Supertux 2 (0_3_3) -- General Dev Questions

[Mr Rob]

What about super tux2 infact what's the difference?


Sent from my Windows Phone 7 device using Board Express

Super Tux 2 is really Supertux Development Version Milestone 2 (0.3.3). Super Tux 1 is really Supertux Stable Version Milestone 1 (0.1.3) I believe. 0.3.3 is often shipped in Linux Repos as Supertux2. It has a couple more worlds, more baddies and graphical features.


I've worked on porting it for a bit; I get it to run but it lags a bit; I don't get consistant 60fps as Supertux 1 (0.1.3). There are some graphical effects/transparency that slows it down a bit. I wanna play it on Pandora, so I'll see what I can do to make it better.

 

[diligentcircle]

Yes, most levels have a background image that was 640x480 and when originally ported changed to 800x480. A couple levels don't have a background image defined, thus probably has SDL draw a background. On the Pandora, when hacked to 800x480, on the couple levels that don't have a background defined, you just end up with pixels on the right that get overwritten by the world screen, and then objects on the screen; you end up with a blurry mess (attached, taken from my poor webcam).

Yes, if no background is specified, SuperTux instead creates a gradient from top to bottom using two colors specified (default is black-to-white, I believe). This is taken advantage of in a good portion of the game's main levels (in fact, older versions of Milestone 1 use a gradient for the castle level). The problem is that the gradients created are 640x480 (based on the assumption that the view will be 640x480), which doesn't fit the changed resolution.

Simply making a background image and editing the level file to use it makes it all better.

NO. This is a BAD SOLUTION.


If it's an absolute must to make it into the weird resolution, then the source code needs to be adjusted to properly create the gradients at the new size, 800x480. Otherwise, any user-created levels that choose to use a gradient will look terrible. Gradients look great in SuperTux for many level creation situations and taking out the possibility of using them simply makes the Pandora version inferior to the original version. Personally, I would prefer it if it was just kept at the resolution it was intended for, 640x480, but if it's so desired for the game to fit the full screen, using a lazy solution like this to a graphical issue that arises is not acceptable.

What about super tux2 infact what's the difference?

"supertux2" is the package name usually used for SuperTux version 0.3.x, also called "Milestone 1.9". It's the unstable version of SuperTux and is mainly used to show off new features that will be present in Milestone 2 (version 0.4.x).

 

[Mr Rob]

NO. This is a BAD SOLUTION.


If it's an absolute must to make it into the weird resolution, then the source code needs to be adjusted to properly create the gradients at the new size, 800x480. Otherwise, any user-created levels that choose to use a gradient will look terrible. Gradients look great in SuperTux for many level creation situations and taking out the possibility of using them simply makes the Pandora version inferior to the original version. Personally, I would prefer it if it was just kept at the resolution it was intended for, 640x480, but if it's so desired for the game to fit the full screen, using a lazy solution like this to a graphical issue that arises is not acceptable.

Uuurgh, you're right. I was going to write a long rant about 'making it work' is better than the perfect, elegant solution, but fixing the gradient to use the fullscreen is probably easier than ranting. And more productive.


I've made a fix to the 0.1.3 source, and am compiling at the moment; we'll see what happens.

 

[milkshake]

woo

 

[Grench]

I am VERY excited to see that someone is taking this one seriously!


I'm not sure if it will help, but there was a stable version of this running on maemo. I had included links to what was supposedly the source in another thread here.





For those of you who think that the Supertux that ED ported should be adequate - you're smoking crack. Seriously. GO PLAY Supertux 2. There is NO reason that it should be still classified as 'unstable'. My kids have played it end to end - repeatedly - on their Ubuntu workstations.


As for an earlier comment about it having a 'few' more areas - that proves ignorance. SuperTux 2 is HUGE by comparison. It also enters into puzzles, changes in physics, areas that flip over top-bottom, limited lighting (lanterns), the ability to go back left, etc... the list goes on and on. It is a FAR superior game.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1_dQ9ev77c


Keep up the great work - this game really needs to come out for the Pandora!


Oh - and the native game supports resolutions all over the map - including wide screen up to 1920x1200, so it should be able to handle 800x480 or something darn close. Why stretch a 640x480 when the game is so far beyond that?

 

[Mr Rob]

I am VERY excited to see that someone is taking this one seriously!


