Originally Posted by XxMoNsTeRXM

Violet can you add more boss musics in jj2+? If you can it would be nice, because the musics that we currently have in jj2 are just 2, maybe 10 musics would be enough.

http://www.jazz2online.com/jj2plus/p...gelscript.html

Discussed in the fourth paragraph from the top, no less.

Okay I'm a little bit late with this since the plus release should be soon but can you make an option to make plus commands used with AngelScript invisible in the chat? For example if I use jjChat("/trigger 1 on") it will turn trigger 1 on for everyone but doesn't show in chat.

EDIT: Also another idea, a plus function that disables running for every player. Not something you'd put up in your priority list but it could be fun to have a walking fight

We've thought about that but never quite gotten around to it. It might end up happening. Wait and see.

Unrelated: so far for the next release I have fixed six different issues with swinging platforms and/or their 2D spike boll cousins. How many of them can you think of? One of them I'd be surprised if anyone knew about...

No more falling through them? No more "oh no for some reason this platform decided to not spawn this time, gg no re"?

Are they... reliable now?

Violet CLM i want to thank you for creating JJ2+ and keep working. JJ2+ in the present is so good and useful. Keep working and in the future will be much much useful than now

Originally Posted by XxMoNsTeRXM

Violet CLM i want to thank you for creating JJ2+ and keep working. JJ2+ in the present is so good and useful. Keep working and in the future will be much much useful than now

While Violet has certainly done a lot, the foundations were all laid by BlurredD and various other people contributed as well!

Originally Posted by DoubleGJ

Vines don't work like platforms since you hang from them. It wouldn't be completely identical.

The concept reminds me of Contra, and it works very well there. In these games, to fall off such a platform, you need to press down and then jump, which in JJ2 executes a special move. As such, I wonder what would be a good way to control this falling down without being accidental too often. Simply holding down seems like a too easy way for me - one might want to just duck from a projectile or to look down, for example. Same with down+jump. Then again, making it so that you have to hold down for, say, 2 seconds, it could be too time consuming and thus frustrating. In conclusion, I don't think there's a convenient way out with this concept, but maybe I'm not thinking hard enough.

What about double-tapping down in a quick succession?

Currently, Pregame is automatically enabled when the gamemode is Jailbreak, LRS, or a derivative of LRS. Would anyone be opposed to removing this constraint for the LRS-based gamemodes?

I think it's a little more complicated than that. The point of the code seems to be that if the pregame timer runs out in an LRS or Jailbreak game and there's only one person in the server, that person/team would automatically win, and so pregame should be mandatorily left on until there are enough people to play with. However, I see no reason that JJ2+ should force you to start a pregame if there are enough people already present.

EDIT: Ah, but of course. It's not important that there be more than one person present; it's important that there be more than one active person present. And the initial check to start the pregame takes place before any clients have had the chance to connect to the new level, so the number of active players will only ever be 1 (unless the server is playing in splitscreen). So this just wouldn't be a possible restriction to remove.

EDIT2: It would be possible to make the automatic pregame countdown last less time, only five seconds for example. But I think that's all.

I have a request for jj2+.

Is it possible to make it so that the /maxresolution command is only behaving that way for people that are not spectating? with bigjazz or if we ever get higher resolutions in the future as jj2+ addon it would be cool to stream on a higher resolution than 640x480. Like a 1920x1080 resolution. Besides, as broadcaster/spectator you catch a lot more of the game this way.

I'm against this. It would have the potential for being abused. You could just spectate yourself with a second client to circumvent the resolution limit.

Originally Posted by Jerrythabest

You could just spectate yourself with a second client to circumvent the resolution limit.

This is very unlikely to happen in situations where it would matter.

I thought about it and i can't think of any way to abuse it. The thing you mentioned jerry is not a related abuse towards my idea. Like Stijn said, it's unlikely you join with a second account and people will notice. Private matches are private, extra people won't just join. Besides, if it were to happen, it's not the resolution that gives the other guy info, if you put a screen next to yours you can spectate the enemy, knowing his position in the map. The fact that you see more around this person actually doesn't give any advantage!

I agree with FawFul... any advantage you could get would be secondary to the advantage you could get from spectating your opponent. But higher resolutions are enough of a technical hurdle that I suspect the point is kind of academic.

Originally Posted by Violet CLM

I agree with FawFul... any advantage you could get would be secondary to the advantage you could get from spectating your opponent. But higher resolutions are enough of a technical hurdle that I suspect the point is kind of academic.

Less academic intended as you might think. My point here is it would be awesome if we're not supposed to stream live matches and insights on 640x480 in 2013. Blur made his last contribution to plus in 2010 and the familair program "bigjazz" by neobeo existed even longer before that. The combination of /maxresolution and bigjazz and has been here for 3 years now. Hell, the reason of /maxresolution was more or less made for the beta program bigjazz and future development in the first place. So I'm actually asking it for this timeline, with a little bit of hope more resolution support is added in the next jj2+ update. Although your answer kind of gives away there are no sucessful results.... bummer. Neobeo showed it is possible though, and atm I think it's one of the highest priorities.

Proper support for higher resolutions is on the cards for a future update (not the upcoming one), and until then there's no point in JJ2+ supporting bigjazz.

Hell, the reason of /maxresolution was more or less made for the beta program bigjazz and future development in the first place.

