myah, I'm used to chatting with people more my age in situations where "shut up" would nominally be seen in a friendly kind of way. I guess the DBB is not one of those placesDiedel wrote:How can you expect me to understand that kind of humor of yours I'd need to know you face to face to understand it, if I do not know you face to face? This is something you just don't say easily to somebody you don't know.
Because I felt I had to justity my methods by saying why I hadn't noticed and fixed it. I don't like looking bad without having and making known some real reason for it. Don't ask me why. Is it something I should avoid doing?Diedel wrote:So why the comment?
How was I supposed to know you were going to perform a diff? It's practically unheard of from my small corner in the world. I've never worked in a programming team before. Does MSVC even have the capability of doing a diff? I haven't looked, though I'm sure I could have made use of such a feature by now.Diedel wrote:If you know that, and you know you changed (quite) some formatting, what do you believe a diff will produce in terms of quantity?
That was after you had lit my fuse thoughDiedel wrote:You boast pretty much with your screen shot.
But that doesn't make it any less wrong of me.No, not really. Depth testing is a fairly expensive operation that was not being performed before.Diedel wrote:It's rather strange that you only get 66% of the original frame rate and not 100%.
But regardless, the FPS should be sitting at the cap; I see no reason why it shouldn't. Not very much is getting drawn. The rendering pipeline, which is much more akin to a pipe dream, needs much attention. I'll start looking at that next. I'm going to try to thoroughly process the OpenGL routines, removing things that are no longer used or dead. Yes, I'll keep a log, but I'm not going to detail the things I remove (there's just way too much now-useless crap in there).
Because not all of the cubes are drawn before they should be. I think it has something to do with the sorting routine using the number of cubes deep a particular cube is, and not how deep it actually is. Which would have been computationally expensive to implement way back in the day when they didn't much care for complex level geometry, so it's understandable at least. This does not easily explain the artifacts as seen in Dogfight, however (the faces would have to be sorted in some weird way...bleh, I dunno). But now that we have multi gigahertz machines, perhaps now is a good time to fix that? Because manually sorting and drawing cubes by their Z depth would be quicker than using the depth buffer. I dunno though, maybe it's not worth the effort to implement it. And if the rest of the rednering pipe dream can be optimized enough, it won't matter.Diedel wrote:So why is it that a huge face does not cover all faces in front of it but inside the bounds of its 2D projection when it is "mis-rendered"?
Interesting way of looking at it. I suppose there's really no other term for that than "coding style", because how effectively you code is so dependent upon how effectively you work with others, and so on.Diedel wrote:Coding style is not just how you write down your lines of code. It's how you organize everything, how diligently you check for bugs (see gr_do_palfx()), how diligently you check other coders' stuff (bool/int bLegacyZBuf), how well you mark and document your changes, how you communicate your changes, etc.
I'm lazy, and sometimes do things without a clear perspective on them (especially when I'm depressed or otherwise not mentally functioning well). And again, I've never worked in a programming team before, where all of these things you mention here become key.
I didn't like it either, hence my addition to the top. It was 4 am, and I didn't like how you were telling me I was wrong when, to me, it was so obvious that I was right. Those two combined with the effects of my sickness at the time resulted in that post. Again, my apologies.Diedel wrote:I have to say that I did not like at all the tone of your last post, and it looks very much to me like you were simply trying to get the better of me somehow, to show that in the end you are the better coder or whatever. I don't know what urges you to do so though. I have acknowledged your solutions where they worked so far, so no need to prove something.
LOL, that's great.Diedel wrote:My remark about 10 English and one German words for "schlampig" btw. was my kind of humor. Doh.
Hmm, interesting. I didn't know the meanings of many of these fairly uncommon words.
So, schlampig is basically sloppy and uncautious. It is not, then, any of these:Dictionary.com wrote:diligent, adj.
Marked by persevering, painstaking effort.
The others that I looked at are similar in their irrelevance (uh oh, I'm getting lazy again, I didn't look at them allDictionary.com wrote:blowzy, adj.
1. Having a coarsely ruddy and bloated appearance.
2. Disheveled and frowzy; unkempt: blowzy hair.
dowdy, adjective
1. Lacking stylishness or neatness; shabby: a dowdy gray outfit.
2. Old-fashioned; antiquated.
). Some contain "uncautious" and "sloppy", but their connotation overall is much more severe. And try looking at the definitions of the words rooted "slut" Hmm, I'm curious as to what exactly... I'll have to give that a try.Diedel wrote:Turning off the depth test when drawing objects helps, but causes other problems.
I knew it would improve the FPS, but I didn't think it'd improve it that much. Woah. It would probably cost less to just draw a pair of black triangles on the background first thing. But that's not necessary anyway, as there aren't normally broken shells in D2 
The -legacyzbuf code actually didn't use the color buffer clear, either. The Z clear, however, is still quite necessary (no, I didn't find that out via trial and error... although it would be kinda interesting to see, now I wanna give it a try hehe).
"Shut up" is considered very impolite by me (even more as you are less than half my age 
).
