rtc 3057 scripts

how do i view the scripts in that wad? all of the "scripts" entries in the wad just have #include "scriptname.acs"

i've looked through the wad, but i cant find them...

SirBardCat said:

how do i view the scripts in that wad?

You don't.

and can't. The levels where complied using external .acs files for orginization (i'm assuming). Is there a specific piece you where trying to look up?

They are not there - which IMO is pathetic. It's only one of two major project that doesn't include the scripts or at least offer a separate download. (the other being Cold As Hell for which the omission was even worse.)

Even though I managed to decompile them the output is nowhere near a state that allows recompilation.

Do they have to?

The gravy grows ripe at this time of year.

Strictly speaking: no.
As a matter of courtesy: yes.

It's just extemely bad style.

Bad style? It's an ongoing project. A LOT of the scripts used in Hub1 are being re-used in the other hubs.. I thin it's fair enough for the team to protect their stuff, at least for the time being.

And besides, how can you complain about not getting something for nothing?

Protect what? The scripts aren't that special.

As I said, I was able to decompile them to a readable state so I was able to analyze them.

The non-map specific stuff except the log texts which make up the bulk of them is only 30kb of ACS source code. Daedalus has 3-4 times as much global code.

If they're "nothing special" why are you having a hissy fit over not being able to steal them?

Graf Zahl said:

Protect what? The scripts aren't that special.

As I said, I was able to decompile them to a readable state so I was able to analyze them.

The non-map specific stuff except the log texts which make up the bulk of them is only 30kb of ACS source code. Daedalus has 3-4 times as much global code.

Well then why were you trying to decompile them if they weren't anything special.

Oh, and more code != more better

EDIT: DAMN YOU AIRRAID!

AgentSpork said:

Well then why were you trying to decompile them if they weren't anything special.

To analyze them. From just looking at the binary code there is not much to tell about their complexity.

Oh, and more code != more better

Nobody said that. It's just that what is there is not worth the secrecy.

They should have the right to keep their scripts in secrecy if they so desire. Maybe they don't want people stealing and using their scripts?

I'm sure they already get enough people who try to steal their other resources (textures and whatnot)

Rufler is a kind of bread in denmark.

(> ----> (Graf Zahl)

Too bad that ACS doesn't require the source to run. Otherwise we wouldn't have this discussion.

And otherwise I'd still have this WAD on my HD but since I absolutely can't stand the music it uses and I can't do much about it (due to the frequent changes) I dumped it after playing...

So, to recap, you've pretty much lost your agrument so now you're falling back to insulting the WAD in a hope to regain some credibility.

AirRaid said:

So, to recap, you've pretty much lost your agrument so now you're falling back to insulting the WAD in a hope to regain some credibility.

What? Just because I don't like the music?

I think we are back at the start. I still think it's pathetic.

But to be honest, I never expected that this discussion would change anything. The reactions were exactly what I expected.

This exact same argument started when Daedalus was released without script source but back then the reaction of TeamTNT was to release the scripts as a separate download. Talk about good PR!

How exactly is that pathetic, and why does it matter at all? People should be able to keep their scripts private if they so desire. It's not like there's a GPL license surrounding ACS code that requires them to reveal it if someone wants to look at it.

And then catastrophes like Cold as Hell happen. That WAD has such serious scripting issues that it becomes close to unplayable. That thing was an utterly hopeless cause in its released form.

It could have been one of the greatest WADs of 2004 but on my list it ranks as 'needlessly destroyed by the author'.

I can understand that a WAD author wants to keep his "special" stuff a secret (or at least, hidden from the eyes of the Unwashed Masses). Especially if a sequal is planned! You'd want people to know that it was you who came up with that "special" thingie, and that is not going to be likely if they all start copying you. Worse, you'll get mail from angry fans that "you stole that from this other guy" :)

On the other hand, our little community certainly does not benefit from jealously guarding innovative stuff. Imagine you couldn't look at other people's levels in an editor, to see how they did things... ack! Most of you would still be baffled as how to make raising stairs!

Still, adapting existing scripts to your own ends involves little skill so in that regard it's different from the normal level stuff. You can't just "adapt" level stuff... you'd really need to know how to use an editor... but everyone can write :)

So I guess this is up to the authors. Just one question... how did you learn scripting in the first place..?

Well.
Learning the basics of how to script is what those wonderful ACS tutorial wads are for. When it comes to the more advanced things, people are often lazy and just copy the segment, change a few things and generally plug it in to their own stuff. We saw that the last time.

