nbohr1more

The Dark Mod v1.0 was released on October 17th 2009 https://www.thedarkmod.com/posts/october-17th-2009/ Knowing that many current mappers are participating in the TDS 20th Anniversary Contest, I intend to bring the final proposal to Moddb to see if we can get either some old dormant authors or new authors to join in. If we even get one mission to celebrate the 15th anniversary with that would be enough to count this as a success.

The Numbers don't lie. It has been 15 years since the release of TDM 1.0 in 2009. I think we should consider a contest to celebrate this. Further, the contest goal should be with the intention of motivating the completion of a campaign that can be deemed official. Here are some possible ways forward: Proposal 1: Middle mission(s) Authors are asked to create a mission that expands the story between "A New Job" and "Tears of St Lucia". This can involve escaping the heavily guarded city perimeter, stowing away on a ship or caravan, attempting to recruit a partner for St Lucia and failing, getting caught by Builders before arriving and having to escape their compound, getting lost in haunted woods on the way there, etc. Any interesting way that the connection between the two official missions can be expanded. Points are awarded for making explicit references to Corbin, St Lucia, and any story elements in the two official missions. If the resultant mission is of high enough quality, it can possibly be made into an official mission. If we get a number of excellent submissions and they do not cause logical inconsistencies, we might even be able to add two or more to the official list. Proposal 2: Intellectual Property distinct approximation of TDS missions Over the years, many have asked that we recreate Thief 1 \ 2 in this engine. Obviously we cannot do this due to copyright law but we could create similar missions and stories that approximate the Thief 1 or 2 designs. That said, I think that most of our audience has played these missions to death so it may be underwhelming to see them arrive in approximate form anyway. What might be better would be to develop a similar story to TDS and make missions that resemble what T1 \ T2 players were dreaming would arrive when TDS was announced and the first screen-shots were shown in gaming magazines. So take any TDS mission you like, examine the story arc and wildly re-interpret something similar but on a much grander scale. Since it's possible that two or more contestants will choose the same mission to re-interpret, we have a slot system were authors need to claim their preferred mission and if it is taken then they must select another one or lose some story points. The slots represent a sketch of what the mission author might try to do rather than a blueprint. If authors can come up with a mission that has almost no resemblance to any TDS mission but would make for a compelling story development in a similar story arc then that can be claimed as an alternative to a slot. Proposal 3: Same as proposal 2 but we stick with Thief 1 rather than TDS. Wildly re-interpret T1 based on what you may have dreamed of when reading the gaming magazines or playing the demo. Slots system to prevent duplicate submissions. Maybe with either proposals 3 and 4, we still require the use of Corbin as the protagonist and a connective enough story that they could also be adapted as middle missions for the official campaign if the team agrees on it. Proposal 4: Another "Connections" Contest. We just allow authors to connect any two missions with each other or expand the story of an existing series or single mission. So those are my thoughts. I'll leave it to players and mission authors to suggest other proposals and if we have some sort of consensus about the most popular proposals then we will make a poll. Realistically between now and October we may not be able to hold a contest with any strict guidelines ( and tricky issues with maintaining a distance to Thief IP ) so proposal 4 may still be the easiest option.

Congrats on the release! Hopefully the first of many!

Both mean basically the same thing. Stencil is incapable of shading anything other than geometry so if you want textures that have transparent parts to cast shadows from the non-transparent part of the texture you need to accept that stencil mode will look different to maps mode. Likewise if you want shadows to render onto the semi-transparent part of textures.

Feel free to add it. I think it might be good enough for 2.13 now ( pending team approval).

I have resolved 99.9% of the glow-bleed issues with this mod at a small sacrifice to the amount of glare. It should now look great in all missions. https://www.moddb.com/mods/the-dark-mod/addons/flame-glare-mod

Yes, but there are qualifiers to that statement. Stencil is more CPU bound ( and fillrate bound ) and Maps are more GPU memory bound and rely more on texture bandwidth. If lighting mechanisms were perfect the hybrid might not be so bad but both systems often overdraw and waste resources on unseen geometry so you end up with significant amounts of scene duplication. Maybe moving to a deferred model would reduce that duplication but then you end up with having to pack data into buffers and the inevitable quality loss and artifacts of compressing everything into a buffer. Trade offs in all directions.

