OpenMW 0.10.0

A generic talk on the OpenMW project.
Locked
User avatar
lgromanowski
Site Admin
Posts: 1193
Joined: 05 Aug 2011, 22:21
Location: Wroclaw, Poland
Github profile: https://github.com/lgromanowski
Contact:

OpenMW 0.10.0

Post by lgromanowski » 21 Aug 2011, 21:27

Zini wrote: There is only one open task left on the roadmap (display FPS). It would be great if someone with some MyGUI experience could take it.

The key feature for this release is the physics. Gus is still in an early stage of his work, but I suggest that we have a release as soon as he is done with it. All other tasks can be moved to 0.11.0, if needed.

Personally I would really like the Linux resources path problems to be sorted out before the release, but that is not a show-stopper.

Edit: To make sure that there are no misunderstandings: With "physics" I mean all tasks assigned to gus. This includes replacing the raycasting activation test.
Zini wrote: Time to set the release planning into motion. Most of the show-stopper tasks are on gus table, so the actual release date will mostly depend on how much time he has available for OpenMW. But we should start wrapping things up anyway.

I would like to see a comment from people who were recently active and still have unfinished work on github, especially:

Mach: What is the state on the tab-complication feature? Are you still working on it?

jhooks: Animations? What is the state? I guess you are not done yet, right? Can your branch be merged in anyway (is it in a presentable state)? Also, what about the NPC-rendering related crash-bug we had in the previous release. Has this one been addressed?

peppe: You are carrying a branch around with you, that contains mostly GUI cleanup as far as I can see. Do you want it merged for the next release?

dhardy: Any progress? I know you did some work on the performance, but what about the Windows-Linux path problem? I would really love to get this in, so we can finally start to do some more extensive testing on Linux.
Peppe wrote:
Zini wrote:peppe: You are carrying a branch around with you, that contains mostly GUI cleanup as far as I can see. Do you want it merged for the next release?
Primary reason I have had it laying around for so long is that the first commit in the queue is not really testable at this point as npc activation is not working.

Besides that I'm not really done with the generalization of window handling I started a few week ago. I'll look at breaking that into a branch of it's own.
Zini wrote: Okay. Hopefully the NPC activation will work again in 0.10.0.

Also it seems, that your minor_fixes branch sorted out the NPC crash bug I was asking jhooks about.
jhooks1 wrote: I haven't touched OpenMW in over a month. What I have now is not really presentable.
Zini wrote: Any chance you can wrap it up within a week or two? The animation code I currently have in my master branch can't go into the release this way. It causes substantial malfunctions. I think we talked about it in the animation/NPC-rendering thread already.
Zini wrote: It seems we will have an OS X maintainer now. That means 0.10.0 will support all three major platforms again.
jhooks1 wrote: I'll see if I can get something done soon, can't guarantee it though.
Zini wrote: Okay, thanks. Doesn't have to be perfect. We just need to get enough fixes into the master branch, that running OpenMW doesn't result in error message spam anymore.
Zini wrote: @jhooks1: Just a thought: We don't actually need most of the recent NPC improvements for this release. What we need is the screen node fix, that is somewhere in there in your branch (I believe). Is it possible to rebase it or to manually transfer it?
Zini wrote: Based on the assumption that we won't get the NPC branch ready in time for 0.10.0 I added a quick workaround in my master branch that avoids the exception spam. Together with the new activation code this should get rid of all NPC-rendering based annoyances except for the occasional "No skeleton for" messages, which will have to be addressed separately at another time.

Looks like the physics is the only show-stopper left now. And considering gus' latest postings we have all features in already (though I still don't see the last one on github). So all left to do is some debugging and a bit of cleanup.
chewit wrote: Contacted the Packages builders a few days ago, still awaiting their packages.

Hopefully 0.10.0 wont be too far away.
corristo wrote: you didn't contact me :)
here is mac package: https://github.com/downloads/corristo/o ... 200.10.dmg
chewit wrote: OK, thats weried. Its appeared i didn't seen a message. Something messed up on the PM system. I will try again.

I did contact you, corristo, my fault.
chewit wrote: 0.10.0 is almost ready for release, just waiting for the linux builds.
pvdk wrote: Can we repackage the source to include some upstream bugfixes? I won't be able to provide an AUR package otherwise, as I stumbled upon some bugs with the Boost version Arch has in its repository.
Zini wrote: If you need to use a slightly newer version of OpenMW then do so. But I don't see a reason to change any of the already completed packages (which currently are queued up for the outstanding release). After all they work for their intended platforms.
pvdk wrote: Of course not, no reason to do so, as the bugs aren't critical or anything. I'll provide chewit with a new source package (to put on the Google Code page).
Peppe wrote:
pvdk wrote:Of course not, no reason to do so, as the bugs aren't critical or anything. I'll provide chewit with a new source package (to put on the Google Code page).
I don't know about arch and may be misunderstanding how AUR works. But I believe the more common approach as a packager would be to include the official source package and a patch to it rather than make a completely new source package.
pvdk wrote: Yeah but since I'm the source package provider I can do it this way :) But if you don't like it I can do it with patches.
chewit wrote: I still have no got the Linux packages. Our linux builder, Hircine, is not not doing it anymore.

