Please, every one of us who donated knew what we donated to. There was no secrets there, still I donated happily, because I see the value of this project for future games/applications.

Reviewing code and finding errors is good and constructive, but be diplomatic about it.

_________________

2015.01.22 Uploaded latest changes : New CBP Files with relative path.
(thank you zzd10h)
**Fixed** DERGB/DERGBG/DERGBG/DERGBB function set as #define and keep for DBPro/DarkGDK compatibility

2015.01.23 Processed the Ticket opened in sourceforge.

More will be fixed/added when I'll have fully recovered my health.

AmiDARK

Last edited by AmiDARK on 23-Jan-2015 at 12:38 AM.
Last edited by AmiDARK on 21-Jan-2015 at 10:40 PM.

Cannot work everyday .. Si I work when I can.

Today :
Added DebugMessage for all camera functions.
+ Changed all remaining if ( Camera.Exist[ xxx ] ){ by if ( DECameraExist( xxx ) ){ for security

Last edited by AmiDARK on 25-Jan-2015 at 12:31 AM.
Last edited by AmiDARK on 24-Jan-2015 at 11:23 PM.

With the last changes done by BSZili, the AmiDARK Engine do no more compile under AmiDevCPP .. And, as it is the environmen tI use on my PC to cross compile the AmiDARK Engine to the three main Amiga platforms (AmigaOS4, MorphOS, AROS), before continuying to bug fix, I must firstly made changes to fix this issue ..
I've started the work on this few days ago but, as he changed the way files are organised, there are several things I must changes now ...

@AmiDARK

I tested the compilation with AmiDevC++, under cygwin and AROS native too.

_________________
This is just like television, only you can see much further.

@BSzili
What is strange is that I pull to get your version.
When I use it, the makefile is not in the dedicaced platforms folders
Due to that, AmiDevCPP cannot find the custom makefile, even if I set it manually (what I do each time I open the project) and, it create its own makefile.
I had to copy the whole project ( the i386 version for this case ) inside the folder "AmiDARK Engine" where you moved the others files (duplicated for all platforme) to be able to use your custom makefile.
Even with this, I get many warning (more than 100 warnings with references not found) and many errors... I'm currently fixing them but I will upload new build only when it will be done for me.

Regards,
AmiDARK

Last edited by AmiDARK on 10-Feb-2015 at 10:44 PM.

@AmiDARK

unfortunately (ami)devcpp is doing a lot of unusual stuff around makefiles and also a lot of stuff its not supposed to do in general. best is, one resigns on it as soon as a project is big and the coder experienced enough on make, otherwise figuring out the bugs may well substitute for the time invested elsewhere.

@AmiDARK

Quote:

AmiDARK wrote: With the last changes done by BSZili, the AmiDARK Engine do no more compile under AmiDevCPP .. And, as it is the environmen tI use on my PC to cross compile the AmiDARK Engine to the three main Amiga platforms (AmigaOS4, MorphOS, AROS), before continuying to bug fix, I must firstly made changes to fix this issue .. I've started the work on this few days ago but, as he changed the way files are organised, there are several things I must changes now ...

Is anyone in control of what changes get made to the Open Source files for this project? I am a little confused by what you wrote above.

To reply to some other comments in this thread, I had always imagined that this game engine would by used mostly by beginning programmers, not professional programmers who could write more efficient code from scratch, than a generic game engine ported from another platform, but my impression may be wrong. Sort of like AMOS, but different.

_________________
Amiga! The computer that inspired so many, to accomplish so much, but has ended up in the hands of . . . . . . . . . .

@amigadave
Quote:

Is anyone in control of what changes get made to the Open Source files for this project? I am a little confused by what you wrote above.

I was supposed to keep the control on that but .. as Daytona675x said "it is illegal because the project is open source" and "it is not clearly mentioned in the bounty that I keep the control"...
He accused me to do illegal things in the other post concerning the request for review (from P2P)

Last edited by AmiDARK on 11-Feb-2015 at 11:15 AM.

@AmiDARK

really I cant get the point of all that discussion started from Daytona...if the bounty wasnt still validated wasnt easyer to simply modify it before validating?

I really dont get the point of putting problems everywhere...like when the Hollywood Wkipedia page was founded...really dont get...

_________________
Simone"Tuxedo"Monsignori, Perugia, ITALY.

Sorry, but AmiDARK asked for it. I won't let his weird acusations pass uncommented.

@AmiDARK
You really are the most embarrassing and lamest person I ever came across, no doubt on that. Priceless, once again Although kind of sad too.
As always you try to hide your own incompetence and faults by acusing others and / or by putting other's words out of context while editing your previous posts to cover your rear and / or by falsely quoting others (@Tuxedo: that may be the reason why you find some things hard to grasp now).

@amigadave
Quote:

Is anyone in control of what changes get made to the Open Source files for this project? I am a little confused by what you wrote above.

Errm, as AmiDARK himself points out in his current version of post #1 the project is not open sourced yet since he hasn't been paid yet (which is good IMHO since the code doesn't deliver what's promised). As a consequence and despite anything he says now:
he and only he is responsable for that stuff right now. If he doesn't like BSZili's changes he should simply revert them and continue (well, actually really start) fixing his code himself, simple as that.
Just in case he edits post #1 once again, here the relevant quote:
Quote:

Don't forget that the source code is currently available only for "review" purposes. When Power2People.org will have validated the bounty, the paiement of the bounty will makes the MPL become really effective.

@All
What I really said was that his sudden claim for leadership and control (things he edited away in the meantime) did not match the licence he was selling. First I kindly asked what this was about. Then later I said that this rule change itself was fraud.
Of course I never said that him keeping the control over this bounty before it gets approved was illegal.

Best part: later, after much fuzz, he re-edited his initial post and added one sentence that totally changed the meaning of everything. And my reaction to that step was this where I clearly state:
Quote:

Of course his initial statement ... is still weird and off, but since the newly added rule (3) effectively cancels out everything else this is okay now.

So I even stepped back from my (valid) fraud acusation when he finally corrected his statement...
So, there's no active "illegal" statement left - not even one that he can pull out of context

See, that's a good example of how he usually operates: false quotes, edited posts, groundless acusings, etc.
If he'd work that much on fixing his code instead... No, he prefers to continue to dismantle himself and his credibility.

Right now AmiDARK's only goal is simply to find a scapegoat to hide his incompetence, to find excuses for his code not working. Now he wants others to be responsable for the crap he delivers. But well, that's him:
Instead of putting some effort into fixing his compiler setup he says it's BSZilis fault. And of course it's my fault that he lost control about the code. It's always the others.

God, he's so embarrassing. Wonder if there are still people left who don't realize what kind of guy AmiDARK is?!
Maybe the words he used to describe me are better suited to describe him:

Quote:

I really complain his wife, his child and animals ... if he is with them like he is there...

@jacadcaps
@BSZili
@Xmas87
@Britelite
@kiero
@Boot_WB
@wawa
@Minuous
@itix
@OlafS25
@whose
@Robert
@terminills
@Develin
If I didn't thank you before I'd like to do so now
And as always, I'll embrace the opportunity and contribute some more to this engine. I know, it's also casting pearls before that one swine, but luckily there are comunity members like you who appreciate the effort.

@zzd10h
Quote:

Do you see all these flaws only by code reading or too by code compilation and execution? Never mind, by code reading or not, congratulations!

By code reading only. As being said: you don't have to be a code-guru to find those bugs. Actually most leap to the eye immediately. Of course I don't see everything, there's most likely much more broken than what I find.

Sorry, I only have a few minutes today, therefore it's only

Part 1 of AmiDARK Engine's File Functions Review

FILE_Constructor (deg. 3, crash, missing initializations)
File_Constructors.c, lines 32-44
The global variables FileError is not initialized.
There is an out-of-bounds access to the global array FileChannel[256] since the loop in lines 34-36 runs from 0..256, but only 0..255 are valid indices.
This problem exists at many places here.
A quick and dirty patch would be to just increase the size of the array to [257]. But that's not recommended. Instead invest a little more time, introduce a nice const MAX_FILE_CHANNELS=256, get rid of the hard-wired 257 etc. numbers and really repair it.
Note: since this problem is wide-spread in this part of the lib I'll only give a short note when I find another occurence.
Side-note: as far as the DarkBasicPro docs I got tell me DBP's internal FileChannel equivalent is just 32 elements (mapped to numbers 1..32), not 256 or 257. Apparently it's a good idea to have a const / define for that size. Even if you only use it to be able to easily create a lib that's really DBP compatible regarding that limit.
I wanted to point that out since AmiDark refused the use of such things in favor of hard coded numbers everywhere with the argument that those numbers will never change since they are fixed in DBP. But as we can see here he himself just changed such a number...

