Search the Community

A big thank you and congratulations for this mission I would rate 10/10. I can't find a better one in my memory. It's so big and varied, full of new assets. Just... wow ! Finding a way through the was hard for me, as well as being able to jump and go through a narrow hole in the I also gut stuck in this area just below the horizontal mesh hatch that opens with Oh, and my game use to crash when firing a fire arrow at a Thanks again, you are so good at this.

That blueprint looks like an image rather than a 3D file format? If so, mappers can use the bsckground image feature to trace the geometry in brush / patch form: http://orbweaver.gitlab.io/DarkRadiant/#_adding_a_background_image That said, the is probably a good AI tool that can convert blueprints to geometry formats such as ASE or OBJ

@WellingtoncrabThe download link is no longer functional: "This content is no longer available". Think you can shoot me a new download link for the asset pack?

i want to try darkradiant on linux. Not sure how heavy the software is. i don't want to abuse this poor thing Now i am in the process of researching new SSD replacement & GaN charger. i have found a primer on magnetic spinning disk & the underlying technology of solid state drive but i still found it hard to grok the magic behind this technologies cylinder, head and track number.. That's the last thing I heard when I was messing around with the solaris installer

For the FM? For beta 1 it's here: https://drive.proton.me/urls/H1QBB04GA0#oBZTb1CmVFQb I've already done around 100 fixes though, so you might want to wait for beta 2 which should be ready in a couple of days hopefully. All links are in the first post of the beta thread here: https://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?/topic/22439-the-lieutenant-3-foreign-affairs-beta-testing/

That's a very valid question. Personally, I'd say the key is to watch what the otherwise-disengaged fringes of the community are saying. If first time posters or long time lurkers start coming out of the woodwork about well made new missions, praising them for their geometry and story but saying that innovative parts of the gameplay felt frustrating or off, that's probably the first sign that the innovations are starting to get out of hand. For a more concrete example, re-read the comments on Hazard Pay. As much as I and many others love that mission, it's clearly a case where the author strayed further than many people were comfortable with. It also points to the likely endgame if authors do take their customization too far. After getting the negative feedback, kingsal made adjustments, and now the mission is much more friendly towards player preferences that don't match the author's original vision. You don't need to restrict the mapmakers' tools to stop them from straying too far from the traditional formula. When people start speaking up, the authors will rein themselves in on their own.

Just wanted to say thank you for this install script. Made life easier! I'm new to the dark mod (but not to thief) and have just set up my steam deck to try it whilst away for a few days. Looking forward to some portable sneaking!

Well, I disagree. I play this game for the features it offers, not the features some mission author thinks he has to change to his personal favor. And, frankly, some of the more current missions offer too much of that "I think this works better" feature change. For example, the sounds some missions introduce add nothing over the original sounds, but are rather worse in my opinion.

Yeah, some (myself included) would argue that is a feature, not a bug. The important thing is that the FM plays "well" and is "enjoyable".

I hope you didn't forget the (controversial) discussion about his implementation of a Resident Evil style save room in Hazard Pay. Or the change to the arrows, which one head shot zombies. These changes are anything but commonly accepted and wanted. Rather something he implemented, because he thought it was a good idea. Which is fair enough, but, it unfortunately leads to the lack of uniformity that I was talking about, when every FM author thinks he has to reinvent the wheel. Especially new players can't get used to how the game, weapons and enemies behave, if the behavior is different in every FM.

