Code center > Bugs and fixes
Why aren't you using 2.42?
EricL:
Wow. This is so... disillusioning. I suppose I should have done my homework before investing time and energy on something people are so strongly divided on. As a newbie, I assumed that there had been consensus (or at least tremendous community input) on the direction taken in 2.4 and that people lingered on 2.37 today only because 2.4 functionality was buggy or incomplete. That given sufficient stability, functionality and active, technical investment in bug fixing and feature parity by an enthusastic and technicaly capable party, the community would converge on a 2.4 derritive. I assumed there was a plan. I now stand corrected.
I had likewise assumed that there had been considerable community input into the feature set of the C++ version and that it was a no brainer that people would similarly move to that once it also acheived an acceptable level of feature parity and robustness. But given this thread, how can I not but question whether that is indeed the case?
Hmmm....
I have no interest in spending time on something people care nothing about. Yet, there are features I have strong personal interest in implementing, if only for my own enjoyment. Doing that off the 2.37 code base seems silly (to me) given the investment I have made in 2.42.X. I, for one, certainly do not consider 2.4 'abandoned' having spent the better part of the past month working on it. Those who do are welcome to continue to live in the past on a stagnent code base.
Similarly, while I assume Nums is a brilliant individual with tremendous vision, until it has gained significant community support (or someone can demonstrate to me that it has a high probability of doing so) I find my motivation for investment on the C++ code base at the present time highly diminished.
So for my part, I plan to continue to work on the 2.4 code base if for no other reason than my own edification until such time I get bored or the C++ fork is far enough along to attract my attention. If there is interest, I will continue to post releases and source code. I will also entertain and solicit bug reports and feature requests, including feature parity with 2.37.6. Any substative input people wish to give me towards this goal is of course, welcome.
-E
Testlund:
Well... I had expected more people to be interested in 2.42 now when so many bugs have been fixed. 2.42 has more features like costs for instance. I like that. I don't see why anyone whould like to use 2.37 where you can't load a saved sim. I know some of you have more than one computer where you can use one to run a sim endlessly. I only have one computer and I need to quit the program from time to time to do other stuff. It's not fun to run a long sim and then it will be gone just because you had to quit the program. PY said he didn't think that was important to fix.
I'm glad that you want to continue to work on 2.42, Eric. I'm also interested in trying out 2.5. I'm happy with the features that have been put into DB over time. Seems like most of us agrees with what should be in DB and not. I have allways thought that DB should assemble real cells living in a water as much as possible. I think DB behaves like that more than any other a-life program I've seen.
Griz:
--- Quote ---So for my part, I plan to continue to work on the 2.4 code base if for no other reason than my own edification
--- End quote ---
hi eric.'
I would have liked to see 2.37.6 be the program that continued to evolve ...
rather than the 2.4X ...
but ... I got no say and gotta play with what is dealt.
PY did a lot of work on 2.37.6 ... cleaning up many bugs. great.
and I appreciate all your work on 2.42.2 as well ...
so I continue to use both ... as tools to assist me in learing VB
programming more than anything else.
so I hope you do continue to evolve 2.42.X ...
and continue to allow me and others to benefit from your work.
great stuff you are doing. imo. thanks.
IF you are going to tweak it ...
how about taking a look at the King Bot feature ...
and how it determines King Bot.
Form1 function fittest and Function score Line 1241
Nums had a InvestedEnergy thing in there but had problems with it
and ended up setting InvestedEnergy to 1, elsewhere.
Form1 Function InvestedEnergy line 1300.
had some discussion with Nums in this thread:
Survival-of-the-fittest
messages # 18, 27, 28, 30, 34, 36,
I put it back in and it seemed to work for me.
see messages #41, 43, 45
and I was hoping to end up with a User Defined Selection Criteria window.
messages #47, 48, 49
in case you're interested.
thanks again for all the work ...
I for one do ineed appreciate the effort ...
and it is due to this that my interest in DB has been revived ...
as it seemed to have become rather stalled in place.
I had pretty much lost interest.
still great potential here.
thanks again eric.
PurpleYouko:
--- Quote ---PY said he didn't think that was important to fix.
--- End quote ---
Not exactly Testlund. I think you may be misremembering our conversations a little.
As I recall the problem was that I could never manage to reproduce your problem. 2.37.6 saves and loads absolutely perfectly for me. I do it all the time with absolutely no problems.
For some reason I have had a lot of trouble reproducing the errors that you reported while we were debugging 2.37.6. In general I couldn't make any of them fail and still haven't to this day.
As it stands right now I am unaware of any issues with 2.37.6 that would cause it to malfunction in any way. I understood that it was working for everybody now. (with the possible exception of Testlund)
Numsgil:
Testlund is a magic bug finder. It's his gift
As I understand it the major issue with 2.4 is older bots not working because of the dynamic sizes. In reality, that was such a minor, one day effort it boggles my mind at the number of issues it raised. Sorry, I thought it would be neat
The fix I posted in the Bugs and Fixes forum for making bots see better in 2.4 should actually fix it so older bots work like they always did. Really and for truly.
The only other thing is ties, which are apparently broken because too much had been stashed in the tie physics routines which were discarded. That's not a simple fix but it's definately doable.
The only other issue I can think of is psychological barriers. Having so many buggy versions of 2.4 makes people subconciously assume any 2.4 derivative is buggy. That's part of the reason I stopped working on 2.4.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version