ZFGC
ZFGC CP => King of Thieves => Management => Topic started by: thestig on October 13, 2012, 06:30:09 pm
-
So we're at 81% of all of the tasks completed for release 1 of the engine.
Steve, I want some input from you on the Issue #33 so we can at least get that moving a little bit. I'm going to try knocking out Issue #25, and maybe poking around at #31. Issue #5 only requires a working method in swapping batches out on the fly.
I know we normally keep our discussions in the issues, but I figured this would be a good way to keep us on track by taking some discussions here.
-
So, if you get to 100% what will happen?
-
We release the engine, open up the repository/issue tracker, and people can start participating in coding.
The engine's only the core component, we have yet another large hurdle to cross and that's the editor to go along with the engine. But given the situation we're all in, its better to just release the engine now and work to familiarize people with the internals before we begin building an interface on top of the stuff.
Pretty much the next phase in the development process.
-
Just posted on issue 33, I'm working on 30 and 32.
-
Issue #26 is a duplicate of 32.
Also this will be the last week I'll be able to really afford doing much with my time as I start a 5-week class in addition to my load already. So.. yeah. We're probably seeing a December/Thanksgiving release easy.
-
Ok I am tackling issues #39, and #34. To be honest, issue #33 can be resolved by putting up a user poll or just selecting the current result that has most favortism.
For issues #39 and 34, you will be able to demo them via my branch.
That being said, I can finish issue #25 by the end of this week which means we'll have completed the remaining critical components. Most of the stuff after that would be either writing examples or documentation.
-
Do we have a spritesheet of just the sword btw? The swinging animation in particular. I can throw it together if we don't.
EDIT: Done
-
Good stuff.
I'm going to revise the imageIndex handler with my upcoming commit that may be pushed out later today or tomorrow. Btw, try to take it easy on the commits until I resolve issues 39/34. It's going to be interesting to merge my branch with master once this stuff starts getting sent up. I mean if you can keep on working, then just do it anyways.. I'll make the merge work no matter what. (actually considering that you're unemployed now it might be a good idea to just exploit that extra time when you can)
Speaking of which, that packet protocol that you sent up, are you planning on setting up a standard around it or are you going to have it abstract in such a way where the end-developer decides how to program the protocol? What I'm asking is, are we going to be tagging commNet's packets with -ENGINE- or -USER- tags? I was going to suggest that maybe we somehow differentiate stuff that are inspired by the engine or the users. I know its sole purpose is for actor communication but it was just a thought.
-
I wasn't planning on making it abstract, no. I don't know if tagging it -ENGINE- vs -USER- really fits the scope because the purpose of it is for user defined events that can be called by another actor. We'll see though, if the need for it arises it will be added!
-
I wasn't planning on making it abstract, no. I don't know if tagging it -ENGINE- vs -USER- really fits the scope because the purpose of it is for user defined events that can be called by another actor. We'll see though, if the need for it arises it will be added!
Ok then what you're approaching with commNet is more clear to me now. I apologize for the confusion. I was under the impression that you were attempting to do a state/event messenger protocol.