nickie on 29/9/2012 at 08:05
Reposting this for Bannlyst as there have been no replies and may have been overlooked after being moved from another thread.
Quote Posted by Bannlyst
I installed the Bafford demo for having a look at the new patch (whomever made it: this looks amazing---thank you!), as I don't have Thief 1 installed at the moment. It certainly looks fantastic, but I was confronted right away with a problem I had years ago, on a different rig: Garrett moves forward slowly when I hit the walk forward button. He walks sideways and backwards at normal speed and he runs forward at normal speed.
I tried remapping the move forward slowly or slide key, whatever the command is called, as well as the speed toggle key, to no avail. Anybody know what to do?
voodoo47 on 29/9/2012 at 08:57
Quote:
The only problem I had -- and I saw someone mention this in the thread for your patch over at ttlg too -- is that I had the control key set up for running in the old version, and it didn't work with 1.19:
bind ctrl +faston
However, the syntax apparently changed for Thief 2 so that "fast" became "run". Why that change was made, I don't know, but my old keybindings, including running, worked just fine when I changed that line to:
bind ctrl +runon
Because 1.19 uses the Thief 2 syntax. Running is pretty important, because it's used for swimming too. Some of those levels would be pretty hard without being able to swim fast. IIRC, you have to be able to do that to dive underwater.
(
http://www.gog.com/en/forum/thief_series/tgfix_widescreen_resolutions_fixedimproved_graphics_etc/post216)
van HellSing on 29/9/2012 at 09:03
An easy fix is to copy the T2 user.bnd to the T1 directory, which gives you controls identical to T2 (including the eye zoom!).
MoroseTroll on 29/9/2012 at 09:54
Quote Posted by Ryu Connor
Sorry, I should clarify the context of deprecated. I don't mean removed from the CPU, I mean it's functionality has been replaced by SSE and AVX. You're not supposed to write programs with it anymore.
Hmm, some people still do have their old PCs, which can perfectly run Windows XP. But those PCs have no SSE and AVX support - I mean earlier AMD (pre-Athlon XP), Intel (pre-Pentium III), and VIA (pre-Nehemia) CPUs. So why me or anybody shouldn't use old instruction sets :)?
That's right,
64-bit ;). What about 32-bit?
Quote Posted by Ryu Connor
As an aside are you sure this new executable doesn't use SSE?
Absolutely. If some code uses MMX, it should contain the EMMS instruction entries (0Fh, 77h). If some code uses SSE, it should contain at least the MOVAPS, ADDPS, and MULPS instructions' entries (0Fh, 28h|29h; 0Fh, 58h; 0Fh, 59h; respectively). None of them were found (excluding one MOVAPD, but it's just a part of the SSE2-check). Have you :)?
Quote Posted by Ryu Connor
It's by no means a smoking gun, but the sshock2.log does CPU identification and names SSE versions available to it.
It's just a stub for a future, I suppose. Or it can be just a dispatcher for the external libraries the new executables use: FFMPEG, etc (though I think those libraries should have their own dispatchers).
Quote Posted by ToxicFrog
it's not a matter of "not having time to implement them" - you don't use these instructions directly, you tell the compiler to use them when optimizing.
Well, I believe the Microsoft Compiler supports the SSE1&SSE2 just as a replacement of the aged x87, not just because SSE1&SSE2 are way faster than x87, but for the sake of simplicity to generate the code (that's right, Microsoft uses the SSE1&SSE2 mainly in their scalar form, so there is no big speed boost against x87). Therefore, it doesn't matter whether you're using the SSE1&SSE2 compiler generated code or not. The Intel compiler is way smarter in such a matter than the Microsoft's one, but it seems to me that both new executables have been built using just the Microsoft compiler, not the Intel's one.
Quote Posted by ToxicFrog
That said, this is generally not the default; most compilers default to maximum compatibility and will emit code for the i386 or, in some cases, the i586 (ie, the Pentium I) - which means no SSE (which wasn't introduced until the P3) or MMX (which showed up halfway through the P1's lifetime) at all. If you want the compiler to use those features, you have to explicitly tell it that you don't care about compatibility with older processors. If 1.19/2.4 isn't using MMX or SSE instructions, it's likely that they just built it with the default settings and ended up with an executable designed to be compatible all the way back to the P1 or even the i386.
Believe me, I perfectly understand this, because I'm an asm coder since 1988 ;). Thing is, I think, some functions could be optimized manually (that's right, not by the compiler), and this could lead to some speed boost. But everybody knows that manual optimization, especially in assembler, is a hell. No, HELL!
Ricebug on 29/9/2012 at 11:30
Haven't seen anything on this, but can you now run Thief in a native multi-processor environment? Before, you had to tweak Windows to allow it to "see" only one CPU.
Myagi on 29/9/2012 at 11:47
Quote Posted by Ricebug
can you now run Thief in a native multi-processor environment?
I'm thuroughly enjoying playing the games again, on a quad core. Haven't noticed any problems at all so I'd assume the answer is yes.
wonderfield on 29/9/2012 at 14:25
Quote Posted by jtr7
What? The author may feel that they need to fix it for their own satisfaction. It's not uncommon for a creator to feel that way.
I'm not debating that?
Durinda D'Bry on 29/9/2012 at 14:59
1.19???? Really it should be 10.0 at least! I feel like dreaming...
BTW: what if it was EM work: source leak, then "patch". Just to make core funs relax about T4 delay because of "new consoles"?
bobber on 29/9/2012 at 16:32
Umm, I just play missions, not make them so I apologize if this is a dumb question.
When trying to unzip the T2_v119 files to my C:\Thief2 folder I keep getting the following error message:
"Cannot create C:\Games|Thief2\Thief2.exe. Administrative privliges may be required".
I use Windows 7 and have administrative privliges. Besides WinZip I tried using Winrar and it too says that Thief2.exe cannot be copied. I looked at the attributes for Thief2.exe and don't see what the problem is.
I figure there is a simple fix that you folks can help me with.
Thanks in advance.
LarryG on 29/9/2012 at 16:39
You don't have Thief2 open and running when you are trying this? No. Of course not. But maybe your OS thinks it's locked for some reason. You could either try rebooting or using a utility like (
http://unlocker.soft32.com/free-download?gclid=COagye2c27ICFQWCQgodyBQAZw) unlocker and see if that helps.
Edit: A quick test to see if it is locked: try to rename it. If it lets you do that, then locking isn't your issue, I don't think.
- - -
I love unlocker. It has saved me years of reboots. Once installed, simply right-click the folder or file and select Unlocker. If the folder or file is locked, a window listing of lockers will appear. Simply click Unlock All and you are done!