I think the short answer is "it is possible... but" with the "but" meaning that we have some serious performance challenges. The first RBDoom3BFG release that supported Shadow Maps only applied them to transparent surfaces ( which stencil cannot do ) but the use of both systems in the same scene carried a heavy toll. As I recall, hybrid stencil mode was eventually dropped there too. Still, stencil can look so much cleaner than shadow maps for large volumes and large casters it's a shame to lose them. And hybrid stencil \ maps rendering is still much cheaper than ray-traced shadows or penumbra wedges so it might be worth it to expand the hybrid mode anyway as a sorta "ultra quality" mode.

I think this will always be a divide. Engine coders will want a universal behavior that acts the same way across all missions. So if we want to offer the additional benefits of Shadow Maps, we will need to break lots of missions and then work to fix them. Mappers will probably want material or entity flags that force these behaviors so that they can force usage where they prefer. I think defaulting to consistent with Stencil rules is a good idea. Maybe this is a good case for using mission.cfg and have it force the cvars to enable the features?

FYI the 2.12 compliant version is available now that the beta is over: https://www.moddb.com/mods/the-dark-mod/addons/fresnel-mod-212

Look pretty useful to me! On a related note, I think we need to resurrect r_showShadows. Biker has been testing maps in both 2.12 and 2.11 and 2.12 always shows higher shadow tris in r_showprimitives even though 2.12 usually runs the missions better.

I think the ask from datiswous and perhaps dragofer is that you split your patch into different parts so users can install the ones they like from both you and other mod authors. The new 2.12 feature is designed to allow this.

You followed the conventions here: https://wiki.thedarkmod.com/index.php?title=A_to_Z_Scripting:_Script_addons_for_players and created your own tdm_user_addons_wesp5.script ?

I believe datiswous is referring to this new 2.12 feature:

I spend 90% of my time on Linux Mint. I occasionally pop over to Windows 10 to check a few things or run some updates but Linux Mint is my home. TDM runs better under Mint than Windows for me but your mileage may vary. When running TDM in Linux, you must set FPS to "Uncapped Mode" in the Advanced settings, the old capped mode has terrible stuttering and performance under Linux ( even native Doom 3 has this issue ). You can set Max FPS to 60 if you are worried about any inconsistencies with game timing ( the only known issues are rare problems with audio behavior at really high FPS). Just don't use the native 60FPS capped mode, use Uncapped mode with a Max FPS value.

We are proud to announce the release of: The Dark Mod 2.12 ! The 2.12 development cycle introduced many large code overhaul projects. Most of these were to lay the groundwork for future fixes and optimizations. The final release is yet another leap in performance over the already impressive 2.10 and 2.11 releases. A full changelog can be viewed here, but some highlights include: The Dark Mod 2.12 is a major step forward for mission designers! The culling system has been extensively overhauled to ensure that your CPU and GPU are not wasting resources rendering unseen geometry, lights, and shadows. Some of our best map optimization experts have achieved similar performance gains to what this new culling system does but it is a rare skill and we have even managed to improve performance on missions that were generally regarded as “well optimized”. Mission authors both new and old can follow standard mapping practices with no need to dive deep into sophisticated optimization techniques even for some pretty challenging scenarios such as wide open areas and long views. Players will immediately notice many missions that have made their system struggle with FPS now may be running much more smoothly! Smoother controls for players! Also during the 2.12 development cycle, work has been done to make controls more seamless and accessible. Frob can now use hold or click actions to use items. Once you get used to the mechanic, it will be hard to go back to using a separate “use key”. Mantling is now smoother, faster, and less prone to cause the player to clip through geometry. Leaning is now more subtle and less prone to cause motion sickness. To reduce the tedium of shuffling knocked out AI around to search for loot, you can now configure TDM to automatically loot any frobbed AI. A special thanks must go out to community member Geep! Over the course of 2.12 development, Geep has created subtitles for nearly all AI barks along with developing testing tools and procedures for this gargantuan task! You can see these changes in action by changing the Subtitles setting to “On” ( rather than “Story” ) on the Audio settings page. Geep also provided substantial feedback for our GUI and subtitle design process and edited font data to improve text quality overall. Datiswous has complimented the massive work by Geep to create AI bark subtitles by creating mission story subtitles for a large number of missions. Thank you! Turrets are now natively supported in The Dark Mod and can be paired with Security Cameras! Finally, the nasty 2.11 bug that caused AI to allow arrows to pass through them at certain angles was fixed by Joebarnin! Your assassin style play-throughs should be far less frustrating. See also, our 2.12 Feature discussions: To UPDATE, simply run the tdm_installer.exe file in your darkmod folder. Note that tdm_update.exe is no longer supported, but you can download the new installer from the Downloads page if you don’t have it yet. Please be aware that old saved games will not be compatible with 2.12, so finish any missions you might be in the middle of first! Also, some missions created prior to 2.12 may need to be updated so they will be playable in 2.12. Use the in-game mission downloader to check for updates.