FILE_Destructor (deg. 3, undefined behaviour / crash)
File_Constructors.c
Possible crash due to FileChannel[256]-problem in lines 51-55

DEFileOpened (deg. 3, undefined behaviour)
File_Functions.c
Possible undefined behaviour due to FileChannel[256]-problem in line 132 if FileID == 256.

DEFileOpenToRead (deg. 3, undefined behaviour, constness)
File_Functions.c
FileName should be const.
Possible undefined behaviour due to FileChannel[256]-problem in lines 143, 147 if FileID == 256.

DEOpenToRead (deg. 3, see above)
File_Functions.c
Just a 1:1 wrapper to DEFileOpenToRead, suffers from exactly the same problems. Should be inline.

DEFileOpenToWrite (deg. 3, undefined behaviour / crash, constness)
File_Functions.c
FileName should be const.
Possible undefined behaviour due to FileChannel[256]-problem in lines 162, 166 if FileID == 256.

DEOpenToWrite (deg. 3, see above)
File_Functions.c
Just a 1:1 wrapper to DEFileOpenToWrite, suffers from exactly the same problems. Should be inline.

DEWriteToFile (deg. 3, undefined behaviour, constness)
File_Functions.c
MemoryPointer should be const.
Possible undefined behaviour due to FileChannel[256]-problem from line 181 on if FileID == 256.

DEReadFile (deg. 3, heavily broken logic, undefined behaviour / crash)
File_Functions.c
Possible undefined behaviour due to FileChannel[256]-problem from line 190 on if FileID == 256.
Parameters are sent to IDOS->Read without any sanity checks which leads to a potential crash situation at lines 192, 208.
Lines 195-204: all breaks are missing. Therefore the debug-output will be misleading.
Lines 207-209: this loop's purpose should be to read the remaining data in case the previous read command didn't deliver everything. But:
1. MemoryPointer is not increased (should be casted to unsigned char and indexed for example), therefore every additional read will overwrite the previous read's data.
2. Bytesize is not adjusted and there is no valid loop-ending condition other than EOF/error.
Then there's also a consistency error: if that loop in lines 207-209 is entered than the function will not do any error-handling which it does otherwise.

DEWriteFloat (deg. 3, undefined behaviour)
File_Functions.c
Possible undefined behaviour due to FileChannel[256]-problem from line 218 on if FileID == 256.

DEReadFloat (deg. 3, undefined behaviour)
File_Functions.c
Possible undefined behaviour due to FileChannel[256]-problem from line 227 on if FileID == 256.
Line 228: NewValue=0.0, should be =0.0f

DEWriteLong (deg. 3, undefined behaviour, code-style)
File_Functions.c
Possible undefined behaviour due to FileChannel[256]-problem from line 239 on if FileID == 256.
Line 241: use sizeof(int) instead of 4.

DEReadLong (deg. 3, undefined behaviour, code-style)
File_Functions.c
Possible undefined behaviour due to FileChannel[256]-problem from line 249 on if FileID == 256.
Line 250: NewValue=0.0, should be =0
Line 252: use sizeof(int) instead of 4.

DEWriteInt (deg. 3, see DEWriteLong)
File_Functions.c (260-262)
Just a 1:1 wrapper to DEWriteLong, suffers from exactly the same problems. Should be inline. Or simply removed.

DEReadInt (deg. 3, see DEReadLong)
File_Functions.c (266-270)
Just a 1:1 wrapper to DEReadLong, suffers from exactly the same problems. Should be inline and a 1-liner. Or simply removed.