So we need a new Linux builder.

I do have the windows and mac builds, and the source package. I can just release 0.10.0 with those.
Zini wrote: Let's wait a bit longer and see, if we can find a Linux volunteer.

I think we need to improve the release process a bit more for future releases. Maybe checking in with the assigned packagers a week or so before the release, so we have time to get backup if someone drops out?
ap0 wrote: I'm gonna try to make a nice tar.gz this week-end for GNU/Linux : I don't promise anything.
Peppe wrote: I built a package for Debian unstable (sid) amd64 using cpack.
http://packages.pappkartong.se/pool/con ... _amd64.deb

It depends on libbullet2.77, a package is available from the same repository.

Source tar.bz2 used:
http://packages.pappkartong.se/src/open ... .0.tar.bz2
Zini wrote: Thanks! Looks like we are finally ready. chewit, release please!
chewit wrote: Thanks peppe!

We already have the source package. Is it possible for you to create a 32bit deb???
Peppe wrote:
chewit wrote:We already have the source package.
Actually what is uploaded on google code as openmw-0.10.0-source.tar.bz2 is not 0.10.0.
It seems to be the current master (74d036a26a1b30613cea1899dfc80ec60bdfad27).
chewit wrote:Is it possible for you to create a 32bit deb???
I'll see if I get bored enough to setup a vm with a 32bit installation tomorrow. That would also be Debian unstable as I don't want to package both ogre and bullet myself.
Zini wrote: New problem. Hircine was our PR manager. He was responsible for spreading news to the various locations where we hold a web presence (see wiki link). Since he isn't doing the work as Linux builder anymore, I assume he won't do the PR either. Do we have any other volunteer?
pvdk wrote:
Peppe wrote:Actually what is uploaded on google code as openmw-0.10.0-source.tar.bz2 is not 0.10.0.
It seems to be the current master (74d036a26a1b30613cea1899dfc80ec60bdfad27).
That's correct, I need some bugfixes committed after the 0.10.0 milestone to get the AUR package to compile. Shouldn't matter that much though as the fixes are quite minor.
Peppe wrote:
pvdk wrote:That's correct, I need some bugfixes committed after the 0.10.0 milestone to get the AUR package to compile. Shouldn't matter that much though as the fixes are quite minor.
At this point I guess it doesn't matter much but when we get something out that people will actually use it would make maintenance and bug report handling a lot easier if the code tagged as the release in the version control system is the actual release.
raevol wrote:
Zini wrote:New problem. Hircine was our PR manager. He was responsible for spreading news to the various locations where we hold a web presence (see wiki link). Since he isn't doing the work as Linux builder anymore, I assume he won't do the PR either. Do we have any other volunteer?
Hey... what about me. :P I'll do some posting right away.
raevol wrote: So I posted to Ohloh, but I don't have access to ModDB, as far as I know. Do we want to post in the various threads in the various communities we have going? Or would that be a bit spammy? I'll check back tonight.
Star-Demon wrote: Setting up now - I'll get on making a video this weekend.
chewit wrote: Done my bit to help PR!

Put a news post on OMG!Ubuntu

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/04/open ... -released/
Zini wrote: Did I just mess up with the PR thing? According to the wiki raevol is our PR manager and as far as I can tell, he was the one, who did most of the PR postings and updates.

raevol, I am sorry.
raevol wrote: Haha no worries. :D There's a lot of people doing a lot of things for PR, so I'm not the only one. Mostly I just post things to Ohloh to be honest...
Star-Demon wrote: Did we post on bethsoft forums?
raevol wrote: http://forums.bethsoft.com/index.php?/t ... d-again-5/

I'm going to update that thread.
Star-Demon wrote: Not for nothing, but I got about 1000 hits in the space of a single day. The community is definitely behind this project.
raevol wrote: Zini: Did I answer this question correctly?:

http://forums.bethsoft.com/index.php?/t ... ry17416082
Zini wrote: Essentially, yes. What you write about graphics improvements is correct. We have some hopes to get better performance compared the MW, but that is still a WIP and we can't say yet how much fast we will actually get.
Star-Demon wrote: You should definitely emphasize the idea that, if they want better graphics, they have to make better models no matter what anyone does.
I can't make a cube into a beautiful sphere.
Also - No MGE/oodoo/whatever needed.
raevol wrote: Replied regarding MGE/etc. We should chat about this at the bethsoft thread or in another thread here though, we're spammin up the release thread. :)
Star-Demon wrote: Sorry about delay, but here's the original compiled version of the video

http://www.mediafire.com/?53e2s321z3ssz58
best regards,
Lukasz

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests