Grimrock

badhabit wrote:Sporadic, hard to reproduce behaviour is infact a typical characteristic of timing bugs, so my assumption is reasonable. Also, this is about bug reporting, not finding the reason primarely so reporting this here was overall the right thing.

So you are reporting .. what, my suspicion or your assumption(s)?

badhabit wrote:On the other hand if the developers would decide to open source the engine, they would have not to care anymore about the many annoying bug reports from the nasty users (and the annoying complaints about bad performance, burning GPUs and missing ports)

There is only one reason to give away a moneymaker: to abondon it - for either a much better one or something really different. Until AH decides to do this you can always ask them for a job if you are that good(*). Or you can do it like Paul Stevens and rebuild the engine from scratch.

(*) This reminds me that you still haven't solved my little puzzle for you. Given up?

Dr.Disaster wrote:

badhabit wrote:Sporadic, hard to reproduce behaviour is infact a typical characteristic of timing bugs, so my assumption is reasonable. Also, this is about bug reporting, not finding the reason primarely so reporting this here was overall the right thing.

So you are reporting .. what, my suspicion or your assumption(s)?

badhabit wrote:On the other hand if the developers would decide to open source the engine, they would have not to care anymore about the many annoying bug reports from the nasty users (and the annoying complaints about bad performance, burning GPUs and missing ports)

There is only one reason to give away a moneymaker: to abondon it - for either a much better one or something really different. Until AH decides to do this you can always ask them for a job if you are that good(*). Or you can do it like Paul Stevens and rebuild the engine from scratch.

(*) This reminds me that you still haven't solved my little puzzle for you. Given up?

Haha... what about the reasons I gave? Getting rid of annoying user complaints? there is a good bunch available.... With the current rate of bugreports they will probably give up around christmas and hand it to tje community. so, everyone who wants to see a linux version, keep on bugreporting!
Beside, paul did a impressive work reverse engineering csb but this was not rebuilding from the scratch.

About your puzzle. Good doctor, could you please drop little hint?

badhabit wrote:Haha... what about the reasons I gave? Getting rid of annoying user complaints? there is a good bunch available.... With the current rate of bugreports they will probably give up around christmas and hand it to tje community. so, everyone who wants to see a linux version, keep on bugreporting!

Cosmetic stuff and "complains" like balancing issues are not bugs. The real bug count of at least minor things including everything found in this thread and not yet listed by PSY is less than 10 and it hardly rises.

IMO the at the moment most severe bug is the possibility to render the Tomb of Guardian entrance puzzle unsolvable and solvable again and again. Here i agree with Issac that the puzzle design is a bit unstable.

badhabit wrote:About your puzzle. Good doctor, could you please drop little hint?

Missed that one? viewtopic.php?f=18&t=8424&p=85322#p85322
All my screenshots done to solve Thorham's issue including the information given with them are hints and i did not remove any hardware like Thorham.

Dr.Disaster wrote:

badhabit wrote:Haha... what about the reasons I gave? Getting rid of annoying user complaints? there is a good bunch available.... With the current rate of bugreports they will probably give up around christmas and hand it to tje community. so, everyone who wants to see a linux version, keep on bugreporting!

Cosmetic stuff

Well, you can declare everything cosmetic, but still they are bugs. E.g. the graphical glitch where light sources shine through walls, which spoils secrets.

Bug: difficulty of timed puzzles is FPS dependent, reported already for Log1 several times, see recent report by user galeza1. Becomes worse, as this is not transparent for players who believe that they are too "bad" for this game & bad performance is not uncommon. (ultimate reason, badly separated rendering and physics engine, leading also to other timing bugs)

Bug:the max-distance rendering option was "forgotten" in the options or CFG, would to make the performance problems of the engine a little bit better manageable

see script: viewtopic.php?f=21&t=8091&start=90#p89623 , thanks minmay

badhabit wrote:Bug:the max-distance rendering option was "forgotten" in the options or CFG, would to make the performance problems of the engine a little bit better manageable

see script: viewtopic.php?f=21&t=8091&start=90#p89623 , thanks minmay

Not adding an option or a slider to a menu is hardly a bug.

Dr.Disaster wrote:

badhabit wrote:Bug:the max-distance rendering option was "forgotten" in the options or CFG, would to make the performance problems of the engine a little bit better manageable

see script: viewtopic.php?f=21&t=8091&start=90#p89623 , thanks minmay

Not adding an option or a slider to a menu is hardly a bug.

In context of not enough FPS on systems inside the specification in all situations (outside of dungeons) it becomes a bug, as there are also not enough possibilities in the options to achieve a significant reduction on the computational burden (currently only approx factor 2, the lowest value I had ever in a PC game).

Beside...

BUG: HW Specification on the AH website is wrong / overly optimistic for the current sate of engine optimization, e.g. the "4 cores" recommendation given for a optmimum experience are completely wrong as the software at max uses <2 cores while still starving CPU wise. Recommendation should have been "2 cores + 50% more clock cycles".

badhabit wrote:In context of not enough FPS on systems inside the specification in all situations (outside of dungeons) it becomes a bug, as there are also not enough possibilities in the options to achieve a significant reduction on the computational burden (currently only approx factor 2, the lowest value I had ever in a PC game).

Please define "not enough FPS" if you can.

Last time you talked with petri about this you could not convince him: viewtopic.php?f=21&t=8091&p=82389#p82386 and further down

Dr.Disaster wrote:

badhabit wrote:In context of not enough FPS on systems inside the specification in all situations (outside of dungeons) it becomes a bug, as there are also not enough possibilities in the options to achieve a significant reduction on the computational burden (currently only approx factor 2, the lowest value I had ever in a PC game).

Please define "not enough FPS" if you can.

Last time you talked with petri about this you could not convince him: viewtopic.php?f=21&t=8091&p=82389#p82386 and further down

Not stable >60FPS everywhere, which makes timed puzzles excessively/impossible hard by additional lag.

I could easily live with <30FPS if the rendering and the physics engine would be properly decoupled, meaning no additional lag to puzzles, but they aren't decoupled.
I could easily live with reduced rendering quality if there would be options to reduce them enough to achieve the required FPS, but there are not enough available.
I could live with reduced resolutions, to increase the FPS, if this would be properly supported, but there is not real resolution independent rendering.
I (or better my machine) could generate the needed FPS if the engine would utilize the CPU resources (as advertised "4 core") at hand, but the engine does not utilize them.
I (or better my machine) could generate the needed FPS if the engine would not generate a excessive number of draw calls of to small calls, creating just heat in the CPU/GPU by overhead.

Overall, I'm fed up, this was reported several times by several people since LoG1.