DOS

simulacra · Mon 17/10/2005 02:08:15

Is the DOS engine scrapped permanently? I miss it! :'(

monkey0506 · Mon 17/10/2005 02:41:47

Maybe if everyone begs really loudly...

I'd never use it, so I can't say that I miss it too much to be truthful.

Gilbert · Mon 17/10/2005 03:14:12

That's actually the reason I'm not using V2.7, V2.62 contains everything I need anyway.

scotch · Mon 17/10/2005 06:22:31

Did anyone honestly use it? I'd encourage CJ to look at adding new modern features (hardware accelerated graphics!)instead of trying to keep compatability with DOS. Lets face it, if your PC is powerful enough to be running AGS games at a decent speed (with the possible exception of the odd 320x200x256+midi game) then it is almost certainly running a modern OS like windows, mac or linux.

edmundito · Mon 17/10/2005 06:37:41

2.61 is supporting dos.. and I think for those of who still wanna do DOS stuff, 2.61 has everything everyone needs.

Now is the time to bring AGS to modern times, so that other adventure game tool makers stop making fun of it for being so slow, you know?

Gilbert · Mon 17/10/2005 08:01:19

I honestly use it, just use V2.62 the currently last version supporting DOS.

I'm not for hardware accelerations and such fanciness, they're for cowards!

Elliott Hird · Mon 17/10/2005 10:51:22

2.3 had the editor in dos too, you can download it somewhere.

simulacra · Mon 17/10/2005 11:58:37

Well, I'd actually rather have a smoothly running game than not. But couldn't such features be disabled on a DOS version? Maybe that's more work than it's worth.

Gilbert · Mon 17/10/2005 12:06:30

Well if you had read the posts in this forum you'll know why the DOS engine is absent for more recent versions, it's not because of feature missing, etc., in short:
Some poor guy had a hard drive crash, when everything were set up back to normal, he's too lazy to set up the environment required for compiling the DOS engine...

Pumaman · Mon 17/10/2005 18:48:04

Precisely.

It's simply not worth the hassle of getting the DOS compiler set up again from my point of view ... nobody (except Gilbert

) that I know of actually uses the DOS engine any more so I don't see any point in supporting it.

Elliott Hird · Mon 17/10/2005 20:59:35

This won't have any effect, but I'd use it. It's a nice addition to download pages

.

"Avaliable for Windows, DOS, Linux and Mac"

Joseph DiPerla · Mon 17/10/2005 22:39:45

Not that I would want to push this too far. But I use to play games which were fully compatible in DOS (IE: no plugins). Reason for this is becouse I have a dos emulator for my PocketPC and my brother has a DOS emulator for his Palm and we run the >2.62 games under dos on the emulator.

Thats why I personally liked it. And I still play those games made with that version.

Janik · Tue 18/10/2005 03:56:49

Speaking of the DOS compiler, the New Game dialog still gives this warning if you use a long game name:

---------------------------
Warning
---------------------------
You have given a folder name longer than 8 characters. You will not be able to create a DOS target with this name. Continue anyway?
---------------------------
Yes No
---------------------------

... which seems unnecessary now.

fovmester · Tue 18/10/2005 05:51:04

I think it's time to bury DOS and get on with our lives.

Rui 'Trovatore' Pires · Tue 18/10/2005 08:49:49

Janik - Not to mention we can still choose to output a WINDOWS or DOS exe.

Me, I don't much care for the DOS version, much like fovvie, but methinks it's time to actually make a decision. For completeness' sake, it'd be nice to have the DOS engine back on - if not, then strip the editor of at least these two relics.

Elliott Hird · Tue 18/10/2005 10:43:44

Yes, please do it. It can't be too hard just to set up a compiler that'll work with it.

monkey0506 · Tue 18/10/2005 22:37:35

Well, Elliot, if it's not so hard, then do it yourself.

It's not so simple as just deciding to do it...

Elliott Hird · Wed 19/10/2005 10:58:39

You know, if I had the code, I would, but AGS isn't open source is it

?

Pumaman · Wed 19/10/2005 23:23:34

Quote from: Elliott Hird on Tue 18/10/2005 10:43:44
Yes, please do it. It can't be too hard just to set up a compiler that'll work with it.

Is there a genuine reason why you want the DOS engine?

Joseph DiPerla · Thu 20/10/2005 00:59:29

Yeah I agree with CJ. As much as I would want it back for my pocketpc and as much as Gilbert would want it as well, I wouldn't want to give CJ the task of redoing a DOS engine if noone has a real use for it.

I would rather have CJ program more features and bugfixes than a DOS engine.

The only thing I would suggest would be that either Steve McCrae or EvilTypeGuy would do it becouse their source would be more convertible to DOS, I would especially think ETG's source would be most useful to do it.

But then again, I am not a very good C/C++ programmer and may be wrong. But if we are going to have a DOS engine, then I think someone other than CJ should do it so that he has more time for more bugfixes and features.