I'm not sure if it will help, but there was a stable version of this running on maemo. I had included links to what was supposedly the source in another thread here.


http://boards.openpa...4148-supertux2/


For those of you who think that the Supertux that ED ported should be adequate - you're smoking crack. Seriously. GO PLAY Supertux 2. There is NO reason that it should be still classified as 'unstable'. My kids have played it end to end - repeatedly - on their Ubuntu workstations.


As for an earlier comment about it having a 'few' more areas - that proves ignorance. SuperTux 2 is HUGE by comparison. It also enters into puzzles, changes in physics, areas that flip over top-bottom, limited lighting (lanterns), the ability to go back left, etc... the list goes on and on. It is a FAR superior game.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1_dQ9ev77c


Keep up the great work - this game really needs to come out for the Pandora!


Oh - and the native game supports resolutions all over the map - including wide screen up to 1920x1200, so it should be able to handle 800x480 or something darn close. Why stretch a 640x480 when the game is so far beyond that?

I've compiled and gotten Supertux2 to run for the most part. It requires crazy overclocking, and even still, your framerate isn't as consistence as one would want. I plan on tinkering some more....


As for resolution, I don't think it can support 'everything' without some level redesign. The concern is the triggers; that snowball starting to fall down in the video above is triggered by the player getting closer to it. So would widescreen gameplay be different than what it is designed for? It's hard to say.


Through playing some levels at 800x480, the change in resolution isn't enough to hurt gameplay. At least the levels I've played.

 

[Mr Rob]

I'm playing the Maemo version of Supertux2 at the moment......still needs a lot of overclocking, but better than my self-built version. I'mma play this all night and see how well it does.


Edit: Link to a beta version thread for a real life PND. For reals. http://boards.openpandora.org/index.php?/topic/5309-supertux2/

 

[diligentcircle]

For those of you who think that the Supertux that ED ported should be adequate - you're smoking crack. Seriously. GO PLAY Supertux 2. There is NO reason that it should be still classified as 'unstable'. My kids have played it end to end - repeatedly - on their Ubuntu workstations.

SuperTux version 0.3.3 nearly invariably causes a Blue Screen of Death on Windows Vista. This is exactly what "unstable" means: it might not even run correctly. It also has little testing (resulting in some frustrating parts in some levels not designed for the new engine) and doesn't take advantage of new features very well. The stable release needs to be well-tested and certainly it should not cause a BSOD.


Let me also point out that 0.3 is called "Milestone 1.9". It is not supposed to be called "SuperTux 2"; "supertux2" is just used for package names to differentiate it from Milestone 1. Milestone 1.9 is a development snapshot, intended to work towards the next stable release, which will in this case be v0.4.0. The very reason 0.3 is classified as "unstable" is because it's not even supposed to be stable or complete. It's not some arbitrary classification that random people came up with. The download page even clearly warns that it's not well tested and might not be as fun to play.

As for an earlier comment about it having a 'few' more areas - that proves ignorance. SuperTux 2 is HUGE by comparison. It also enters into puzzles, changes in physics, areas that flip over top-bottom, limited lighting (lanterns), the ability to go back left, etc... the list goes on and on. It is a FAR superior game.

Supertux 0.3.3 has the levels from Milestone 1 almost verbatim copied over with no additional levels. The only addition that comes to mind is "No More Mr Ice Guy", but boss level. The new levels you're thinking of are the forest world from 0.3.0 and 0.3.1; these are no longer included in 0.3.3 and have been pushed from Milestone 2 to Milestone 3 in the development schedule.


I was lucky enough to play through version 0.3.3 in its entirety once before it finally gave me a BSOD, and while I agree that it's cool, it's not properly polished and, in some cases, it's frustrating as hell due to physics changes not being accompanied by level changes. The only thing I definitely think is better is some of the new graphics and sounds, and as it happens, I was able to put most of them into Milestone 1 (on that note, if anyone's interested, I'll post a link which replaces the M1 graphics and sound effects with the given media from 0.3.3). Looks, feels, and sounds great.

Oh - and the native game supports resolutions all over the map - including wide screen up to 1920x1200, so it should be able to handle 800x480 or something darn close. Why stretch a 640x480 when the game is so far beyond that?

Milestone 1 does not support multiple resolutions, only 640x480. This was probably due to the rush to get Milestone 1 finished; supporting higher resolutions was just not a high priority. Varying resolution support was one of the things added in 0.3.0.

