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.
