Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Far Cry 1.34 source code (2006)

archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 547 posts

Re: Far Cry 1.34 source code (2006)

#281

Post by shultays »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #91
codetrotter wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it might have been the case, that there were not that many commands anyway, so that the linked list did not noticably slow things down. Also, unlike the game code itself which has to finish running its work in time for every frame, it probably doesn’t matter if running a command from the Quake terminal takes a little bit extra time. Would anyone notice or care about a difference in the amount of time it takes to ru…

> Also, unlike the game code itself which has to finish running its work in time for every frame, it probably doesn’t matter if running a command from the Quake terminal takes a little bit extra time. Except we did, because back then, the console command loop was part of the work done every frame - so your lookup still had to fit in the budget, or the player would see frames being skipped. Which, if memory serves me,…

But you were not typing a console command each frame didn't you? A spike of 0.X ms when you type a console command and hit enter won't be anything to worry about

Re: Far Cry 1.34 source code (2006)

#282

Post by orra »

maccard wrote: post #205
orra wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely untrue. It's legal to reimplement a third party API, as upheld by the highest courts in both the US and the EU. So of course you don't need to remove your lines of source code which call into an API.

That's not the same thing - one is redistributing the API (which is what we're talking about here) and the other is implementing an API.

To be clear we are talking about releasing code which calls into an API. Agreed you can't redistribute somebody else's SDK without permission.

Re: Far Cry 1.34 source code (2006)

#283

Post by DropInIn »

deaddodo wrote: post #200
tobr wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I understand, this is even true of lesser known old movies - even the work of figuring out who has the rights to what is unlikely to pay back, so it’s just never released in a digital format.

This is almost exclusively usually due to either producer credits or music licensing. For the former, if it's really that big they'll just release it and keep a standard budget aside for if/when the unlocated people come out. The latter is what really blocks movies because it actively costs them money, so they need to be able to earn more than what it is costing them to release. This makes music-heavy/niche music fil…

As a minor musician, I have to say I find the entire legal model around music to be effing ridiculous and more harmful to the art and society than the benefit justifies

It all disproportionately benefits big names and corporations while small time creators and performers get screwed.

The moment recordings came into play it all got screwed up.

Before recordings every musician made their living exclusively from performances and every musician copied each other constantly.

We lost so much with the advent of recording and the associated development of copyrights etc.

The proof is in the numbers: management and corps take the lion's share of revenues within the industry, with the actual musicians and creatives getting a paltry pittance.

Re: Far Cry 1.34 source code (2006)

#284

Post by DropInIn »

grishka wrote: post #107
Havoc wrote: post #2

I wish companies would just opensource really old engines for educational purposes. Maybe take game assets resize everything to 1/10th so that it looks like sht but can still be used as placeholder. Would boost the pipeline of talent for the entire industry

In general, open-source all abandonware. Here's a few examples of non-game old software that would benefit the society if open-sourced: Windows 9x and classic Mac OS. No one has sold these OSes for 20+ years and they turned out to be evolutionary dead ends. It would make sense to release their sources so people could learn from them and run them on new hardware more easily. Flash Player. Adobe has stated in no uncert…

Umm, anything windows can't be open sourced because significant parts are still in use and source access would create serious security issues due to how MS handles legacy components, right?

Re: Far Cry 1.34 source code (2006)

#285

Post by AHTERIX5000 »

badsectoracula wrote: post #218
viktorcode wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can take a look at Amazon Lumberyard which is free. It's based on CryEngine, which is behind Far Cry.

Note that Lumberyard became "Open 3D Engine" (yes, very inspired name) which is Apache 2 licensed: https://o3de.org/ https://github.com/o3de/o3de/ AFAIK all development in Lumberyard has ceased and moved to O3DE.

And O3DE is mostly a rewrite. It's really interesting to compare the last public CryEngine releases and O3DE for example how the rendering architecture is laid out.

Re: Far Cry 1.34 source code (2006)

#286

Post by thfuran »

iforgotpassword wrote: post #169
dahart wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there any good reason why the sources need to stay closed if they aren't going to make any further gains, financial or otherwise, from this product and its ecosystem? I can think of lots of reasons. From a competitive point of view, you might risk having a big enough resurgence that it eats into the business of your replacement. From a technical point of view, it may reveal parts of the sausage making, or expose…

I'd guess something big as Windows 9x contains A LOT of licensed third party code which would be a nightmare to get permission for. Try finding five dozen rights holders after thirty years...

We should just shorten copyright to get around that problem.

Re: Far Cry 1.34 source code (2006)

#287

Post by cobalt »

someplaceguy wrote: post #192
hesdeadjim wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends, if it’s code calling a console SDK API then you are bound by terms of the NDA to not publicly share it — forever. Even just function names! More realistically, a drop of source code is basically painting a big target on your company to get sued by a troll. I’ve wanted to release my game’s source but am terrified of this.

Perhaps you could just rename the function names, structure fields, etc, to something different but similar? e.g. instead of ps3_fly_up(...) you'd rename to something a bit more generic like sdk_float_up(...) or something like that. It could require a bit of creativity and some work but with a sufficiently-intelligent IDE it'd just be a one-time rename per function name + structure name + field name.

A console game will have hundreds if not thousands of API calls, particularly in the io/gfx code

Re: Far Cry 1.34 source code (2006)

#288

Post by grishka »

DropInIn wrote: post #284
grishka wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general, open-source all abandonware. Here's a few examples of non-game old software that would benefit the society if open-sourced: Windows 9x and classic Mac OS. No one has sold these OSes for 20+ years and they turned out to be evolutionary dead ends. It would make sense to release their sources so people could learn from them and run them on new hardware more easily. Flash Player. Adobe has stated in no uncert…

Umm, anything windows can't be open sourced because significant parts are still in use and source access would create serious security issues due to how MS handles legacy components, right?

Windows 9x is based on DOS. The last release of that lineage was Windows ME. The only thing modern NT-based Windows has in common with it is many application-level APIs. Everything else is different. There may be some common code, but if that's so important to keep private, fine, strip it. Heck, release just the kernel of 9x, that definitely can't possibly share anything with any commercially-relevant products.

> source access would create serious security issues due to how MS handles legacy components, right?

Security through obscurity is not real security. It's just delaying the inevitable.

Re: Far Cry 1.34 source code (2006)

#289

Post by grishka »

lelanthran wrote: post #257
grishka wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general, open-source all abandonware. Here's a few examples of non-game old software that would benefit the society if open-sourced: Windows 9x and classic Mac OS. No one has sold these OSes for 20+ years and they turned out to be evolutionary dead ends. It would make sense to release their sources so people could learn from them and run them on new hardware more easily. Flash Player. Adobe has stated in no uncert…

> In general, open-source all abandonware. Here's a few examples of non-game old software that would benefit the society if open-sourced: That's not the heuristic companies use to determine whether or not to release source code. > Windows 9x and classic Mac OS. No one has sold these OSes for 20+ years and they turned out to be evolutionary dead ends. It would make sense to release their sources so people could learn…

> The biggest competitor to Windows 10 was not Linux or Mac, it was Windows 7.

I have to wonder how relevant Microsoft will remain in the long run. There are several projects maturing that allow people to run Windows apps — the one reason people use Windows in the first place — without any Microsoft involvement whatsoever. The fact that Win32 API has barely changed over the last 15 years also helps.

Wine compatibility is getting ever better. ReactOS is aiming to reach beta quality "soon".

Post reply on HN