Search the Community

At first I thought it was some wild precision bug but it looks like the skin might be nonsolid somehow and SteveL's change made the nonsolid attribute work? Either that or skin detection is somehow borked in this map. Feel free to edit the map, I'm no expert mapper but I might be able to perform some workaround by manipulating the entity. Edit: I fixed it with the following change: // entity 4 { "classname" "atdm:mover_door" "name" "atdm_mover_door_8" "lock_picktype" "-" "lock_pins" "0" "locked" "1" "solid" "1" "model" "atdm_mover_door_8" "origin" "710 -248 2050" "rotate" "0 90 0" "snd_close" "door_shut_06" "snd_open" "door_open_08" "used_by" "Balcony_door_keey" // "skin" "door_007_1" // primitive 0 Will upload the fix to the mission database. I don't see anything wrong with the door_007_1 skin but I would advise testing it in-game before using it going forward until this is fully sorted. Edit 2: The updated mission is now available in the mission database. Feel free to offer other fixes to this mission as long as they do not: Change visuals Change gameplay design ( Any purely bugged things that the mission author acknowledges "needs fixing" such as keys that are inaccessible or critical items that fall through surfaces when touched, etc can be fixed by any mapper and submitted for validation by the team. )

It's hard. I see what you are thinking about is a "bullet point" pattern, with or without a bullet point character. For that case, I suppose what we are trying to detect is: - the line starts with the bullet point pattern - a "J" character (say) with a shortened spacing, is somewhere in the line. - the line itself in the xd file is long enough to force a word wrap (let's just think about a single wrapping here) - the author assumed a particular word wrap point, and put in extra spaces in mid-line, immediately at the wrap point, so as to indent the latter part of the line, aligning with the indent of the first part. - the shortened-spacing J screws up the resulting alignment. Probably would need a script/program to winnow this down... ideally, that algorithm could also restrict attention to just Stone font. I'm OK with putting such an effort off for now, maybe revisiting it for 2.13.

Thank you very much, Geep. Not in my samples but mind you: I consider this a visual exercise to evaluate what looks best and decide what works and what doesn't. No guarantees in the code. Gui values must be properly reviewed once you settle on something. Find attached to this post v3 "Yellorange". Text is centered and the font color is a yellow leaning to orange, that looks like yellow in the game but it actually is more orange than yellow (for me anyway). EDIT: Download removed. Check this post for the latest version.

I haven't personally run it so not sure how long it actually takes. @Amadeus how long did it take for WIS? @stgatilov To make runParticle part of dmap, is there a way to check if runParticle needs to be run or not first? For example, if there are no particles present with 'collisionStatic' keyword than just skip it. I wouldn't say this is big deal, but it's a manual step that the mapper could easily forget to run on release day... I meant the default weather materials - but Amadeus covered that in his question - thanks. Actually this doesn't seem to be the case. The rain seems to stay outside the visleaf if the door is open. In the example screenshot from inside the Inn in In Plain Sight, the rain patch actually extends over the roof of this building. With the door open, the rain 'stays outside'. However, you're right and still with this method you need to use individual patches and place them carefully (although I didn't have to worry about the height). It's not perfect because rain will still poke through awnings and stuff outside.

To cater to both audiences. I mentioned LibreGameWiki as one example. nbohr1more mentioned other uses. Explicitly allowing reuse and spread will help TDM reach a wider audience and would hopefully attract more volunteers. More volunteers which can help improve both TDM versions. There are several benefits for a project of being in the Debian repo. One is that TDM Debian-users can report defects on any package directly to Debian (no need to register on separate forums). Debian may then fix the issue themselves (in their "TDM-libre" package) and will offer the patch upstream to TDM, who can then choose to accept or reject the patch. I envision "TDM-libre" to have the same capability of downloading any mission as regular TDM. The only difference is that "TDM-libre" would come packaged with the regular engine (which is GPL+BSD) and an included mission that has libre media/gamedata. When I play TDM by myself, I want the unlimited-play and can accept commercial restrictions. But if I were to promote it somewhere, or charge for a stream when playing online, or make a video, I would want a version without commercial restrictions (and can temporarily accept limited-play) to make sure I don't violate anyone's copyright. Perhaps. That's what I'm trying to find out.

the sad thing was that the 6950x was 2000$ when it was new so only something for the wealthy back then, and ryzen was starting to nip it in the butt with lower priced and allmost as fast cpu's. could actually be fun to try out the 2080 ti on a recent ryzen build to see the result, but im quite happy with my setup now i even got an asus x99-AII with a 6900k and a 1080 ti which plays pretty much everything (as long as you dont use raytracing and lower settings a bit for the newest titles). Well not completely true you can actually use raytracing with it using FSR2 but it does lower the framerate quite a bit 20 > 30 fps on some titles, as long as you dont go 4k its more than playable though -> callisto protocol at high settings with raytracing and FSR2 runs at 75 fps at 1080 resolutions.

