What should/will/would look like tBfW 2.0?

Azar Wolf · Post by **Azar Wolf** » January 9th, 2009, 2:05 am

Wesnoth 2.0 will have no luck... -_-

Umm, well, it'll probably 1.10 after 1.9 (that's what I always go like : 00.00.00.0000 for all my builds)

BTW- yeah, my main computer is quite powerful and will get even more so in the next few months, but I greatly enjoy 2D games with sprites quite a lot as well- if the game play is good and the game is fun, I'll take even 8-bit graphics with 400x300 resolution

Post by **Cernunnos** » January 9th, 2009, 10:27 am

Wow, that's a lot of answers!

No 3D is not a bad thing, since, yes, 2D can remain for "eternity"... (more the fact i'm abandon-ware fan <subliminal add> play UFO: enemy unknown </subliminal add>)

I'm not this sure about a mushroom faction though...

From what i understand of your answers, wesnoth will basically remain the same (while constantly evolving a little).
On the other hand, there's always parallel projects to deal with...

LemonTea · Post by **LemonTea** » January 9th, 2009, 10:40 am

Cernunnos wrote:<subliminal add> play UFO: enemy unknown </subliminal add>

Hmm... for some odd reason I suddenly feel like playing UFO: enemy unknown, in fact I absolutely MUST play it RIGHT THIS INSTANT!

Jequ · Post by **Jequ** » January 9th, 2009, 2:45 pm

If Wesnoth was 3D, there wouldn't be any user-made eras, factions or custom art because sprite art is much simpler (light programs with simple interface) to do and doesn't require so much time.

I wish that version 2.0 (or 1.10) has fully animated (idle, death, walking...) units and EE and/or EoM are mainlined with very sophisticated graphics and animations. Yeah, and support for Python coded add-ons would be cool as hell...

I really can't even come up with more ideas because I think this game is done...

ivan · Post by **ivan** » January 9th, 2009, 2:57 pm

Jequ wrote:Yeah, and support for Python coded add-ons would be cool as hell...

We actually work on this one, wait for good news in this direction during following months

Glad to hear that people want this to happen.

Jequ · Post by **Jequ** » January 9th, 2009, 2:59 pm

ivan wrote:We actually work on this one, wait for good news in this direction during following months

Glad to here that people want this to happen.

There is a good reason for me to improve my coding skills then

faring · Post by **faring** » January 9th, 2009, 5:32 pm

It would have many more portraits by kitty and the team of octopus gods that is lordbob
That's a god in the shape of an octopus so he has many arms as opposed to the god of the octopuses...

Post by **Iris** » January 9th, 2009, 5:41 pm

ivan wrote:
Jequ wrote:Yeah, and support for Python coded add-ons would be cool as hell...
We actually work on this one, wait for good news in this direction during following months

Glad to hear that people want this to happen.

YOU (singular) are working on it, but WE (devs) have not given any official decision regarding your work! Please do not confuse the forumers!

(cf. Mailing list archives from Dec. 2008 to the present in https://mail.gna.org/public/wesnoth-dev/.)

ivan · Post by **ivan** » January 9th, 2009, 5:51 pm

Eric S. Raymond strongly supports this work. And I have other supporters. We are not singular.

EDIT: removed the sentence that could cause unwanted flames.

Vainglorious · Post by **Vainglorious** » January 9th, 2009, 5:53 pm

faring wrote:a god in that shape of an octopus

Post by **Boucman** » January 9th, 2009, 5:56 pm

Shadow Master wrote:
ivan wrote: We actually work on this one, wait for good news in this direction during following months

Glad to hear that people want this to happen.
YOU (singular) are working on it, but WE (devs) have not given any official decision regarding your work! Please do not confuse the forumers!

(cf. Mailing list archives from Dec. 2008 to the present in https://mail.gna.org/public/wesnoth-dev/.)

more-over, as far as I know, you are not working on supporting python-written add-ons, you are working on rewriting the main engine in python.

These are totally different things.

Dave thought the idea of having python as an alternative to WML might be a good idea, but you have shown no sign of working on that

ivan · Post by **ivan** » January 9th, 2009, 6:10 pm

Boucman wrote: more-over, as far as I know, you are not working on supporting python-written add-ons, you are working on rewriting the main engine in python.

Wrong. My primary intent is supporting python-written add-ons. Rewriting/porting parts of the engine to Python just happen to be the simplest and the most practical path towards this goal.

Update: I actually would love to approach this problem differently, without so much initial rewriting. I don't see any other practical alternative. Existing code has to be modified to allow Python add-ons in a way that Python rewrite of this parts is just more simple and practical.
I respect the KISS principle

Post by **Dave** » January 9th, 2009, 6:12 pm

Boucman wrote: more-over, as far as I know, you are not working on supporting python-written add-ons, you are working on rewriting the main engine in python.

These are totally different things.

Precisely. I would love for someone to add support for nice Python written add-ons. If it works out well, we might even convert more and more parts of the engine to being in Python. I would love for someone to work on this.

Just an engine re-write for the sake of a re-write in Python though, not so much......

David

Post by **Iris** » January 9th, 2009, 6:15 pm

Just we wouldn't appreciate that you replaced WML with Python. I am a WML old-timer, I cannot understand Python and well...

Search the forum for threads of the sort "why not LUA" or "why WML" to know the reasoning behind.

Post by **Dave** » January 9th, 2009, 6:32 pm

ivan wrote: Wrong. My primary intent is supporting python-written add-ons. Rewriting/porting parts of the engine to Python just happen to be the simplest and the most practical path towards this goal.

Try going to any software project and telling them that you want to add a feature to the project.

Then tell them that "rewriting/porting parts of the engine...just happen to be the simplest and most practical path towards this goal".

Watch the responses you get.

David

The Battle for Wesnoth Forums

What should/will/would look like tBfW 2.0?

Re: What should/will/would look like tBfW 2.0?

Re: What should/will/would look like tBfW 2.0?

Re: What should/will/would look like tBfW 2.0?

Re: What should/will/would look like tBfW 2.0?

Re: What should/will/would look like tBfW 2.0?

Re: What should/will/would look like tBfW 2.0?

Re: What should/will/would look like tBfW 2.0?

Re: What should/will/would look like tBfW 2.0?

Re: What should/will/would look like tBfW 2.0?

Re: What should/will/would look like tBfW 2.0?

Re: What should/will/would look like tBfW 2.0?

Re: What should/will/would look like tBfW 2.0?

Re: What should/will/would look like tBfW 2.0?

Re: What should/will/would look like tBfW 2.0?

Re: What should/will/would look like tBfW 2.0?