I think this is a slippery slope fallacy. Just because the ability to customize exists does not mean most mappers will use it. On the contrary, if one considers the customization that are already available, we see that the overwhelming majority of mappers stick to the defaults. The exceptions are interesting also. Kingsal's the only mapper that readily comes to mind who habitually deviates from presets seemingly just for the sake of being different. However everything they make is clearly in service of cohesive visions. Hazard Pay, no matter how you feel about it, unarguably loses a great deal of its survival horror character if you take away the napalm arrows or the punishing save system. The Voltas don't need to use Thief style elemental crystals in place of TDMs arrow model, but the fact that they are there makes a definite statement about the author's awareness of their inspiration for their work in TDM from the original games, which in turn draws attention to other, subtler creative choices. I think it's also telling that some of kingsal's modifications have been adopted by other authors. As OrbWeaver said, "If the defaults are widely disliked, they should be changed." However, how can the community come to a consensus unless there are maps to showcase the advantages of new innovations? Requesting, or worse requiring, players to go in and manually change settings in order to experience a new mechanic is never going to gain any traction. Certainly it is not worth the effort of creating an entire map built around a new paradigm.

As a player, one thing I'm also not too fond of is the lack of uniformity. I think mission authors should take into account that especially players new to the mod want to figure out how the weapons work, and, they will have a hard time doing so, if many missions tweak the weapons. Apart from the "WTF" moment, they will also not know what the default behavior of the weapon is. Also not a fan of some other things some missions introduce, like the different sounds for foot steps etc. Most of them don't improve anything over the default sounds, to be honest. They're rather worse, and irritate me every time I play a mission with custom sounds.

Some good news! Tels dug around further in his old computers and found some gold. Namely, a whole fonts directory that includes GIMP .xcf files. Tels says: "The XCF files esp. are what I used to manually draw the new characters (like adding dots to an u to convert it to ü etc.) They contain many layers with different characters, that are layout exactly in the place where they need to be for the patcher script." That is, for english stone 24 pt, one .xcf file contains two independent RGBA bitmap layers, that can be saved separately as two .dds files. A quick glance of that content appears to match the current distributed stone_0_24.dds and stone_1_24.dds. So I won't need to back-convert from DDS to TGA after all. @Amadeus, I think a copy of this should be added to the TDM assets repository. Could you do that? * http://bloodgate.com/mirrors/tdm/pub/scripts/tdm_font_source.7z

Do you disagree with the core defaults in general or is this a character-specific setup for your mission? Or is it a test or...? ---------------------------------------------- Sometimes we must take things to the extreme to see the whole picture. Let's pretend all these years mappers have been tweaking the player slightly and depending on the mission: You walk faster or slower. You jump very high or you barely get off the ground. You jump long or fall short. You can mantle high or low. You make more noise or less. The lightgem is more sensitive or less. You inflict or take more damage or less. ... Any thoughts from anyone about this scenario? I wonder how the playerbase would feel. My opinion is that the above tweaks are justified when a different universe is competently established. Or when a new, fully realized character is introduced. Otherwise we are tweaking simply because we can, nothing to do with the story.

I used the mission.cfg feature in IRI2.pk4 and can confirm it works and they revert correctly after a mission change (at least for the cvars I edited)

I created discussion here and mentioned authors (maybe I missed someone though). Unlike the previous thread about main menu GUI overrides, I think the new one does not look aggressive . The main question there is why this was done, and how to adapt to avoid this problem now and in the future. Indeed, all the missions will be fixed by 2.13 even if some authors don't respond. Dev builds regularly break something, although usually it is done unintentionally. I added "known issues" point on the dev build, which happens pretty rarely. I apologize for the negative emotions this change has caused. Sometimes I am too rough in communications. Moreover, I am not a creative kind of person, I'm more a technical type of person. Thus I believe in interface boundaries, so in my mind the blame for breakage is always on the side that violates these boundaries. Anyway, I know I'll have to fix the breakage, probably myself if necessary.

I totally agree that players usually don't care whether some non-customizable constant like bow shoot time is same as in core or not, as long as the mission plays well. This is a problem only for TDM development. But I don't know a proper way of solving this: mappers usually want to customize something "right now", and waiting for new release is rarely an option. And often customizations are not implemented until someone really wants them (or right away uses them), so that's also the chicken-and-egg problem here.