I suggest you use the term "I", to make clear that it is something YOU want, and that you speak for yourself. But, as wesp5 mentioned, I don't really know what this is about, at all. And, I'm also wondering about all the newly registered people lately, who just arrived at this forum, and already want to revolutionize this mod. This is a thing I noticed 2 or 3 years ago, and which hasn't been present in the 15 years I play this mod and frequent these forums now. Really seems like a common thing these days, to not knock on the door, but kick it in, and stomp right in.

If the "mission fails as soon as stealth score turns non-zero," that would not be good for ghost players. They might need to find out "how" they failed and experiment to avoid alerting guards. They might need to take those score points as a "bust". They might need to take those score points to complete an objective. Then, mission authors would need to encode exceptions into their missions, which would be a lot of work (if they decide to do it at all). However, part of what makes ghosting challenging and fun is when mission authors do not create their missions with ghosting in mind. Please see: Official Ghosting Rules: https://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148523 Writing code for these rules would be a huge undertaking. Ghost Rules Discussion: https://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148487 Creating an official mode could alienate these dedicated ghost players, because it would clash with what is considered ghosting in the community. Including the Stealth Stat Tool mod in the official release would be more useful. Or, making the audible alert states of guards quick and easy to recognize could help as well. For these reasons, I don't agree with an official "Ghost" mode. If the dev team were to do it, we should consult with @Klatremus so we get it 100% correct or not pursue it at all. (This ghosting bit should probably be in its own thread.)

It is not a long-click, it is click-and-hold, where holding time matters (and is much longer than long click). So with your change it would be short click, long click, and click-and-hold. Click-and-hold at least continues short click, while long click does not. When I pick up a candle, the candle is lift off with delay --- that's because long click does not continue the action of short click, so the code has to wait until mouse is released and can't apply the short-click action immediately. That's exactly the issue that you fixed with crouching, and now you introduce it in another place.

Of course, identifying struct via HN is useless. At work, we use HN when there are reasons for caution: u for unsigned to prevent unintentional implicit unsigned promotion (and overflow) Yes, I know, the compiler will issue a warning, but in some legacy projects, there are tons of warnings, so devs are going to miss that one new one. We are slowly working toward warning-free builds, but as long as we are not there yet, the u-prefix helps a lot. p for pointers to make the reader / dev aware that that variable could be NULL. m_ for members, obviously useful. Similarily, g_ and s_ for globals and statics respectively, although it is obviously discouraged to use those. Various prefixes for the different coordinate systems we use. I for interface, just for convenience b for boolean, this is basically just for convenience so you can directly see that this is the most basic type. This one, one could defintely argue against, but I personally like it.

So, I've got a confession to make: Up until recently, I hadn't really played a full FM in quite some time as I only did the occasional playtesting. I am currently trying to catch up and boy did I miss some gems! This FM is one of them and easily one of my all-time favorites. The save-system on expert combined with the incredible athmosphere of your mission created a tension I haven't felt in a Thief-style game in a long, long time. Thank you, thank you, thank you and bravo @kingsal. TDM and its mappers have really come a long way, competing high up there with commercial productions. Your FM inspired me in two ways: At one point, I died due to my character not jumping off a slope, eventhough I felt like I pressed jump at the right time. I think everybody of us knows this issue and you always have this kind of in the back of your head that you don't jump when the ground is not perfectly even. This failed jump was of course very annoying due to the saving constraints, so I instantly started thinking how we could solve this. There's a technique known primarily from platformers but also from FPS like Doom Eternal, and that technique is called "Coyote Time". It allows the player to jump for some short timespan after leaving a platform. We should maybe explore something similar for TDM, to make jumping off slopes more reliable. We have to be careful to not allow the player to cross further distances this way of course. I loved the save restriction and the tension it create so much, that I want more of it. I started to brainstorm and remembered the optional game mutators from Unreal back in the day. These mutators allowed you to enable extra challenges or modified physics etc. for your game. Coming back to the save restriction, a respective mutator for TDM could be that each savegame costs some resource. Some resource that hurts, like a water arrow or a health potion, to make the player think twice about saving. A mutator like that would honestly be my default play-setting, I think. Other obvious mutators could be "Ghost" (missions fails as soon as the stealth score is non-zero and blackjacking is disabled), "Ironman" (no saves), "Strong Enemies" (enemies hit harder, have more health). I shall follow up on both of these points soon.