DEWriteString (deg. 3 totally broken, undefined behaviour, constness)
File_Functions.c
ValueToInsert should be const.
Possible undefined behaviour due to FileChannel[256]-problem from line 277 on if FileID == 256.
Line 279: not the string data is written but the 32bit adress of the string-pointer.
Line 281: a terminating 0 is written afterwards. Asuming that the function would do what it should and asuming the input is what is to be expected (a c-string) then this write is obsolete and could be done implicitely when writing the string itself. A special case would be if a NULL pointer was passed to this function.

Last edited by Daytona675x on 11-Feb-2015 at 04:10 PM.
Last edited by Daytona675x on 11-Feb-2015 at 04:05 PM.

_________________
AmigaOS 4.1 FE (sam460ex Radeon 9200 / RadeonHD), MorphOS 3.8 (PowerMac G4 733MHz Radeon 9000), AROS (x86), A1200 (060 80MHz Indivision MK2), A500, A600, CDTV
Wings Remastered Development Diary

@Daytona675x
Quote:

Errm, as AmiDARK himself points out in his current version of post #1 the project is not open sourced yet since he hasn't been paid yet

It did not prevent you from taxing me of fraud. It's also priceless that !

But you're right on the fact now ... Not paid ... not open source!
It now makes more than 1 month that the review is asked. It gives enough time for everyone to see and know.
So, I decided to remove the source until Power2people take a decision.
I have made my part now it's enough !
I will do nothing more until decision is done.

And everyone that DL the source code, if p2p did reject the bounty, you'll have to delete all copies otherwise your copy will be illegal.

End of discussion.

Dummytit well and truly spat by the look of things.

_________________
Robert
--
A1XE G4, OS4.1. Peg1 G3, MOS 1.4.
Abel Soul - Check out our tunes on Spotify

@AmiDARK
I am confused... i thought 14 days should be ok for a decision.
Did anyone of the donors deny it?

@Daytona please check your emails

_________________
AROS Broadway - AEROS - Aminux - AmiCloud - indieGO! Appstore - AmiWallet - VAN lossless video codec - AMC Amiga media Center -KrypUnite - LibertyNet - MinX - amigaNX

In case it's not open sourced due to bounty not paid you still can port the PC version.

https://code.google.com/p/darkbasicpro/

Regards
Kamelito

Wow! I decide to take a peek at this thread again to see if things has finally settled down, and things have gone downhill instead. Really disappointing.


@AmiDARK

Quote:

AmiDARK wrote: @amigadave Quote: Is anyone in control of what changes get made to the Open Source files for this project? I am a little confused by what you wrote above. I was supposed to keep the control on that but .. as Daytona675x said "it is illegal because the project is open source" and "it is not clearly mentioned in the bounty that I keep the control"...

That's total BS. Pretty much all successful open-source projects have a person or organisation in charge of managing the project. Someone needs to decide on the roadmap, and control which patches do and don't get accepted. Being open source does NOT mean an unmanaged free-for-all or total anarchy.

It's certainly true that anyone can create a fork from an open-source project if they don't like where the main project is going. However, somebody can and should be in charge of the main project. Generally speaking, it's a good thing if the person/organisation that wrote the original code is still in charge of the project after it's been open-sourced.

Hans

_________________
http://hdrlab.org.nz/ - Amiga OS 4 projects, programming articles and more. Home of the RadeonHD driver for Amiga OS 4.x project.
https://keasigmadelta.com/ - More of my work.

@Hans
Right, it's BS. And it's also BS that I should have said so. Just to make sure everybody gets it:
in contrast to what AmiDARK says in the part you just quoted I did not say that but he falsely quoted me completely out of context, as pointed out here.

Just to make sure that people who only read your last post here get informed correctly, since your words may be interpreted in multiple different ways (either "what Daytona said according to AmiDARK is BS" or "that general statement is BS", the latter being the interpretation I'd agree to - although personally I strongly doubt that AmiDARK would be a good candiate when it comes to decent decision-making in general )

_________________
AmigaOS 4.1 FE (sam460ex Radeon 9200 / RadeonHD), MorphOS 3.8 (PowerMac G4 733MHz Radeon 9000), AROS (x86), A1200 (060 80MHz Indivision MK2), A500, A600, CDTV
Wings Remastered Development Diary

@Daytona675x
Quote:

I strongly doubt that AmiDARK would be a good candiate when it comes to decent decision-making in general

Just let me think ... "and who would be a good candidate ?" ... Oh ! Yes! We have the answer : You! ...