Looks like we have a more mundane scenario. TMSC is gonna do Gate All Around Nano-wire FINFET on 2nm vs Intel doing 1.8nm ( 18 angstroms ) with High-NA EUV but at least a year after TMSC starts. Both options are still risky so who knows if either will experience delays. TMSC took the safer option.

You'll be surprised to hear but I don't quite get it either. Based on my understanding, there are a few confounding factors that make this a challenge. 1. We did a lot of work to ensure that the "included missions" were made part of the install so first time players would have a curated experience. Moving the missions back to the mission database might require undoing that work. 2. It is entirely possible to add the missions to the mission database while also being included in the installer but doing this will invite a few problems: 2a. What if the user updates the mission and then finds that their TDM install is somehow borked. They might run the installer to repair it and this will revert the mission version. If they fail to update their mission after this revert they might have incompatible save games that cause crashes and confusion 2b. What if a user starts downloading a mission update and at the same time starts a TDM upgrade ? 2c. Users opening bug tickets for a base TDM version due to problems seen in the included mission that are no longer present in the updated one, thus making it more tedious to narrow down duplicate bug submissions. 2d. Players seeing the missions on the TDM missions download page and downloading the package to install in the FMS directory then seeing duplicates in the mission list because the downloads page renames the packages with hashed filenames. All the above challenges revolve around potential user error and even though it should be obvious not to do these things, we have to compare the above to the vast swaths of folks who are begging to include TDM into Steam because unpacking a zip file and running an installer executable within a folder is "too difficult and confusing". One thing that we have the ability to do is change the file in the 2.12 installer repo so that if users run the updater it will apply the new mission. This change would not be visible to users so they would not get any alert about it. We would just have to announce it and hope that players watch for TDM announcements. I am doubtful anyone would want to work on it but I suppose that there could be some way to pass some sort of signal to the mission downloader when included missions have been changed on the installer side so they get a different update indicator. Still would be kludgy because you'd either be telling the player to exit TDM and run the installer or making TDM invoke the installer internally. So that is my take on "why" based on my own knowledge. Of course, part of my inability to "understand it" is due to my incredulity that we need to cater to players who are so below the bar in computer literacy that they would inflict these problems on themselves in the first place. None of this is an official stance just my own take on why the proposal to "let two updater processes control the same files in the same folder" has been rejected ( other than that such designs usually horrify programmers on a primordial gut level and if you mention that any program that does this you will see any programmer in vicinity instinctively reach for headache or stomach medicine ).

Looks like it's too late so we will be reverting to the 2.11 training mission. If you want an early peek at what might end-up in 2.13 you can test this one: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F-LlcNx2OVtYggQXQQ7umA0K_AQrpllY/view?usp=sharing

Added to the wiki. Thank you!

NHAT v4.3 is available in the mission database! Changes include: Story subtitles courtesy of Datiswous Volumetric Lighting effects Improved water shaders Some new performance optimizations and LOD detail settings Lots of bug fixes for both new and old visual glitches such as z-fighting and model\prefab missing surfaces More work done to prevent players from climbing out of the map into the void

Anything we add to "public repositories" has to go through a "release process". Too much work. https://wiki.thedarkmod.com/index.php?title=TDM_Release_Mechanics Either you ( or @Baal or @jaxa ) test this package quickly or it probably doesn't have a chance to make it to 2.12. At this point it's probably not going to be in 2.12 anyway since we are already at release candidate phase so it might just be offered at Moddb as an optional download until 2.13. I am hoping to squeeze it in.

Please try this version with Detail set to Normal or Low on the advanced menu: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BXyCQ_etzyiHTn7_8QtRTSAlEvBS3ycg/view?usp=sharing