Rayman Pirate-Community

Truner wrote:Well technically, this whole thing is about making certain, existing aspects of Rayman Optimum multiplatform. Those can be tested in-house and have nothing to do with DOSBox.

I know the Skype group was originally made to make it easier for collaborators to work on the project, but I thought the group had to do with the project in general, not just on for working on ports. If the latter is the case, then I admittedly would have no reason to join the Skype group (or any interest in it anyway), but if it's the former, then I think, while I might not be as valuable as you or LoveMetal, I think I actually would be a pretty decent contributor, due to my knowledge of DOSBox and emulation in general.

Truner wrote:Let's not forget that Omar isn't working on this alone, so you know... other contributors can test it.

Doesn't change the fact that Omar has, on multiple occasions, had me test various things related to the project, a lot of which related to fixing nasty issues with Windows 8 the patch once had.

Truner wrote:Don't beg for early access, you'll see the results sooner or later.

That's actually the least of my concerns, to the point where it isn't really a concern at all. My reasons for wishing to join the group had to do with my excitement in possibly having a say in, or at least making suggestions about, the project, not with getting a "first-hand look" at multiplatform ports that I wouldn't even use anyway.

Truner wrote:

technology4617 wrote:I'd like to be part of the group

No.

Why the hell not ? Especially from a guy that has dosbox knowledge ?

We need an OSX tester, because I only have windows and linux and I hate to code blindly.

LoveMetal wrote:

Truner wrote:

technology4617 wrote:I'd like to be part of the group

No.

Why the hell not ? Especially from a guy that has dosbox knowledge ?

We need an OSX tester, because I only have windows and linux and I hate to code blindly.

I might Hackintosh my second drive, and then I could test OSX.

To clarify, my knowledge of DOSBox more has to do with knowledge of hardware at the time period, and knowing the optimal settings to use for DOSBox, not how DOSBox is coded.

>hackintosh
Please for the love of god, if you want to test this on OSX, get something that runs it natively. If all else fails, I can get access to an iMac and a Macbook pro running Yosemite Beta and Mavericks in that order.

Truner, don't be so tough with people that offer their services and just want to help.

I don't know what distribution of Linux PluMGMK is using, but I myself am using Arch Linux and would be glad to help if needed. If not, then I look forward to the release!

I'm using Mint.

hmm, this is getting interesting.

*doesn't understand anything about emulating and is terrible at programming. Flies back into his fluid mechanics lab'...*.

I'll send you both the release when i'll have finished the linux installer and the launcher.
I got a debian and a slackware, I'll first test on them.

Cool ! Meanwhile I tried compiling DOSBox with SDL support a few weeks ago, and it didn't work, which is quite a big problem. Perhaps I should be added to this Skype group. (Omar has my Skype ID).

LoveMetal wrote:I'll send you both the release when i'll have finished the linux installer and the launcher.
I got a debian and a slackware, I'll first test on them.

Capture.PNG

Looking at the capture it seems you are using the default Java look-and-feel. I might be getting a bit nitpicky, but I would recommend changing it to the system look-and-feel so it looks native.

I personnaly prefere that look. Sure it looks less genuine, but it has its charm. Take a look at jDownloader UI.

Plum, do you have some knowledge in bash scripting ?

Some knowledge, yes… I've mostly used shell scripting with FFMpeg, but I can work with other commands too.

Truner wrote:>hackintosh
Please for the love of god, if you want to test this on OSX, get something that runs it natively.

It's the exact same hardware, though. Sorry if the chipsets are different.

Nice, LoveMetal! I don't think the "Windows OS Detected" text is necessary though, since no installer I've ever seen has that.

I'm currently learning Java, so if I learn quickly, maybe I can help out directly.

Truner wrote:>hackintosh
Please for the love of god, if you want to test this on OSX, get something that runs it natively.

Hackintoshes are technically native, there's very little actual 'hacking' involved, its mostly just custom drivers. I've been running one for over a year now and it functions exactly like OS X should to a tee.