If you are to create a unique experience, it would be really annoying if parts of what you had already done popped up in other 'products' and were really nothing but cheap copies. Whenever we're done we may consider 'releasing' the resources including scripts, but that is not at all certain. Perhaps we'll create tutorials on how to make the more advanced stuff, but as of now you'll just have to create your own methods.

As for Graf Zahl, he obviously does not need to read these scripts to learn.

Shaviro said:
Learning the basics of how to script is what those wonderful ACS tutorial wads are for.

Point being that in order to learn things (any thing, really), a practical example works best.

If you are to create a unique experience, it would be really annoying if parts of what you had already done popped up in other 'products'

Yes.

But do keep in mind that RTC is more than just its scripts. It's the overal experience... storyline, texture set, theme, design, gameflow, etc. Generally speaking, people who tend to 'borrow' stuff don't get all those things right. Not by a mile, really.

Plus, a "unique experience" does not equal to "only occurrence" :)

Personally, I think it's up to the RTC team what they want and don't want to release.

Graf Zahl said:

And then catastrophes like Cold as Hell happen. That WAD has such serious scripting issues that it becomes close to unplayable. That thing was an utterly hopeless cause in its released form.

It could have been one of the greatest WADs of 2004 but on my list it ranks as 'needlessly destroyed by the author'.

Dumbass, Cold as Hell is supposed to be run with ZDoom 2.0.63a, and it says so in the fucking text file. Stop your bitching and put .63a in a folder separate from .96.

Calling a team Pathetic cause they don't include the scripts in their 100% free to play project that also is incredibly good, is rather absurd.

It's Team Future's scripts, they do what they want with them.

And besides that, you'd think some people can't fucking lift a finger to use an ACS decompiler on the BEHAVIOR lumps and use a little common sense to correct the syntax.

BTW, Graph. Last time I checked, you could turn off music in Doom.

Darkhaven said:

Dumbass, Cold as Hell is supposed to be run with ZDoom 2.0.63a, and it says so in the fucking text file. Stop your bitching and put .63a in a folder separate from .96.

Who's the dumbass here? I think your title makes it quite clear.

And no, I won't put .63a in a separate folder to play this WAD in its released form again. It was just too frustrating to play. This was not about version incompatibilities (although it is really unbelievable how someone can totally screw up scripts in a way that they stop working from one version to the next.) buzt I really disliked the way the scripts interfered with gameplay. The reloading stuff was the worst of all.

And besides that, you'd think some people can't fucking lift a finger to use an ACS decompiler on the BEHAVIOR lumps and use a little common sense to correct the syntax.

Just for your information: There is no functional decompiler for enhanced ACS. The object format is just far too messy and with the lastest versions some optimizations have been added that make it even worse. So far I only got readable but not compilable scripts out of my attempts.

You people are silly. If somebody doesn't want to give away their source, they don't want to give away their source. The End.

Graf Zahl said:

Who's the dumbass here? I think your title makes it quite clear.

I think if I had that title it would be quite obvious I did not care if it were there or not.

Graf Zahl said:

And no, I won't put .63a in a separate folder to play this WAD in its released form again.

Lazy faggot.

Graf Zahl said:

It was just too frustrating to play.

If you're using version 2.0.9x then yes it is frustrating. You are right.

Graf Zahl said:

This was not about version incompatibilities

At the risk of sounding even more like a CaH fanboy, yes this is. The only reported incidents of CaH running erratically or in an undesired fashion are when the users in question were playing on a version other than 2.0.63a. Or you just don't like unbelievable progresses in control over the entire game.

Graf Zahl said:

(although it is really unbelievable how someone can totally screw up scripts in a way that they stop working from one version to the next.)

(although it is really unbelievable how John Carmack had no idea that Windows XP would come out so he could put code for it to run in XP-platforms.)

Graf Zahl said:

buzt I really disliked the way the scripts interfered with gameplay. The reloading stuff was the worst of all.

I rest my case.

Graf Zahl said:

Just for your information: There is no functional decompiler for enhanced ACS. The object format is just far too messy and with the lastest versions some optimizations have been added that make it even worse. So far I only got readable but not compilable scripts out of my attempts.

Stop being a lazy-ass and fix the scripts yourself. It's not that hard to take a quick peek over the whole script to see if there are any syntax errors. And besides that, it is VERY obvious when new features in ACS are used that weren't in the original Hexen ACS format.