TDM has tons of textures from "free" texture resources that do not allow redistribution and cannot be incorporated into a commercial project. Someone would need to create a huge replacement pack of textures that do not break the look of existing missions and do not infringe on the copyrighted textures. Also, many artists who contributed to this project do not want 3rd party entities to use their work in commercial projects. They intended the models, textures, sounds, animations to be exclusively used for Darkmod content. You would either have to replace ALL assets or contact every contributor and ask them to re-license their assets. Many contributors are no longer active with the project and haven't visited the forums in years so it would be no easy feat. I cannot speak to Debian policy but I think that they treat installers that add non-free content the same as non-free content itself. One could argue that Steam is such an installer but I guess Debian would counter that there are a few fully Libre games on Steam. I think Debian, Ubuntu, or Linux Mint need to consider a repo that allows for games (etc) that include non-libre content but intentionally offer this content for free to the community with no stipulations other than "don't try to sell it as a product".

The gamepad implementation allows for a great degree of flexibility to personalize settings, aside from a few minor issues that I mentioned here: https://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?/topic/22337-gamepad-bindings/ I would say that playing TDM with a gamepad works very well, especially considering that it was implemented as experimental and hasn't been changed since then. If I could, I'd go back to 2021-you and congratulate you on buying that gamepad. I notice that your DarkmodPadbinds.cfg looks very different from mine...

It seems like more and more "thief" and "thief players" is becoming a short hand to dismiss community members earnest desire to improve the game - which happens to be a barely legally distinct "thief style" game which was made by thief fans for thief fans and is "designed to simulate the stealth gameplay of Thief". Who is the predominant player base of the game supposed to be beyond fans of the thief games? Is there some better avenue to find feedback for the game beyond this forum? FOSS and linux forums? I have seen maybe half a dozen posts from that segment. I am a thief fan, I play thief fms, my association with those games is what drives me to play and make things for this game. Are we supposed to pretend the original games are not a huge reason why most of us are here at all? TL;DR version:

It was mainly the overhead mantle with its long initial hang-phase, that was shortened, while everything else was just minor adjustments. The hang-phase really was extremely long and shortening that was a good suggestion in my opinion. However, I do agree that we went a bit too far with the adjustment. One might argue that a very short hang-phase is realistic, when jumping upwards with high velocity. Conversely, it is rather unrealistic when falling fast, which is why I had internally proposed to keep a longer hang-phase when falling fast. That suggestion didn't gain a lot of traction, 'though, and I did not want to stretch the discussion even further, so I just did not follow up on this. By any chance, did you also try the extension of the new frob system where the hold-type-grabber is used not only for limbs, but for all junk etc.? You can enable it with tdm_holdfrob_drag_all_entities. What are your thoughts? I had implemented that in order to make the new system a bit more consistent.

