MORE and PyPRP

[Paradox]

It's also possible that an entirely new plugin would be written with a different name that works the same as PyPRP, but focused entirely on MORE and using the same export features as PyPRP (so AlcScript and object properties would remain the same).

At this point we still don't know entirely what version of Plasma MORE will use.

[GPNMilano]

It's also possible that an entirely new plugin would be written with a different name that works the same as PyPRP, but focused entirely on MORE and using the same export features as PyPRP (so AlcScript and object properties would remain the same).

At this point we still don't know entirely what version of Plasma MORE will use.

I was under the impression that MORE would be using the same Plasma engine used for MOUL. Someone over at the MOUL forums asked if they needed their gametap files to run MORE and Chogon responded with this.

It is true that the GT MOUL servers were wiped clean and recommissioned but the files that were downloaded to your machine will be mostly good. When we start MORE there will be almost no changes in the client, so by keeping the files on your computer from MOUL you will have a shorter update/download.

However, you will not be able to access it through the GameTap interface but you will have to run UruLauncher.exe in the MOUL directory. It would probably be safer to move that directory out of the GameTap directory (if you can find it).

Edited: But it is still true that your progress on the GT MOUL servers is gone and will have to be redone (sorry).

Thanks,
Chogon

I took that to mean that MORE will be using the same Plasma as MOUL.

[Paradox]

hmk, so 2.2 then... I was hoping that they might make a new version of 2.x and backport the new lighting and material work from 3.0.

Anyways, if it's the same format as MOUL, then we already have almost everything documented and just need to rewrite the class code. PyPRP will be getting a number of updates once Cyan releases the source for their tools, since we will be able to follow their methods and improve support and export enhancements.

[Chacal]

What's 3.0 and where was it used?

[Tsar Hoikas]

What's 3.0 and where was it used?

http://www.guildofwriters.com/wiki/Plas ... troduction

[Chacal]

Ah OK, thx, I'd forgotten.

Wait... why... they're maintaining...
*head asplodes*

[Tsar Hoikas]

Ah OK, thx, I'd forgotten.

Wait... why... they're maintaining...
*head asplodes*

Don't even ask...

Move along, move along >.>

[T_S_Kimball]

Heh, that does not phase me - much; We keep two main code trunks here at work, which each tend to have 4-5 subforks in various stages of status at any one time.

Paradox, you mention it's probably 2.2. However that link would mark the actual (read: final) MOUL release as 2.0_B70 (sorry for the short form, I'm reducing it to what's used at work). So which is it?

[OK, thinking about it a bit harder is giving me a headache. Ah well.]

--TSK

[GPNMilano]

Ah OK, thx, I'd forgotten.

Wait... why... they're maintaining...
*head asplodes*

To answer your question Chacal, probably because they are down to roughly 10 people on their staff. So converting the ages to work with a newer version of Plasma, like they did with CC for MORE takes time, which they want to save on and just get MORE up and running. It would be nice if they could have upgraded to the new plasma, but, these things happen. Its probable that if MORE takes off and becomes popular, that they will probably shut it down similar to UU and restart it again with proper funding, and a monthly charge rather than a six month one. At which point they may make the upgrade to 3.0. So for now I'm chalking it up to the "pie in the sky" option for MORE>

[Tsar Hoikas]

There is no public Plasma 2.2. MOUL was Plasma 2.0, just like Uru. From Plasma 2.1 onwards, there is no netcode and lots of the SDL stuff is ripped out. You'd know this if you read Plasma 101