New Release: Darkradiant 0.8.0

[greebo]

Ok, the GTK+ 2.10.11 version seems to be buggy (the orthoview window layout is never saved for some reason), but the GTK+ 2.10.7 seems to work fine (the notebook tabs are displayed correctly when using the chewing gum Windows XP theme).

 

Can you reproduce this? The download is here: http://gladewin32.sourceforge.net/modules/news/

 

If this version works, I'll update the DarkRadiant headers as well.

[greebo]

Hm, the stock icon for GTK_STOCK_SAVE seems to be missing in this version (also confirmed here: http://gladewin32.sourceforge.net/modules/...php?storyid=53). Do you know where these images are stored? Are they within the binaries?

[OrbWeaver]

I don't actually know where the stock images are stored -- I don't recall any bitmaps in the etc or lib directories, so I guess they must be inside the DLLs.

[greebo]

Crap. The GTK+ 2.10.6 has the tab issue with the XP style, the GTK+ 2.10.7 is missing a stock icon and the GTK+ 2.10.11 makes the orthoview windows disappear.

 

What should we do? Should we try a pre-2.10.6 version? Or try to compile DarkRadiant with the 2.10.11 headers (maybe this fixes the issues with the windows disappearing)?

 

There are some intermediate releases available here: http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/binaries/win32/gtk+/2.10/ but these are just ZIPs and don't seem to be official releases, I don't know if it's worth messing around with them.

[greebo]

Ah, I could find a GTK+ 2.10.8 runtime version which has both the stock icon and doesn't mess with the windows. I will assemble a test version and upload it to FTP after a few tests.

[greebo]

I have a working package here with GTK+ 2.10.8 binaries:

 

http://208.49.149.118/TheDarkMod/DarkRadia...N_GTK_210_8.zip

 

This can possibly be used as a template concerning the DLL packaging, I have tested it on a machine without GTK+. If it resolves the problems with the notebook tabs on your system as well, this might be our candidate.

[greebo]

I designed a first version of the DarkRadiant icon and changed the sconscript/sconstruct scripts to compile/link the icon into the executable. It should only affect the Win32 build path, but a check if it compiles under Linux might be appropriate.

[OrbWeaver]

Looking at the icons on my desktop, I think it should in fact be 64x64 rather than 32x32. Would the larger size allow you to keep the "legs" as well? I think this would look better.

 

I'm interested to see how the icon can be embedded in the executable, I didn't realise this was possible with the open-source tools.

[greebo]

I'll have to try - it's a bit difficult because of the 2:1 aspect ratio of the logo which would leave room at the top and the bottom. Maybe it looks good enough when using 64x64 images. The win32 users will always see the 32x32 version, wouldn't they? We could also include a separate 64x64 version for the linux users.

 

edit: You'll have to use windres (packaged in MinGW) to compile an object file from the .rc file in the radiant/ folder. The .o file can be linked against. It was a bit trial and error for me and got a good deal of the knowledge from googling for sconscripts.

[OrbWeaver]

I don't think 64x64 is Linux-specific, looking at the icons on my Windows desktop they are about twice the size of your sample.

[greebo]

I think there's an option for this, my desktop icons are all 32x32 (I never changed the setting). Anyway, windres seems to discard the 64x64 icon size and creates always 32x32 icons.

 

This is what the whole icon looks like and the comparison of the two versions on the desktop. The new desktop icon looks a bit "crunched", I'm more inclined towards the first version, although the new 64x64 icon looks quite good. Should we package both sizes?

[OrbWeaver]

I think the 32x32 version looks OK -- I trimmed the horizontal edges slightly so it wouldn't get reduced down quite as much.

[greebo]

Ok, let's use this version then. I'll commit that version soon.

[greebo]

OrbWeaver, how about pushing DarkRadiant 0.9.0 out of the door today or tomorrow? Then the weekend would be available for people to find the most obvious bugs. Is this feasible? - I don't know your time-table of course.

[OrbWeaver]

I'll see what I can do -- I was in the middle of the regression tests when I discovered the segfault on close, so assuming this is fixed and there are no more critical bugs then it shouldn't be too hard to get a release out.

[greebo]

Perfect.

 

I'll prepare the website in the meantime. Are we gonna package the Objectives plugin as well?

[OrbWeaver]

Are we gonna package the Objectives plugin as well?

 

I'm in two minds about that -- on the one hand, the plugin although incomplete is not entirely useless, whilst on the other hand delivering incomplete functionality might result in user confusion. I guess it could be marked "WIP" or something.

[greebo]

What about a "Dark Mod Plug-Ins" section on the website, where the current versions of these plug-ins can be downloaded? As long as the plugin interface doesn't change, this should work, shouldn't it?

[OrbWeaver]

As long as the plugin interface doesn't change, this should work, shouldn't it?

 

Not sure, there isn't really a plugin interface, rather there is the general module interface to various parts of DarkRadiant which may well change, particularly since there isn't always a good separation between implementation and interface (for example, a GlobalModule returns an object of a class, which is defined in a header file included by both the plugin and the main codebase).

 

For safety I would generally treat DarkRadiant plugins like Linux kernel modules, in that they won't necessarily work for any other version to that which they were compiled against.

[OrbWeaver]

You've probably noticed that there are a couple of outstanding bugs relating to the Entity Inspector that need looking into. Unfortunately on Saturday I have to sort out my car which got written off this week, so I don't realistically expect to get to these until Sunday.

[greebo]

No problem, good things take their time. What happened to your car?

[OrbWeaver]

Somebody drove into the back of me at a roundabout. The car wasn't that badly damaged, but because it is quite old the insurance company wrote it off as an uneconomical repair, which means I get some money but have to buy a new car.

[greebo]

Great. And I assume the money is by far not enough to achieve a replacement? That's what would've happened to my old car if I had had such a case (the insurance would've given me a few hundred Euros, because the car was a 1989er). I hope you haven't been injured?

[OrbWeaver]

They offered me about two grand which is more or less the used value of the car (and more than the part exchange value), so I'm not too bothered. I probably needed to get a new one soon anyway, it's just the inconvenience of not having your own transport that is the major annoyance (I've got a rental car at the moment, but I can't keep it for all that long).

[sparhawk]

Don't know how it is in your country, but in Austria, when the car is written off, and you have a radio built in it, you get some extra money for removing it. I once had a car that was quite broken down, and at the last days, before I had to kill it, I had an accident, which was very fortunate for me, because the other guy drove over a red light. And what was even better was, that my car was no longer in the list of the insurance guy, and he seemed to be quite unexperienced, so he was not sure which class he should rate my car, and I talked him in taking the higher class, which gave me some extra money. In total I had driven this car for two years and got more money back, then I had payed for it.

 

You might ask about that radio thing. I was told that this money is because it is assumed that the radio needs to get removed by a garage, but of course you don't have to do it this way and can keep the money.