Looking for a linux port, and cant find it!

Lostgame

Member

• Aug 5, 2005

• #41

Let's try... Dreamcast. First. It's the easiest port, and it's not difficult in the SLIGHTEST to get onto the hardware.

When there is a DC port, I might join in this OMFG NEW CONSOLE crap.

But the dreamcast is the first, most neccesary step for porting to consoles.

 

akirahedgehog

Veteran

• Aug 5, 2005

• #42

I agree. I need a good reason to pull out my Dreamcast anyway.

 

Shadow Hog

Member

• Aug 5, 2005

• #43

I think the attempted port is having memory problems right now... And of course, by "memory", I mean RAM.

 

LoganA

Administrator

Administrator

Sonic Team Junior

• Aug 5, 2005

• #44

Re: New Version

AlamGBC said:

Note: the versions i made can netplay but not as well as orig V1.08FD due to unknown causes......

Click to expand...

 

Omega the Hedgehog

Member

• Aug 5, 2005

• #45

Define 'not as well'...?

 

LoganA

Administrator

Administrator

Sonic Team Junior

• Aug 5, 2005

• #46

the problem is the way GCC and VC auto cast values, like GCC will cast (change) a number from a int to a short type of data one way, but VC will do it another way, and the math they do comes out to different numbers, (with GCC having a most precision floating math and numbers),
soo then the netgame data GCC sends, and 108FD(VC6) give are different from one another at some sopts, and kicks one another out of the game

that is the best I can explain it, Alam knows the full socpe of the problem and is fixing it in 1.09, by manually casting the numbers so VC and GCC do it the same way

 

Sik

Member

• Aug 5, 2005

• #47

Did you try define explictly the types? I mean things like SIGNED SHORT, not things like INT. And instead of use float numbers, use fixed numbers.

 

N

nick

Member

• Aug 8, 2005

• #48

So, unless I got everyone against whom I play to use MinGW, there's no fix to this? So, just wondering, why not just explicitly state typecasting? As in:
float foo = '13.37';
int *bar = (int*) malloc(sizeof(elephant));
*bar = (int) foo;

Wouldn't that fix it?

Nick

Edit:
Nevermind. I must have misunderstood it. Anyways, I agree with Sik. Couldn't you just use typedef and make your own short or something?

 

H

hotdog003

Member

• Aug 8, 2005

• #49

How slower is your method, Nick?
If it's wierd like that, then it's probably like that for a reason: Speed. SRB2 was designed to run on < 800 mhz computers properly.

 

Sik

Member

• Aug 9, 2005

• #50

Ehm, that operator was created back in DOS days, hotdog. And I think that it doesn't affect speed (noticeable) in any computer.

 

LoganA

Administrator

Administrator

Sonic Team Junior

• Aug 9, 2005

• #51

I wasn't at my computer, and my local copy of the SRB2 code, at that time, so I used INT and short as examples, it more have to do with fixed_t type, and others like that one, now that i'm at my computer, and can take a quick look at the code.