 

[Letalis Sonus]

SuperTux version 0.3.3 nearly invariably causes a Blue Screen of Death on Windows Vista. This is exactly what "unstable" means: it might not even run correctly. It also has little testing (resulting in some frustrating parts in some levels not designed for the new engine) and doesn't take advantage of new features very well. The stable release needs to be well-tested and certainly it should not cause a BSOD.

Cool story, bro.


Srsly, if you really think that a BSOD could ever be the fault of a program, you are sadly mistaken. Something running in userspace should never ever even have the possibility of causing such a behaviour. Driver or even system-related bugs, damaged system files, hardware instabilities... There are many possible causes, but none of them can be found in pure userspace, it is one of the most essential duties of the underlying OS to prevent that.


I have been playing it since they first came up with labeling it as SuperTux 2, it never crashed and I have never seen any bugs, only unfinished levels/worlds.

 

[Mr Rob]

SuperTux version 0.3.3 nearly invariably causes a Blue Screen of Death on Windows Vista. This is exactly what "unstable" means: it might not even run correctly. It also has little testing (resulting in some frustrating parts in some levels not designed for the new engine) and doesn't take advantage of new features very well. The stable release needs to be well-tested and certainly it should not cause a BSOD.


Let me also point out that 0.3 is called "Milestone 1.9". It is not supposed to be called "SuperTux 2"; "supertux2" is just used for package names to differentiate it from Milestone 1. Milestone 1.9 is a development snapshot, intended to work towards the next stable release, which will in this case be v0.4.0. The very reason 0.3 is classified as "unstable" is because it's not even supposed to be stable or complete. It's not some arbitrary classification that random people came up with. The download page even clearly warns that it's not well tested and might not be as fun to play.

All very true, but I still think it would be useful to have the stable and unstable versions available for play; you can find both Wesnoth's in the repo. And I played through the unstable Supertux last night and it was fun and worked well (no BSODs, ha ha ha).

 

[Mr Rob]

SuperTux version 0.3.3 nearly invariably causes a Blue Screen of Death on Windows Vista. This is exactly what "unstable" means: it might not even run correctly. It also has little testing (resulting in some frustrating parts in some levels not designed for the new engine) and doesn't take advantage of new features very well. The stable release needs to be well-tested and certainly it should not cause a BSOD.

Cool story, bro.


Srsly, if you really think that a BSOD could ever be the fault of a program, you are sadly mistaken. Something running in userspace should never ever even have the possibility of causing such a behaviour. Driver or even system-related bugs, damaged system files, hardware instabilities... There are many possible causes, but none of them can be found in pure userspace, it is one of the most essential duties of the underlying OS to prevent that.


I have been playing it since they first came up with labeling it as SuperTux 2, it never crashed and I have never seen any bugs, only unfinished levels/worlds.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that onpon4 is wrong, but your statement is completely true for good general operating system design; nothing on the userlevel should have such an affect on the underlying OS kernel, be it Windows or *nix.


Of course Vista/7 would also BSOD on receiving a bad packet...... so we may know what I think of that operating system, ha. http://isc.sans.edu/diary.html?storyid=7093

 

[diligentcircle]

SuperTux version 0.3.3 nearly invariably causes a Blue Screen of Death on Windows Vista. This is exactly what "unstable" means: it might not even run correctly. It also has little testing (resulting in some frustrating parts in some levels not designed for the new engine) and doesn't take advantage of new features very well. The stable release needs to be well-tested and certainly it should not cause a BSOD.

Cool story, bro.


Srsly, if you really think that a BSOD could ever be the fault of a program, you are sadly mistaken. Something running in userspace should never ever even have the possibility of causing such a behaviour. Driver or even system-related bugs, damaged system files, hardware instabilities... There are many possible causes, but none of them can be found in pure userspace, it is one of the most essential duties of the underlying OS to prevent that.


I have been playing it since they first came up with labeling it as SuperTux 2, it never crashed and I have never seen any bugs, only unfinished levels/worlds.

Well, I get a BSOD consistently when I run supertux2.exe. I never get a BSOD anywhere else. It's the only correlation that I can find. It's a pretty strange coincidence if SuperTux 0.3 has absolutely nothing to do with the crash when Windows only crashes when I try to run SuperTux 0.3.

All very true, but I still think it would be useful to have the stable and unstable versions available for play; you can find both Wesnoth's in the repo. And I played through the unstable Supertux last night and it was fun and worked well (no BSODs, ha ha ha).