No, it was a compromise that blur was forced to make, paraphrasing his own words.

/maxspecresolution !

Ha, funny how I completely failed to see the ability to spectate your opponent. Please disregard =)


As for high res support, I've spent some time patching the 'crash sites' that come along when you force JJ2 into a higher resolution, but it's not a trivial task. There are basically three problems:

• Adding the higher resolutions to the options
• Increasing the size of all the in-memory structures in which JJ2 stores information about the visible tiles and sprites
• Adjusting all code so that it does not stop drawing/processing prematurely

The first one was easy to fix. The second is annoying to find but not difficult to fix. The latter is a real pain because it sometimes requires a deeper knowledge of the purpose and architecture of that piece of code.

Originally Posted by RedComputer

Easier would be rewriting the game together instead making a Patch.

Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by RedComputer

Easier would be rewriting the game together instead making a Patch.

No, then that would have happened before this did.

I remember back then this link was working. Can you fix it?

No, /jj2plus/ is the official link now.

Sometimes my client and other people are chatting "/fireball on" at random times without anyone writing it.

This would be an error in the anti Pepper Spray function I wrote for Canyon Grove. Try replacing line 62 with this:

    if (p.ammo[8] < oldGun8Ammo && checkForFireball() == false && p.isActive && p.health > 0) {

Originally Posted by Jerrythabest

As for high res support, I've spent some time patching the 'crash sites' that come along when you force JJ2 into a higher resolution, but it's not a trivial task. There are basically three problems:

• Adding the higher resolutions to the options
• Increasing the size of all the in-memory structures in which JJ2 stores information about the visible tiles and sprites
• Adjusting all code so that it does not stop drawing/processing prematurely

The first one was easy to fix. The second is annoying to find but not difficult to fix. The latter is a real pain because it sometimes requires a deeper knowledge of the purpose and architecture of that piece of code.

I think I came to the conclusion at the time that it would be easier to rewrite the graphics engine rather than adding multiple hacks on top of it (plus we get to leverage modern DirectX support etc.). This is definitely more practical now given how plus is slowly overwriting all the original functions...

Oh, I'm so happy with this update and I admit that I can't use this.
I guess it's happening 'cause of my JJ2 copy is not original or something like that.
I have no words, sadly...

Whoa, since when can we have 75x75 avatars?

Originally Posted by Narsist

Oh, I'm so happy with this update and I admit that I can't use this.
I guess it's happening 'cause of my JJ2 copy is not original or something like that.
I have no words, sadly...

Ah, when you start up your game, does a logo saying "LK Avalon" come up?

Originally Posted by cooba

Whoa, since when can we have 75x75 avatars?

A while. It doesn't actually make a difference for most posts with regards to the amount of screen real estate used.

I guess this question has been asked several times before and may have been answered too, but how about IPv6 support? IPv6 support is becoming more of a concern considering some ISPs start to use IPv6 instead now. I know dealing with netcode has been difficult but if IPv6 support isn't gonna be added a lot of new players and quite a few of the older players will not be able to play JJ2 online 'soon' anymore.

I thought about that last night. I figure one way to go about this is to change all of JJ2's internal storage etc. to IPv6 using IPv4 mapped addresses. Then I fell asleep.

Originally Posted by Jerrythabest

Then I fell asleep.

And now you woke up. Think about it for next release. It's gonna be great!

Originally Posted by Robo4900

Ah, when you start up your game, does a logo saying "LK Avalon" come up?

Nope. :/

What version of JJ2 are you running(1.00g, 1.00h, 1.10o, 1.21, 1.22, 1.23, 1.24, or one of the Xmas Editions?), when did you install it(Before any major changes on your PC?), what version of Windows are you running(If you're running it under another OS, please do specify), and does your version of JJ2 have any oddities(Weird box art, missing content, strange menus, weird glitches that only happen to you)?

If you could give a screenshot of the error, it would give a much better idea of what actually is going wrong.

Originally Posted by Just a Random User

And now you woke up. Think about it for next release. It's gonna be great!

"Great" might not be the right word. It's perhaps the most necessary update of them all. Updating JJ2 to use IPv6 with IPv4 mapped addresses will let IPv6 and IPv4 users to play together I believe?

It can wait.

I think for the following 30 years we will be having dual stack dominating the Internet, meaning most people will be on both IPv4 and IPv6. IPv6 support is only essential for those people that don't have an IPv4 address.


Implementing IPv6 with IPv4 mapped addresses is a simple way to allow dual stack (IPv4- and IPv6-enabled) clients to connect to IPv4 servers (dual stack servers to accept IPv4-only clients) without us developers having to fiddle with the different protocols, provided that their system supports the IPv4 mapped addresses feature so that somewhere down the line the IPv6 packets we would produce would be translated into IPv4 packets, and IPv4 packets that we receive are translated into IPv6 packets, automatically. Note that IPv4-only clients will not be able to join IPv6-only servers since they have no way of addressing that server. Similarly, IPv4-only servers are unable to accept IPv6-only clients.

In tabular form:

Works currently via IPv4;
Would work via mapped addresses

When (or if?) we come to this, we'd probably want to consult RFC 4038 for further advice.

I remember when Nerd was still active, he was saying that he could fix airs and 3hks if he had JJ2+ source code. I think he was saying he would do it with editing TCP and UDP ports or something like that. Can't remember well, but if you know what I mean please tell me if it is possible.