first place.

I don't see the reason to forbid players to do it(nor why you call it a " dirty invisible hack"), perhaps someone wants to do it to make the recruit list more neat and organized(duh)?

Before:
http://i53.tinypic.com/5l9jlj.jpg

Now:
http://i53.tinypic.com/es7n2b.jpg

And Wesnoth Eras not using the recruit list? Now that sounds new.

[Luther]

I don't see the reason to forbid players to do it(nor why you call it a " dirty invisible hack"), perhaps someone wants to do it to make the recruit list more neat and organized(duh)?

The recruit list needs to be alphabetical by default, because that's the easiest way for players to find the units they want. If you must customize the sort order, please make a feature request for a new attribute to the [multiplayer_side] tag. The reason what you were doing is a dirty hack is because the unit type id needs to reflect the actual name of the unit type. (If someone mixed in some of your units with a campaign or another era, they would have an oddly sorted recruit list for no apparent reason.) Your hack is invisible because the player cannot directly see how their recruit list is being sorted.

EDIT: In general principal, it's not up to an element (e.g. unit type) of a list (e.g. recruit list) to decide how a list shall be sorted. If you try to do that, you end up polluting the element with data that has nothing to do with the element itself. Sorting the list should be the responsibility of the [multiplayer_side] or [side] tags. That's why I suggested the feature request.

[PapaSmurfReloaded]

The recruit list needs to be alphabetical by default, because that's the easiest way for players to find the units they want. If you must customize the sort order, please make a feature request for a new attribute to the [multiplayer_side] tag. The reason what you were doing is a dirty hack is because the unit type id needs to reflect the actual name of the unit type. (If someone mixed in some of your units with a campaign or another era, they would have an oddly sorted recruit list for no apparent reason.) Your hack is invisible because the player cannot directly see how their recruit list is being sorted.

EDIT: In general principal, it's not up to an element (e.g. unit type) of a list (e.g. recruit list) to decide how a list shall be sorted. If you try to do that, you end up polluting the element with data that has nothing to do with the element itself. Sorting the list should be the responsibility of the [multiplayer_side] or [side] tags. That's why I suggested the feature request.

Calling it a hack sounds rather odd, and I still don't get why the negative connotation, or what's supposed to be "bad" about it.
I don't think the average player even cares about how units are sorted either(I have yet to see someone saying "OMFG look the units aren't alphabetically sorted, what the ****!").

And I don't think it's possible for someone to accidentaly mix up a unit I made because most(I'm quite sure all) my creations have a code in the beginning of their IDs, it's mathemathically quite difficult for someone to do it by accident.

And I still think there are quite more important issues in Wesnoth right now than whether units must have the same ID and name for no apparent reason.

[PandaClaws]

The new horseman and the new saurians are both amazing. As is the fire dragon

[SigurdFireDragon]

Some of my thoughts on this...

Calling it a hack sounds rather odd, and I still don't get why the negative connotation, or what's supposed to be "bad" about it.

I'd say it's bad in the sense that it's not "good programming". Do UMC authors have to follow "good programming"? No, many UMC authors start out not really knowing much about it. However, our add-ons are better when we learn to follow such things. It's also helpful to us when the opportunity to develop bad habits is removed, as with the issue in the recruit list. It contributes to our work being just a little bit better, which adds up over time/add-ons.

I don't think the average player even cares about how units are sorted either(I have yet to see someone saying "OMFG look the units aren't alphabetically sorted, what the ****!").

Part of what makes a game 'playable' is ease of use. By sorting according to alphabetical order of name, the list follows the most natural way for players to interact with it. If it's order doesn't make sense, it requires just a little more effort from the player, especially if the list is longer; thus slighty discouraging the player. Even though this is just one example, I'm sure there's been many such similar things over the years of Wesnoth's devlopment. These 'slightly discouraging' things would add up if not dealt with, hence it is considered "good programming" to deal with such things; insuring that the user interface is consistent and easy to use.

And I still think there are quite more important issues in Wesnoth right now than whether units must have the same ID and name for no apparent reason.

The Devs are unpaid volunteers, who choose what to work on with their time. Some work on big changes/fixes, others on more simpler things. Each of these advances Wesnoth, thus all are useful.
The practice of units having the same ID & names is part of the "keeping everything organized" aspect to good programming.

It's important for us UMC authors to keep in mind that even though we may not be aware of all the aspects of "good programming"(after all most of us are not programming for a living), it is essential for the good of Wesnoth that the Devs do know it and follow it, as this makes it eaiser for future development to occur.

[vinimax]

when i try to download the game, it's stops in the middle of the download.is there a problem with my computer or the server?