I'm far from against making version 0.3 available. I'm just against making it the default or pimping it as "stable" when it obviously isn't even close to stable.


As a side note, would anyone be interested in making a PND of Supertux 0.1.3 with the graphics and sound from version 0.3.3? You can sort of "patch" it to replace the old graphics and sound with the new ones using this file I created: http://www.mediafire.com/?jbjyk18tglrip8d


I personally have SuperTux 0.1.3 set up on my laptop like that and it looks, sounds, and feels amazing. It's like having the bells and whistles of the new with the stability of the old.

 

[Grench]

Well, I get a BSOD consistently when I run supertux2.exe. I never get a BSOD anywhere else. It's the only correlation that I can find. It's a pretty strange coincidence if SuperTux 0.3 has absolutely nothing to do with the crash when Windows only crashes when I try to run SuperTux 0.3.

Just so I understand your argument right...


You're saying that OpenPandora console users - by definition beta testers - should not consider installing a great LINUX game because it is unstable on your Windows box?


Saying that we should just use the 'stable' and be happy... no. The 'stable' version to the Supertux2 version is like comparing Asteroids to Super Meteor Dust.


The argument is silly - SuperTux2 has been in 'unstable beta' for about 3 years now. It's pretty darn stable IMHO - of course I'm not trying to run a Tux Linux game on a Windows box.


So - ever played it on a Linux machine?

 

[diligentcircle]

Just so I understand your argument right...


You're saying that OpenPandora console users - by definition beta testers - should not consider installing a great LINUX game because it is unstable on your Windows box?


Saying that we should just use the 'stable' and be happy... no. The 'stable' version to the Supertux2 version is like comparing Asteroids to Super Meteor Dust.

What are you talking about? Did you read my entire post? Here's a quote from that same post you quoted:

I'm far from against making version 0.3 available. I'm just against making it the default or pimping it as "stable" when it obviously isn't even close to stable.

The only thing I was arguing is that SuperTux 0.3 is unstable, not that people shouldn't play it or that it shouldn't be available. I have nothing against alpha testing (that's what it really is; an alpha, not a beta), but just like the SuperTux developers, I don't think the unstable version, which is really an alpha build, should be treated as a simple "next version" or "upgrade". It's an alpha, and it should be treated as an alpha.

The argument is silly - SuperTux2 has been in 'unstable beta' for about 3 years now. It's pretty darn stable IMHO - of course I'm not trying to run a Tux Linux game on a Windows box.

For your information, SuperTux 0.3 hasn't stabilized much in those 3 years. SuperTux is being developed EXTREMELY slowly right now. As a matter of fact, version 0.3.3 was released a year and a half ago. How exactly do you expect it to stabilize without being updated?

So - ever played it on a Linux machine?

I might have, I'm not sure. Truth is, I prefer to play Milestone 1. I have no interest in making levels for Milestone 2, and I am not satisfied with the lack of polish on Milestone 1.9. Also, by putting the new sounds and some of the new graphics into Milestone 1, problems with mediocre sounds or graphics are resolved (see my previous post).

 

[Mr Rob]

All this talk of stable vs. beta is making my head spin. Though I'm not looking to extend the argument further, I did play my build of the unstable Supertux last night, and never found a point where I said "Urgh, this is too unstable for me to enjoy playing". So whether we classify it as stable or unstable, I classify it as fun.


My plan at the moment is this:


1. Work with Pickle to fix some of the original resolution issues in the Supertux released at apps.openpandora.org and openhandhelds and get that redeployed.


2. Work getting the 0.3.3 tree built into a second PND as the supertux-dev build, and see if I can lower the overclocking requirements that it has. Like I said, there is a beta up in PND form, check it out and let me know how it runs. Milkshake got it to crash, that's probably just a problem with my PND, but I'd like to hear if other people are having similar problems. (http://boards.openpandora.org/index.php?/topic/5309-supertux2/)


I'll also take a look at onpon4's patch to 0.1.3 to update some of the graphics and sound. If it's really snazzy, maybe we'll wrap that in the current Supertux PND. Or a third PND? Supertux 1 1/2? (This is clearly a jest and not intended to extend the version debate any more; though we will need to figure out what to do with it).


I'd also like to find/build some more levelsets.