Please don't be so negative (why are you always so negative?) toward other users when they're just trying to help, taking a seat of authority over the one actually in charge of this project, and especially toward things you haven't really researched yourself and are just judging based off name.

Adsolution wrote:Nice, LoveMetal! I don't think the "Windows OS Detected" text is necessary though, since no installer I've ever seen has that.

I'm sure it's just a debug message.

I would like to say that I'm happy for the new version of this patch. I upgraded from the Mega Patch a few days ago and works fine!

Adsolution wrote:Nice, LoveMetal! I don't think the "Windows OS Detected" text is necessary though, since no installer I've ever seen has that.

I'm currently learning Java, so if I learn quickly, maybe I can help out directly.

Truner wrote:>hackintosh
Please for the love of god, if you want to test this on OSX, get something that runs it natively.

Hackintoshes are technically native, there's very little actual 'hacking' involved, its mostly just custom drivers. I've been running one for over a year now and it functions exactly like OS X should to a tee.

Please don't be so negative (why are you always so negative?) toward other users when they're just trying to help, taking a seat of authority over the one actually in charge of this project, and especially toward things you haven't really researched yourself and are just judging based off name.

I wish I was actually judging Hackintosh by its name only.
Sadly, that's not the case. I've had several friends using OSX in non-Apple machines and most of them went on to buy Macbooks just because the amount of trouble they had. As much good as it does, with something like emulation, especially on OSX, you simply have to make sure that it runs natively. You had it great for a year, good on you. I also never had a problem with DRM protected Ubisoft games, yet others are talking about how harmful they are and how badly their computers got fucked.

Plus, I'm not really taking authority over the project, but allowing everyone in on a chat that is basically about developing the damned thing, is simply not a good idea. For one, the more people we have in there, the more confusing it will get. Debugging/testing results can be sent over PMs, with proper reports and whatnot.

Also, this wouldn't be the first time I joined a project and had random people come in to test stuff, only because they wanted access to the newest stuff, even if it barely differs from what's out there already. That's not exactly useful.

Now for some actual useful topic: who would like to see a patch made for the GOG.com release of Rayman Forever? I threw up the idea in the small Skype Group, but the three of us actually wouldn't have any use for such a patch, obviously. :'D

Would you guys use it/would it make you guys buy the game either from GOG.com or through the Rayman Collection?

Truner wrote:I wish I was actually judging Hackintosh by its name only.
Sadly, that's not the case. I've had several friends using OSX in non-Apple machines and most of them went on to buy Macbooks just because the amount of trouble they had. As much good as it does, with something like emulation, especially on OSX, you simply have to make sure that it runs natively. You had it great for a year, good on you. I also never had a problem with DRM protected Ubisoft games, yet others are talking about how harmful they are and how badly their computers got fucked.

Again, it's barely emulation. The hardware used in Macs and PCs is virtually identical, so the only things that would be "emulated" are various hardware controllers and drivers. Perhaps it's admittedly less stable on PCs, but that won't affect application testing at all. It's not emulation.

Truner wrote:Plus, I'm not really taking authority over the project, but allowing everyone in on a chat that is basically about developing the damned thing, is simply not a good idea. For one, the more people we have in there, the more confusing it will get. Debugging/testing results can be sent over PMs, with proper reports and whatnot.

Refusing to grant me access to a group that you're not even in charge of is the definition of taking authority.

Truner wrote:Also, this wouldn't be the first time I joined a project and had random people come in to test stuff, only because they wanted access to the newest stuff, even if it barely differs from what's out there already. That's not exactly useful.

Please stop embarrassing yourself and actually read my posts next time. And, aside from that, don't make baseless assumptions that you have absolutely no evidence for. In truth, I despise the PC version of the game (as many people here can attest), and could honestly care less about seeing the "latest and greatest" patches for it. So, yeah.

Is this arguing even needed?