As someone who tends to alert guards often and occasionally stir trouble when going through a FM, I noticed some major issues when it comes to AI realism and awareness during combat or when guards face difficult situations. Everything's fine when AI go about their usual patrols... once trouble takes place however, the illusion falls apart as guards act like they're less self aware than a toddler. Indeed AI realism can't be improved past a certain point as there's a limit to the effort the team can put into something so complex... yet I do believe a few improvements can make AI behavior much more realistic and exciting. After analyzing this issue for a long time, I decided to put it all it into a few main points... I apologize for their length as I wanted to go in a bit of detail on each one, hope folks have the time and patience to read them. Biggest issue is AI are unaware of where attacks are coming from. I recently made another thread on how I climbed on a table and blackjacked two guards to death as they sat there doing nothing, something that also happens when shooting them with arrows as guards only explore the nearby area. The issue seems to be that AI don't account for the direction a hit comes from, they only know something hit them but act as if it must be some mystical force of nature: If you're sitting in a parking lot and an asshole neighbor throws a tomato at you from his balcony, you aren't going to cluelessly investigate the road in front of you when the projectile clearly came from behind and hit you in the back of the head, instead you'll storm into the building and start looking for which of the neighbors facing that side of the road may be the culprit. Despite voice barks existing for this exact scenario, we never see AI running to get help from other AI. NPC's will do one of two things: If armed and with enough health they will attack or search for you nearby, if hurt or unarmed flee to a random location. I've never seen an AI consciously run up to another AI asking for help and bringing them to where they spotted me, even when fleeing the AI seems to go to a random location. They don't share knowledge with each other generally speaking: The only awareness AI spread to other AI is alert level, meaning NPC A becomes alert if it sees or hears that NPC B is alert too... beyond that there's no coherence or actual cooperation, the voices may indicate some form of searching together but friendly NPC's are never seen actually engaging. Another big issue is voices being played (or not played) in disconnect with what's actually going on. There are AI voices for most important circumstances but they're very rarely activated: It's a miracle to hear a guard say "someone's been hurt" or "there's a body here" when noticing someone who's unconscious or dead. What seems to happen is if AI was already alerted by another peculiarity such as a noise, they're no longer surprised by anything else and won't play the voices designated for that scenario, so they'll only mention a body if that's the first thing to alert them in any way. Furthermore AI don't actively talk with each other while searching together, everyone acts as if they're on their own and not a team. What happens after a conflict is over. For this discussion I won't focus on better permanent alerts, that has greater difficulty implications and I think I made a separate thread on it a while back. The problem I noticed is once the immediate alert has gone down, AI return to full normality and act abnormally calm: The idle voices change from saying things like "it's a quiet night" to "we've got an intruder" but that's about it. In any realistic scenario even a trained guard would be shocked after being in a fight or finding a body. Below I'll list the immediate improvements I see to those problems, which without having an understanding the code myself am presuming can be changed without too much effort: When an enemy hits the AI with any weapon, the AI should be alert to the estimate location of the shooter. If you're standing atop a tower and fire an arrow at a guard, the guard shouldn't draw his sword and look around their nearby vicinity like a fool, but instead run up to the tower where you're standing granted they can pathfind their way to that location. If the player is far away the destination should be fuzzy and a random location nearby, thus the guard won't run to your exact location but will still climb the stairs and enter a room near it. AI need to learn how to ask for help instead of fleeing to random places when not attacking. If an ally who isn't already alert can be found nearby, the scared AI should explicitly run to their location tell them where you are then have the ally either run to your location (if armed) or go to another ally to get them to your location (if unarmed). Even if an AI is already alert, finding a body or dropped weapon or broken arrow should result in the AI speaking the voice line for that circumstance, only being engaged in combat should suppress it. I'd go further and support repeating those voice lines: A guard yelling "we have a dead body" several times during the first seconds of discovery would make them appear more shocked. Similarly talking to a nearby guard shouldn't be done just once when the two first meet: When multiple AI are searching for you, they should constantly alternate between single voice lines (eg: "I bet you're right over there in those shadows") and looking at another guard to talk to colleagues (eg: "I know I saw him here keep searching"), this would be a huge improvement since guards currently act like they're completely unaware of each other during a coordinated search. Making guards permanently affected after an incident is a trickier one but a few tweaks could improve it. The most immediate solution would be changing the idle animations: Instead of stretching or blowing their noses or eating candy, AI should be seen randomly cowering or face-palming or even playing the scout animation to look around carefully. One suggestion I'd absolutely throw here: If the AI found a dead body from an ally, have them cry occasionally... I think that would be an interesting and unexpected detail, that will also get players to think and feel more about the consequences of their actions and how they affect the world. There are other ones I could get into, but some would be more difficult and likely not worth trying to solve. Most notable and worthy of at least a mention is how AI walk over the bodies of fallen friends as if they're doormats: Obviously there's no way to have them drag bodies to the side, but maybe an avoidance mechanism so they don't look like jackasses trying to profane their dead friends by literally stepping all over them could be a fix for that as well! Let me know what you think of those points and if there are other AI issues you've noticed yourself or better solutions you can think of: I'm not sure if I got everything here but I definitely believe the problems exist and we could make the world more natural and immersive with some simple fixes.

