Current Development Build

[Ryex]

the controls picture didn't dispose. and text looks fuzzy and bleh but other than that this is coming alone nicely. I can't wait until we make a release

[ForeverZer0]

I did notice that animations play a lot smoother. 

[G_G]

o_o I can't stop looking at F0's avatar.

Anyways, Animations are hella awesome!

[Blizzard]

the controls picture didn't dispose.

I noticed that already before I made the release.

and text looks fuzzy and bleh but other than that this is coming alone nicely.

That's because the text is supposed to be drawn with a black shadow. The black text is white so it looks weird. Something's wrong with Font::defaultColor, I have to look further into it to find the problem.

I did notice that animations play a lot smoother.  

That's because it's running at actual 40 FPS. RMXP doesn't do that, it even often runs with 39.

[Blizzard]

ARC Dev Release Build 0.9.1.285

[jadestar]

Just downloaded. I'm actually stuck at this screen that asks if I want to go fullscreen or not..figured out how to move up and down but enter doesnt seem to do anything. Im guessing that this is just the game and not the editor that im loading then?

PRobably should be reading more before i jump into this, its just exciting thats all.

Do we have an ETA on the editor?

Maybe I should just start with RMXP and then convert when your editor is out.

[G_G]

You need to read the Blizz-ABS controls.
http://forum.chaos-project.com/index.php/topic,75.0.html

And yeah start with RMXP and convert when we're done. We don't even have a usable editor out yet. We're hoping to get the editor done as soon as possible, but to be honest, we don't have an ETA for the engine nor the editor. Maybe if the team stopped procrastinating, well not the team but me. It seems everyone else is doing stuff but me. D:

[jadestar]

Hey thats cool. I know all too well about being too busy to do anything...school, work, wife, kids, etc etc.... Ill start with rmxp then and convert when you guys are ready with the editor..again, pretty excited since they kinda flopped on rmvx and who knows when/if a newer one will come out and how they will canabalize that too.

[Blizzard]

ARC Dev Release Build 0.9.1.289

[Susanm]

Oooooo INTERESTING!   cant wait for official release 

[Blizzard]

The 0.92 build doesn't offer much additional stuff. It's basically an update on 0.91 with and update on the underlying libraries (e.g. the audio library has been improved and made more stable). Due to technical reason, I can't upload the build right away, but it should be up in an hour. If you download it and it tells you that the archive is corrupted, relax, wait 10-15 more minutes and try again.

ARC Dev Release Build 0.9.2.307

[Blizzard]

*double posts*

Again, this one doesn't off too much new stuff. One significant thing, though, is that all data has been converted to the ARC format.

ARC Dev Release Build 0.9.3.373

[ForeverZer0]

What's with the small markers around the windowskin? 
I also noticed a few other odd things as well, such as the movie panels and white screen didn't dispose until after the initial cut scene ended and you are given the "controls", and a strange crash while fighting a few of the first enemies. I believe it was "cannot add key to hash during iteration".

Other than them few little bugs, everything is running good.

[Blizzard]

There is still stuff that hasn't been implemented yet. That includes color flashes.
The movie panels stay until the end of the cut scene.

I know about that hash crash (lol) for a while and it's in my TODO list already for weeks. I'm not exactly sure what the problem is. I think that Ruby 1.8.x allowed you to change the hash during an iteration which causes a crash in Ruby 1.9.x.

There two solutions to the problem. One would be to disable that error like I did with the "wrong superclass" error or I could just leave it. Technically it should be left there because a hash shouldn't be allowed to be changed like this during iteration. But I'm not sure about the differences between 1.8.x and 1.9.x. It's possible that the iteration in 1.8.x would actually create a copy for the iteration or at least do it in a safe way that doesn't cause it to get messed up if you change it while in 1.9.x it could be that changing the hash would directly change the iteration so it actually raises an error if you try to. :/ If anybody here is willing to do a bit of research on the subject, be my guest.

[ForeverZer0]

I know many other languages don't allow for modification while iterating, but I didn't know Ruby 1.9.x was one of them. It seems like new version of Ruby are trying to move more towards a lower-level language, which I kinda don't like. I would say remove the exception for it and make it more 1.8-ish personally.

[Blizzard]

As I said, it depends on how it's handled. If it's really being changed during iteration, we are inviting lots of bugs and people won't know what's going on. :/

Actually it's the high level languages that don't allow change during iteration. *points to C# and C++ as comparison*

[ForeverZer0]

The scale is from low to high. I meant in the aspect of proximity to machine code. I consider C++ and C# "high-level" as well, but that is incorrect. They are actually low-level. Usually the lower the level, the more powerful the language, hence I consider them high-level in my own mind, too.

[Blizzard]

C# isn't really that low level. It's a strong-typed language yes, and it's being compiled into byte code before execution (just like Python!), but it's not low level. I'd put it on par with Java, except that it's much better. In any case, I know what you mean. But it's usually in higher level languages that you have certain limitations so you don't mess up things. Well, this discussion is more or less irrelevant, we're not really solving the problem at hand. ._. The worst thing is that if I leave that error, lots of scripts will break. The only alternative would be a warning instead of an error. But that's only an option if we know that change during iteration will mess up the current iteration and it's been changed since 1.8.x. If the same problem existed before, but simply didn't cause an error, we'll just remove it as well.

[ForeverZer0]

Alright, after looking around a bit, I may be changing my mind and voting to leave the exception in there, and leave it to the scripter to maintain consistency. It appears 1.8.x and earlier versions of Ruby did not have any type of special way of dealing with this as I first thought. I had assumed that 1.8 handled this properly by creating a copy, and iterating that, but I was wrong.  Its all just a roll of the dice if it will cause an error or not. Apparently after this bug was discovered, they obviously fixed it to raise an exception if was attempted. Not modifying is the proper way, and like you said, will eliminate possible bugs.  Of course, now that needs edited in Blizz-ABS so that the script will work with ARC.

[Blizzard]

But I don't think that's much of a big deal. Quickly searching a script for .each, .keys and .values shouldn't be much of a problem.