Are we moving on a modes sim?

[TaliG]

The big update is that all major coding from original LOMAC, is hooked in .lua and other external .dlls. Is this progress? I hope it is not like that... Because if it is, the sim will die sooner or later:cry:

 

EDIT: where is BST website? it is under construction for more than 5-6 months, are they coding a defence website? Most of as we know that a normal website takes no more than a week for develop.

Edited September 8, 2013 by TaliG

[Pizzicato]

The big update is that all major coding from original LOMAC, is hooked in .lua and other external .dlls. Is this progress? I hope it is not like that... Because if it is, the sim will die sooner or later:cry:

 

I have no idea what you're talking about. :huh:

[TaliG]

I have no idea what you're talking about. :huh:

Most of the updates that are done on the sim are based on harware hooks that (.dll or . lua) that make this sim work

[TaliG]

No new code is writen anyware, only highjacking old code with new .lua or .dll

[Flagrum]

Most of the updates that are done on the sim are based on harware hooks that (.dll or . lua) that make this sim work

No new code is writen anyware, only highjacking old code with new .lua or .dll

Still not clear what you try to say - at least not for me.

[Hunden Ynk]

harware hooks

Is that some pirate-thingy-ma-jig? :)

[Weta43]

The big update is that all major coding from original LOMAC, is hooked in .lua and other external .dlls.

 

The Big Update is that, after looking at the log for an update, he's decided in his wisdom that all the updates to DCS since Lockon are all just tinkering with settings of old code rather than fundamental changes.

'Cause he can tell that - with certainty

[Bigby Wolf]

:) Now now guys, lets all try to be nice to each other.

[Weta43]

I was being nice* - I was just explaining the discovery to the wider community because they were having trouble with the way it was worded.

:)

 

*(nicer than my initial reaction to the post would have had me be anyway)

[elcoo]

My DCS.exe was last modified on september the 4th 2013. To modify an *.exe you need to recompile it. To recompile it you need modified sourcecode.

Let them add and modify dynamic libraries, that's why those were invented.

 

I've got the strange feeling, that ED know what they're doing considering flightsim development.

[Flagrum]

'Only the destination matters.. not how we get there.'

In the end, it is all just about ones and zeroes ...

[Bigby Wolf]

I've got the strange feeling, that ED know what they're doing considering flightsim development.

 

I'll second that!:thumbup:

[TaliG]

'Only the destination matters.. not how we get there.'

 

That is true and false together. Lets say you need to go to the next room and the door is closed. You can jump from the window, take a taxi to the airport, go around the world, come back and get in the room from the other side. Destination reached. The way you get there, some times is more important than the destination itself.

 

I didnt mean to offence anyone I just feel that performance is degrading exponentially while the improvements are not exponentially advance. This will mathematically lead to our next hardware incapability. The sim currently demands 64bit systems and at least 4gb of ram, just to get it running. Even top end systems come through the famous ''pauses'' or hiccups.

 

Dont get me wrong, but my criticism is only intended for making our sim better and not to attack the developers.

Edited September 8, 2013 by TaliG

[RagnarDa]

Edit: my tantrum passed and I think I should remove my post

 

Edit 2:

Edited September 8, 2013 by RagnarDa

[Flagrum]

... this thread is .. weired.:huh:

[TaliG]

I would like to know what your idea of a "hardware hook" or a .dll is.

 

Software hook. My bad, sometimes I write quicker than my mind translates Greek into English, I ll be more careful when trying to express what I think next time, sorry again.

Anyway, a hardware hook, is when you put a pointer on a hardware memory address and forcing the code to jump on a different memory address.

Software hooks, works in the same manner, but the pointer is placed into the software code itself.

In both situations the outcome is the same e.g. forcing the code, to run something else and then come back and continue run the code from where it stopped.

 

I mention the software hooks only because I ve read it here:

I'm off to try and convince someone to put the LUA hooks in for those into FC3 ;)

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1829488&postcount=24

 

That is why I wrote what I wrote. If the sim advances in this manner, ofcourse it will need more and more cpu power to accomplish things that if where coded differently would use less cpu and RAM.

 

The Big Update is that, after looking at the log for an update, he's decided in his wisdom that all the updates to DCS since Lockon are all just tinkering with settings of old code rather than fundamental changes.

'Cause he can tell that - with certainty

 

You could always correct me, no one is perfect, but humiliating people like that, its not nice.