You said it is "just for people to get informed correctly" ... The truth is that it is only for your egotistic purposes ... My previous statement was just a "repeat" of your own word ... Without judging ... And you showed with your answer at that point, that you only judge me .. And ... What ? How ! You continued debug output as you didn't do one from several days ... Showing how you are acting as just trying to discredit me ... You are manipulating things !

Never forget that I was able to bring the project to people saw with technical demonstrations and, with the last build available at os4depot show this fact. You can point on any things you call "bug" and that only are linked for more than 75% of them to : Coding style, and unfinished project state... I've never hidden nothing on the state of the engine ...
I created this engine for compatibility with DarkBASIC Professional and DarkGDK (and it was my first C project like some said!) but, I've also added some great ideas inside because if I'm not as strong coder as you, I'm a more creative mind than you and ... but of course ... you didn't see them ... Will you be able to see them someday ? I doubt about this! You only pointed on the negative points ... You only tried, from the beginning, to discredit me.
And now you reveal that your only objective was to take the control on the project.
Now everyone can weigh the reality of your words and your intentions. It's you that manipulate things and make things become worst.

I think that with that, all discussions are now closed. I've send today a message to P2P.

Last edited by AmiDARK on 11-Feb-2015 at 10:53 PM.
Last edited by AmiDARK on 11-Feb-2015 at 10:52 PM.

@AmiDARK

you have created a bounty to open source your project, practically to sell it to whomever wants to continue with it, since as you yourself admitted, you were not able to do that by yourself. and now you are upset that someone else could in fact come across and take it over and proceed with it?

i mean, what were your expectations? you wanted to get the bounty money but be left in control of the development no matter the competence? as in that people would pay to be allowed to submit patches you then might accept or not?

Last edited by wawa on 11-Feb-2015 at 11:11 PM.
Last edited by wawa on 11-Feb-2015 at 11:11 PM.

@AmiDARK
Quote:

Just let me think ... "and who would be a good candidate ?" ... Oh ! Yes! We have the answer : You! ...

Thanks, but no thanks.
I'm no good for such a position. I'm good at coding and code checking, I'm no leader (as far as I remember the only one claiming such a position was you). And I really have no idea where you digged out that?!

Anyway, instead of concentrating on leadership questions you should probably better spend your time on bug fixing if you really wanted your project to succeed. If you didn't spot it, I just reported some more.
And for sure you'd be better off if you stopped pointing at others (others who actually contribute to your stuff) and admitted your faults and got things right. Everybody with eyes should be able to see what your real goal is:
since you're either unable or unwilling or both to fix your stuff you'll now take everything it needs to drive it right against the wall, blame others (BSZili messed up the code, Daytona discredits me, blabla) and hope that people believe it so you can keep your "reputation" (which you completely dismantled yourself) and maybe get some p2p money.

That becomes even more obvious if you take a look at the time-line here:
Since 2015-01-21 all was pretty silent with you being the only one adding / editing posts (although all in all not much happended). I really thought you learned the lesson.
On 2015-01-24 you typed the following in post #1 here: "Will now check others bugs reported by Daytona675x".

Hm, so apparently you did not have a problem for the last 20 days with me and anything I said (or you want others to think I said) until yesterday when all of a sudden this came out of your mouth.

Hm, just a wild guess:
may it be that the only real reason for your current revitalised anti-me-campaign is that you
a) had no answer to amigadave's question?
b) that you're unable to handle BSzili's changes and now look for an "elegant" way to leave the scene by blaming others?

Respect man

For the rest of your post: yes, yes, the usual crude unlogical mixture of words boiling down to "Daytona is bad"

Last edited by Daytona675x on 12-Feb-2015 at 05:52 AM.
Last edited by Daytona675x on 12-Feb-2015 at 05:50 AM.
Last edited by Daytona675x on 12-Feb-2015 at 05:19 AM.

_________________
AmigaOS 4.1 FE (sam460ex Radeon 9200 / RadeonHD), MorphOS 3.8 (PowerMac G4 733MHz Radeon 9000), AROS (x86), A1200 (060 80MHz Indivision MK2), A500, A600, CDTV
Wings Remastered Development Diary