 

[diligentcircle]

I'll also take a look at onpon4's patch to 0.1.3 to update some of the graphics and sound. If it's really snazzy, maybe we'll wrap that in the current Supertux PND. Or a third PND? Supertux 1 1/2? (This is clearly a jest and not intended to extend the version debate any more; though we will need to figure out what to do with it).

You could call it "0.2.0-unofficial" since there isn't going to be an official 0.2 release.

 

[Grench]

Just call it what people know it as.


SuperTux2 0.3.X.


It is officially a version of SuperTux that is not version 1, is 500% better than version 1 and is known by the majority of the people who have ever played it as SuperTux2.


This is the more important of the two SuperTux2 threads - please allow the other one (my original request for help on getting this ported) to slide into obscurity.


Grench

 

[sebt3]

The argument is silly - SuperTux2 has been in 'unstable beta' for about 3 years now. It's pretty darn stable IMHO - of course I'm not trying to run a Tux Linux game on a Windows box.

In some way nobody can call something stable if the dev team say otherwise.


Supertux Dev team say that 0.3.3 is unstable.


You just might have a wrong vision of what stable mean as far as devel goes. I'm using Debian Unstable since age. It doesnt mean that it will crash a lot, it mean that it's developpement is not finished yet, and that everything can change from day to day.


In case of supertux it mean that :


- the dev team still fix bugs in the 0.1.x tree (but that's it)


- the dev team might completly change supertux2 (as you seams to like it named) in the next developpement snapshot release (aka 0.3.4). Like they could say that jumpimg is now 2 times higher


- the dev team is proud of their work enough to share it (aka not much bugs)


- the dev-team think that supertux2 is _not_ ready for mass comsumation.... Your distro might differ, but ubuntu seems to have forgot how the freesoftware world works anyway

 

[diligentcircle]

Just call it what people know it as.


SuperTux2 0.3.X.

I was talking about the "patched" version of Milestone 1, not v0.3. 0.3 should have the package name "supertux2", just like on every distro. Calling it "SuperTux2 0.3.X" would just be bad; it's like you're trying to imply that "SuperTux 1" was finished and this is an early version of the new "SuperTux 2". That's not the case. The point in using the package name "supertux2" is it's quick and simple. The next stable version, 0.4, will almost undoubtedly replace the current "supertux" package in all distros (as it should), and I would personally bet that most distros will use the exact same package name that's currently used for 0.3, "supertux2", for the next unstable version, 0.5. This isn't like Super Mario Bros vs. Super Mario Bros 2. It's an incomplete game making progress towards completion.

It is officially a version of SuperTux that is not version 1, is 500% better than version 1 and is known by the majority of the people who have ever played it as SuperTux2.

There is no version 1 of SuperTux. Its major version is currently 0. If you're talking about milestones, well... the unstable version is officially known as Milestone 1.9. Milestone 2 will be 0.4, the next stable version.


"500% better" is a subjective opinion which I happen to disagree with, mostly because the built-in levels are not designed for the changes. It's a cool snapshot and I like a lot of the new stuff and changes, but I don't think it's as balanced as Milestone 1 right now.


As for the "majority" of people calling it "SuperTux 2", ignoring the fact that you don't necessarily represent the majority, that has little bearing on what it actually is. It's a development snapshot. It's intended to show the progress that's been made so far. It's not intended to be a sequel.

This is the more important of the two SuperTux2 threads - please allow the other one (my original request for help on getting this ported) to slide into obscurity.

Yeah, sorry about that. I must have been on page 2 or something, and I never checked the dates.

You just might have a wrong vision of what stable mean as far as devel goes. I'm using Debian Unstable since age. It doesnt mean that it will crash a lot, it mean that it's developpement is not finished yet, and that everything can change from day to day.

Actually, I had that wrong idea and brought it up first. Sorry about that. This is a perfect example of how you become a little less ignorant of things you ought to know learn something new every day.


(from another topic)

You keep stating how this is the, "Unstable release blah blah" but the reality is that it's been highly usable and stable for game play on Linux machines for 3+ years now.

In version 0.3.0 land 0.3.1, there was a forest world and enemies and other things for a forest world. These are now slated for removal, and version 0.3.3 doesn't have the forest world (at least, it doesn't occur in normal gameplay). Hence, any levels using forest world elements (particularly the badguys) will not necessarily work in the next Milestone 1.9 release and will certainly not work in Milestone 2.


Also, as sebt3 stated here, it's unstable because the developers say so.