It is unacceptable...:hmm:

[JackDant]

Anyway, a hardware hook, is when you put a pointer on a hardware memory address and forcing the code to jump on a different memory address.

Software hooks, works in the same manner, but the pointer is placed into the software code itself.

In both situations the outcome is the same e.g. forcing the code, to run something else and then come back and continue run the code from where it stopped.

What you just described is called structured programming and has been accepted as the proper way to write code since the 70's. So what's the problem?

[TaliG]

What you just described is called structured programming and has been accepted as the proper way to write code since the 70's. So what's the problem?

 

Structured programming can be implemented in many ways. The best implementation is when you ''plan'' your code structure, before even start to write the actual code. If planned correctly according your resources (available cpu power and memory) I talk microprocessor here, but here is no deference, you will end up with a software that will need litle to none optimisation.

 

Now when we talk about software ''upgrade'' by keeping the original code intact, you will either run out of resources, or you will be fighting endless bugs. Eg. the microprocessor will need 2x cycles to run the updated software plus the onboard memory may not be enough. So your companies old hardware will be useless. Well, actually YOU will be useless for your company because other programmers will step in, their code will do exactly what yours do but with half the resources your code needs. This is possible in 2 ways. They either wrote the code from 0, adding the extra bits they need, or they optimised the existing code, starting always from the ''core''.

 

In PCs, programmers obviously can ''breath'' allot better, due to people having ridiculously powered CPUs and never needed RAM memory...But really, why spend so many resources when you can have the same outcome and some times even better by using only 1/4 of your available resources?

 

Sorry for the long post.

[Flagrum]

Extending existing software with new featues always costs more ressources, I do not understand where you see a problem with that.

 

DCS uses a lot of call-back routines and logic that is implemented in LUA code. That is not the most performance effective way, true. But the advantages seem to be greater than the draw-backs: easier to "tweak" (changes on AFM parameter, etc.) and also allows us to get more involved - by allowing easy mods.

 

If now these LUA call-backs would be used to "program around" old (native) code (i.e. spaghetti code), then that would be a big fail. But I do not see any evidence for that, even not in the posting you linked to earlier (LUA call-backs for certain FC3 logic). It is just again about extending the capabilities of the software for better "mod-ability".

[tintifaxl]

So your companies old hardware will be useless. Well, actually YOU will be useless for your company because other programmers will step in, their code will do exactly what yours do but with half the resources your code needs.

 

Sorry in my experience you just upgrade the hardware. Much cheaper than to hire other programmers.

 

After many years of C++ coding our entire development division switched to Perl, Java and Jboss. Why? Because it's so much faster and thus cheaper to develop in these languages than in C++. Is it slower in execution? Yes.

 

Do I desire this in a flight sim? No. But I guess we can't afford to pay ED to develop DCS completely in C++ and assembler.

[RagnarDa]

TaliG: I'm still not following you. Are you confusing hooks with dynamic linking vs static linking or even inline coding? I got curious.

[TaliG]

Extending existing software with new featues always costs more ressources, I do not understand where you see a problem with that.

 

I never said I was against new features, that would be like dumping a modern fighter for a Sopwith Camel. I am against adding new tech missiles on a Sopwith Camel airframe though, if you know what I mean. And again I have no problem if you those high tech weapons on the old airframe ''correctly''.

 

If now these LUA call-backs would be used to "program around" old (native) code (i.e. spaghetti code), then that would be a big fail.

 

This is EXACTLY what I am afraid will happen sooner or later.

But I do not see any evidence for that,

 

Huge amounts of RAM needed (many people also think that is a memory leak), spontaneous pauses for no explainable reason (no graphics overload or enything), 1 minute just to close the game, those are some of the evidence that leads me to believe that ''spageti code'' is cooked in my system.

[RagnarDa]

I don't get your reasoning. Why would they code around the code that they themselves wrote and own?

[TaliG]

I don't get your reasoning. Why would they code around the code that they themselves did and own?

 

Original code is owned by UBISOFT. Yes, ED wrote the code (this is the reason they can work on the core, they have source code, they wrote it after all). My concern is because the main code cannot be changed legally (thus optimised, and properly upgraded), that is why for all this ''spageti hook'' upgrade.

 

Please correct me, I am just speculating here, enlighten me.

[Nate--IRL--]

My concern is because the main code cannot be changed legally.........

 

Says Who?

 

Nate