In my opinion this is still a complete mess, just imagine to show this table to new TDM players! If this is only about making new players recognize that bodies can be shouldered, why not add a hint to the body name once it is frobbed? Snatcher already added the name of the body being displayed then and I also included this in my patch. Like "Corpse (Use or long frob to shoulder)" and "Candle (Use or long frob to extinguish)" and "Food (Use or long frob to eat)". Loot and tools go automatically into inventory so there is nothing needed there, as well as for junk which has no alternative action anyway.

I get that and full disclosure: I did not read the full thread, it's just too much! I was absent in recent months, so I missed all of this. That makes a lot of sense. Although, to solve this, one could communicate via audio cue ("uh uh") that no use-type-interaction is available for that entity. Anyway, there is an incredibly easy way to solve the inconsistency while staying true to the original control scheme and that is to simply swap shouldering and grabber. Entity type Short Press Long Press ...Release Button Junk Grabber Nothing Nothing Food Grabber Eat Nothing Loot Pick-up Nothing Nothing Bodies Grabber Shoulder Nothing Lights Grabber Exstinguish Nothing Tools Inventory Nothing Nothing This way, every interaction that was originally "frob + use" (shouldering, eat, exstinguish) will the become long-press-frob. So, the long-press simply becomes a shorthand for special action, nice and clean. While I do love the hold-type-grabber to death, I'd be willing to sacrifice it for a consistent control-scheme. (@stgatilov @Daft Mugi) Right now, we have this weird mixture of hold-type- and toggle-type-grabber that I guarantee you, will confuse new players (and streamers). I say, either fully embrace the lovely new hold-type-grabber (which I am still all for) or drop it completely.

It is quite litigated in the thread already whether it is particularly important or common in games for a context sensitive input be "consistent" or whether this inherently means something is intuitive - so I won't repeat my thoughts on it. I will say It seemed like it was quite difficult to get this change as it is into the game, so while I think anything can be improved I am not sure anyone wants to go through another 10 pages, polls, etc. So I hope I don’t sound short or dismissive, it’s really not my intention, it’s just been a very long thread. I will say if an object is frob highlighted, ie subject to an interaction prompt, if frobbing it then does not do anything or provide any feedback the game immediately feels very strange and broken. I do not think it is good a idea to have objects which can only be interacted with via long press. The current design is around primary interactions being on short press and the secondary more situational actions being on hold, while also retaining compatibility with all legacy interactions. There is some disagreement as far as what is a "primary" interaction, but I find it pretty intuitive in practice as it is today. There are some exceptions that did not work out in testing. I will the example of candles/lanterns - having extinguish as the primary interaction makes a lot of sense, but in practice didn't work very well. The game is full of extinguished candles, empty candle holders, etc that are now simple physics objects that require a long press to pickup and have no primary interaction - see issue above. You also have to handle lanterns differently, which can be toggled off/on. You could code in the TDS method which is extinguish a lit candle on frob, then it becomes a physics object (“junk” in the parlance of your table) so the primary interaction should then be grabber. There seemed in general to be a lot of concern about keeping the code clean. Being able to grab moveable inventory objects on hold without having to do the current dance of bringing them into inventory first and then “dropping” them - like keys and tools - could be a nice addition. Many loot objects are not moveables so these might be a bit of issue?

This may very well be the solution to the riddle: Since there is no visual indicator of any kind long key-presses are subject to peripherals, software configuration and physical needs or preferences. If we want to prevent unintended actions players should be able to decide how long a long frob is. A slider that goes from 0ms (off?) to 1s should suffice. Regardless, I still think the most reasonable approach at this very moment is to shoulder (and un-shoulder) bodies on long frob. See it, if you like, as a compromise that allows the introduction of a neat improvement that has a minimal impact and satisfies most parties. An intermediate solution, subject to further changes or improvements.

It is possible that this is a setting that needs to be activated to work: https://mantisbt.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=23221

That bothers me for way too long too..

I'm thinking existing maps are kept as they are today, and keeps using the same assets as today. This so they can stay the same as today and won't deviate from how their author intended them to be. The existing missions won't be libre, but it is quite possible that the authors don't want them to be libre. If an author of a mission said "this mission itself is libre, but it relies on NC assets" then it would be possible to replace the NC assets to libre assets and the entire mission would be libre. Yes. If a mapper wanted to create a libre mission they would need to restrict themselves to only using libre assets. In this post, I suggest that Dark Radiant should allow mappers to search/filter media/gamedata by license (if DR does not already do this). Such a filter functionality would help facilitating the creation of a libre mission.