Messages

The only real solution to this is to completely revamp sprite and room storage in the project. Both is in plans for a while, but someone got to work on implementing this in the editor. I know that ChamberOfFear (aka persn on github) was working on rooms recently. I guess we just need to stop adding new stuff and focus on improving existing functionality (actually had to do this years ago).

Just for the record.. I'm very close to finishing a first draft of the room stuff that can be sent in for a PR, what is missing is testing the file watcher and building .crm files from the open room format, the room editor is already working with the open format in my local branch and it is working well. I was planning on starting on the sprite stuff when I'm done with the rooms, but I had to take a break from AGS development because I got back issues so I can't sit too much in front of a computer until it's sorted out.

While we're on the subject, does the sprite storage revamp has a Github Issue that explains what needs to be done and what else might be relevant for the problem? I haven't seen one but maybe I'm bad at searching

Code coverage comes in different standard formats which CI systems need to present the data, Cobertura, Lcov, etc.

Pretty cool. Some stretch goals would be to build an editor plugin that gives a test explorer similar to the one in IDEs like Visual Studio, and getting test coverage from the test results.

I concur with Snarky

[Content]

A question about including resources:

The default value for build action when I add a new resource is Content. I noticed that you use Embedded resource in the demo game. What is the difference between those actions and why did you pick embedded resource?

Embedded resource means that the file will quite literally will be embedded into the .exe that is built by the .NET compiler. If you go into the build directory of your game you will notice that the file can't be found, but the .exe is a little bigger in size.

Content will add the file into the build directory unaltered.

Choosing one over the other is a preference, doesn't really matter. I guess if you want to hide your assets from the end consumer then embedded resource makes sense, however anyone who is really interested in seeing assets will be able to if they know how.

My vote is drop support for Windows XP, but maybe wait to update .NET until AGS v3.5.0 so that Windows XP users can keep using prevous versions and receive minor bugfix support on v3.4.x

Deleting global.json works.

The console output looks like this when I run without the correct version installed

Code: ags

$ dotnet run
The specified SDK version [2.0.2] from global.json [E:\Programming\MonoAGS\global.json] not found; install specified SDK version

Well it's not available for download https://www.microsoft.com/net/download/all
Any other way? I'll try from within VS.

https://github.com/dotnet/core/blob/master/release-notes/download-archives/2.0.2-sdk-download.md

You could also just wait for tzachs to fix it. I don't think it's supposed to have a strict requirement to a specific version of dotnet core

I noticed the same thing when I was trying last night. I had to install the exact version of dotnet Core that was specified in the global.json, that is v2.0.2. If I tried any other version, higher or lower, for instance v2.1.105 it wouldn't work.

EDIT: I'm not by my computer right now, but I think runinng the command `dotnet --version` on the command line while in the project folder output an error message about the global.json file, if I was using a dotnet version that wasn't supported by the project.

You probably don't have Xamarin installed. Do you really need to test the mobile platforms? It should be safe to continue and just ignore the projects that didn't load.

Does this means that in the new version we'll be scripting in C#? Nice.

Sorry to disappoint but that's not what that means. It's probably a little open to interpretation since Crimson Wizard mentioned C# version which isn't relevant to the end user. Anyway, the Editor is made in C# .NET, and we recently upgraded the .NET version, so now users need to make sure they have the corresponding .NET version, that's all.

Merged to master. Hooray

You mean AGS 4?

I support it.

It's possible to better hide the VS Code UI (i.e. suppress shortcuts) so it feels like one application rather than two glued together

Yeah, it's possible. We don't even have to modify any source code as far as I can tell, just provide our own keybindings.json to suppress conflicts.

I see, that's interesting. In that case wouldn't a C# to JS transpiler be sufficient? Bridge.NET looks very professional and complete, I'm not sure if the license allows us to use it, don't feel like reading it from top to bottom.

• Homepage
• Source code
• License

I'm sorry but you completely lost me. Why does it matter that extensions are written in JS? Why do we need to compile C# to JS? I don't understand what use-case you're trying to solve.

[Edit:]

I don't think so; I think they made it misleading on purpose : https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/issues/17996
It's written here and there on the Internet that the source code is MIT, but that the EULA states that the use of the software is still licensed, whatever that means.

If it turns out that VSCode is indeed free in every way, then it can become a good candidate. But some effort still needs to be put asap into packaging the thing with MonoAGS, which could be far from trivial.

I wish I had more time to engross myself in this, but I'm just going to comment this one thing. Doesn't the second post in the issue you linked to contradict your conclusion? In fact, it looks like VS Code meets most of your criterieas, even the one with rebranding (looks like it was designed to meet these criteria), as long as we build it ourselves, which we were going to have to do anyway if we want the blue cup. https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/issues/17996#issuecomment-273994925

For it to be a viable candidate we'll still need to figure out how to bundle the C# plugin with it of course, and a compiler still has to be included.

Edit:
It looks like plugins can be bundled fairly easy assuming we're using an installer, we'd just have to install them to their designated paths https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/extensions/example-hello-world#_installing-your-extension-locally

The fact that the game designer can carry around his CLI tools is not an answer either. He/she wants to press "play", not type command line commands to run compilation.

Maybe I was being ambiguous in my previous post, but I hope it was understood that I wasn't actually suggesting that the user of the IDE was going to type commands, because that's just insane. The dotnet CLI tools would just be prerequisite to install, in the same way that the .NET runtime and Visual C++ redistributables already is for the current AGS. The actual command typing commands would be handled "under the hood" in the IDE. From the end users perspective it would still be a build and/or play button, like we already have.

I didn't have time to read @tzachs post since I'm at work so I hope I didn't say something that was already said.

Even if it's a free Visual Studio, we can't redistribute it bla bla bla ...

I presume you got too hung up on Visual Studio that you took the time to breathe and realize that there are other options (The fact that you mentioned SharpDevelop as an option suggests to me that you're not really up to date). A ton of stuff has happened with the .NET eco system since they open sourced it. You can use Visual Studio if you like, you can use MonoDevelop you like, you can use Atom, you can use Visual Studio Code, you can use ViM, you can use eMacs, you can even use notepad and command line build tools. There's not really any restrictions anymore since Microsoft released the dotnet CLI tools, which is a lot more user friendly than MSBuild. Support for writing and building C# is easy, accessible and free.

Presumably the future IDE would be distributed with the dotnet CLI tools included, so that anyone would be able to build the game. If you need to code you could download you favorite code editor software, which most likely has a plugin for C# building. I have a hard time picturing a coder which wouldn't be delighted over the opportunity to use their favorite tool for game development.

Merged to master in Pull Request #425