Reply to Re: Martridge - The DMOD Wizard
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
This is all great info!
Well, the 95-XP stuff isn't quite relevant since Martridge uses modern .NET and that doesn't run on XP by default xD You'd need a custom build of the .NET runtime that runs on XP first... Which is probably quite possible if someone were mad enough to want to do it - a bit offtopic, but I recently saw a video on someone porting .NET Framework 2 (and i think 3.5?) to Windows 95... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTUMNtKQLl8
Anyway, I imagine symlinks should work with V1.08? I used them in an early version of Martridge to trick old WDEP V2 to load DMODs from any location xD Although on windows symbolic links suck since you need admin rights to create them... It's easier to launch DMODS with 1.08 using relative paths instead. Although it seems you need to have a copy of the "dink" base game in the DMOD's parent directory along side the DMOD (see my post here: https://www.dinknetwork.com/forum.cgi?MID=209705#209829 ) - Maybe I could make Martridge make a copy of the base dink folder if you're launching a DMOD from a different directory than 1.08's root directory and it's missing the dink game data?
Grouping DMODs by path seems like a great idea! I already have ordering by path, but grouping seems more useful.
>I've always thought it was really dumb to have stuff like dev files and Skeleton B alongside finished products in the same list with no way around it.
Yeah, exactly why I wanted Martridge to allow you to have multiple DMOD folders defined.
> Also I will reiterate my suggestion for implementing command-line params per engine variant. Of course I know which boxes to select , however for the average user it's basically guesswork, and the tooltips say something like "may be good for some engines" which is too vague to assist, and may mislead them into thinking RTDink has a 1.07 mode or 8-bit support, not that it really needs a frontend to begin with.
I think it was on discord that I was pondering a feature where each selected game launcher has its own different set of parameters, but it just seemed like adding extra complexity for little to no benefit. However, you make a good point.
Although I'm not sure about one thing, should the parameter sets be linked to the launcher's path, or the launcher executable's checksum or some such? So if you for some reason have the same version installed in two different locations, would it be preferable they have the same set of parameters, or different parameters?
By the way, mind if I add you on telegram to pester you about Martridge related ideas?
Well, the 95-XP stuff isn't quite relevant since Martridge uses modern .NET and that doesn't run on XP by default xD You'd need a custom build of the .NET runtime that runs on XP first... Which is probably quite possible if someone were mad enough to want to do it - a bit offtopic, but I recently saw a video on someone porting .NET Framework 2 (and i think 3.5?) to Windows 95... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTUMNtKQLl8
Anyway, I imagine symlinks should work with V1.08? I used them in an early version of Martridge to trick old WDEP V2 to load DMODs from any location xD Although on windows symbolic links suck since you need admin rights to create them... It's easier to launch DMODS with 1.08 using relative paths instead. Although it seems you need to have a copy of the "dink" base game in the DMOD's parent directory along side the DMOD (see my post here: https://www.dinknetwork.com/forum.cgi?MID=209705#209829 ) - Maybe I could make Martridge make a copy of the base dink folder if you're launching a DMOD from a different directory than 1.08's root directory and it's missing the dink game data?
Grouping DMODs by path seems like a great idea! I already have ordering by path, but grouping seems more useful.
>I've always thought it was really dumb to have stuff like dev files and Skeleton B alongside finished products in the same list with no way around it.
Yeah, exactly why I wanted Martridge to allow you to have multiple DMOD folders defined.
> Also I will reiterate my suggestion for implementing command-line params per engine variant. Of course I know which boxes to select , however for the average user it's basically guesswork, and the tooltips say something like "may be good for some engines" which is too vague to assist, and may mislead them into thinking RTDink has a 1.07 mode or 8-bit support, not that it really needs a frontend to begin with.
I think it was on discord that I was pondering a feature where each selected game launcher has its own different set of parameters, but it just seemed like adding extra complexity for little to no benefit. However, you make a good point.
Although I'm not sure about one thing, should the parameter sets be linked to the launcher's path, or the launcher executable's checksum or some such? So if you for some reason have the same version installed in two different locations, would it be preferable they have the same set of parameters, or different parameters?
By the way, mind if I add you on telegram to pester you about Martridge related ideas?
