On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 08:24:14PM +0100, Stefan Hagen wrote:
> Tom Murphy wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 02:33:40PM +1100, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 04:17:35PM +0000, Tom Murphy wrote:
> > > > I've updated games/redeclipse to 2.0.0. Compiles and runs fine here
> > > > but it's kind of hard to figure out the "parkour" like movement in
> > > > the game. (Looks like fun once you can coordinate your movements!)
> > >
> > > My concern is that this will run on less hardware.
> > > https://www.redeclipse.net/docs/System-Requirements
> > >
> > > "The next release of Red Eclipse, 2.0, is based on the Tesseract engine,
> > > which is much more GPU heavy than the outgoing Cube 2 engine."
> > >
> > > From memory they dropped some maps as well.
> >
> > What would you recommend? Split out the port into redeclipse1 and
> > redeclipse2? Or use FLAVOR?
>
> In my opinion: yes. In redeclipse and redeclipse2.
>
> They changed the engine, the UI, the movement system. They changed all
> maps and reduced them from 46 to 7 and wrote that they want to focus
> on the gameplay of those maps instead of providing more of them.
>
> The distance from redeclipse to redeclipse2 is about as far as to
> xonotic.
>
> redeclipse2 runs stable here. I rand into one segfault after an hour
> of gameplay. It runs good enough on my integrated Vega7 (RENOIR 27)
>
> I'm for splitting. We can still have the discussion to drop the legacy
> redeclipse in future. My feeling is that it will live on by the
> community and by people that want to play custom maps.
>
> just my 2 cents,
> Stefan
Each of these ports are around 1GB of files mirrors have to carry.
I'm not sure how much of a concern that is.
No comments:
Post a Comment