Good question. Maybe because I don't feel myself too guilty breaking these missions? Maybe because I know that fixing them will be a long story. And I feel confident that we (or more likely I ) will be able to fix all of them by 2.13. You might have noticed that I have also enabled two behavior changes in the latest build (1 2). In these cases it is not even mappers' fault that behavior change is needed. I have a script which can update all missions at once so that they work properly both in 2.12 and dev builds. But somehow I feel I should wait for at least some feedback on the new behavior before doing a massive change to dozens of missions.

Innovation is good: someone has a new idea (or need) and executes it to the best of his/her knowledge and ability. When we start borrowing and adopting other people's innovations we are no longer innovating but creating a trend, for better or worse. Stgatilov is touching the tip of this, still small, but growing by the mission iceberg.

So because of bugtracker 5600, does that mean that 10 FMs (Written in Stone, Northdale 1 and 2, Volta 2, Hazard Pay, etc.) do not work in this new dev build, and yet, the dev build was released anyway? That's not cool.... The bow is kind of an important gameplay element, especially for Hazard Pay. Why even release this build if it breaks 10 existing FMs?

Welp it's about that time again to wheel out The Lieutenant for another mission and I could use some help making sure it's at least somewhat playable. Please register your interest here and I'll start a new beta testing thread soon. Due to custom assets the file size is quite large (about 500 MB). Potato users welcome. Some screenshots:

As a matter of fact, I implemented passing info from briefing to game and from game to debriefing: https://bugs.thedarkmod.com/view.php?id=6509#c16671 At some moment I think I should put this info to wiki... This will be available in the future dev build. P.S. By the way, you can also override which .map file to start, although I'm very skeptical that this feature is worth the trouble you'll get in maintainability. Small variations of the same map should be better implemented by writing the "main" game script.

I think you need to do things at the exact moment in DR that the user changes a field, so you can capture both the old value and the new value. Would be way better if DR just handled everything natively, but could be done through a hook to an external script too, I suppose. Or some complicated logging.

One of the problems with the old #str_number system, that would not be automatically solved in the new #str_phrase system, is lack of versioning/history. For example, suppose in the FM I provide a new string: #str_Mother! which (by magic TBD, ideally in DR) generates this placeholder in all the .lang files: "#str_Mother!" "Mother!" The translator in the fr.lang file later does this: "#str_Mother!" "Mere!" Still later, the FM author revises the string in DR: "str_Mother!!!" In a naive implementation, this breaks the link to the existing translation(s), which becomes orphan in all the .langs, and creates a new entry: "#str_Mother!!!" "Mother!!!" OK, how could we do better? Case 1 (as above): the FM author knows the change is trivial, and so (at revision time in DR) might ask the translations to be retained but marked for review. So maybe the fr.lang files gets: // WAS UNTIL 2025-01-01: "#str_Mother!" "Mere!" "#str_Mother!!!" "Mere!" // Needs minor review with removal of the orphans (after they become comments and moved to before their replacements) Case 2, where the revision is not trivial: the FM author (at revision time in DR) might ask the translations to be replaced by english but marked for review, e.g.: #str_Mother of Pearl! causes the fr.lang files to have (with orphan removal as case 1): // WAS UNTIL 2025-01-01: "#str_Mother!" "Mere!" "#str_Mother of Pearl!" "Mother of Pearl!" // NEEDS REDO Then the translator could eventually fix it: // WAS UNTIL 2025-01-01: "#str_Mother!" "Mere!" "#str_Mother of Pearl!" "Nacre!" // Done 2025-03-14 by Henri

The Blender export scripts have been updated to work with the new Blender 4.1 series. In this Blender version, they removed "Autosmooth" altogether, along with the corresponding parts of the Python API. This meant that the "Use Autosmooth settings" option had to be removed from the LWO exporter, where it was previously the default setting. The new default is "Full", which smooths the whole mesh, giving similar behaviour to ASE models, although "None" is still an option if you want a completely unsmoothed mesh.