Is the DOS engine scrapped permanently? I miss it! :'(
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.
That's actually the reason I'm not using V2.7, V2.62 contains everything I need anyway.
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.
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?
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! :=
2.3 had the editor in dos too, you can download it somewhere.
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.
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...
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.
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"
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.
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. :)
I think it's time to bury DOS and get on with our lives.
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.
Yes, please do it. It can't be too hard just to set up a compiler that'll work with it.
Well, Elliot, if it's not so hard, then do it yourself. :=
It's not so simple as just deciding to do it... :P
You know, if I had the code, I would, but AGS isn't open source is it :P?
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?
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.
If it used to be a pseudo-port of the windows one, then i doubt it would be a port of a linux engine if it comes back.
Quote from: Joseph DiPerla on Thu 20/10/2005 00:59:29
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.
All AGS code comes from the same codebase, there isn't a "Linux" codebase, "Mac" codebase, etc. This is one reason why any of us have time to work on AGS at all. Every fix the other ports put in benefits all of them. Chris' hard work over the years is why AGS is a fairly nice to work with port wise.