Wow, all this arguing... hmmm... I agree that the bit about the programming argument should be dropped. It's pretty much irrelevant to the thread.

As for your comment about server-wide chat being toall, I don't really care. I'm not asking anybody to script it into Graal. I already said that it's more of a personal idea. toall: wouldn't include all of the features as of what my idea is.

Dear god, kaimetsu. Calm down.


I understand the idea.

Of course it would obscure the game window, The only way it couldnt would be if when you resized the window, it resized it making the npcs // players // tiles smaller or larger.

Which is a very nasty idea.

You question my mental age?
It happens to be the same as my real age.
And if it wasnt, I would seriously doubt my MENTAL HEALTH.

MrGannondorf, since all you seem to know how to do is insult people's intelligence, I see no reason to even respond to anything of yours anymore. You tell me I say nothing logical... right. Enough.

Um... wtf? I don't know where you came up with this, as nobody mentioned anything even remotely similar. I thought you understood our idea? :)

Okay, now I know that you don't understand. No resizing is necessary.

I'm not even sure what point you're making here. Mental age and physical age are completely different concepts, and sanity is not a factor in either.

No, SDL does not provide that support, but that is to create multiple graphical windows, not actual functional windows -- that can be achieved easily.
Yep, that's another problem.
All of the windows in Graal 3.x are not hardcoded, they are specified and handled through the scripting language. The script files are hidden (& "compiled").

I actually think that you're thinking about changing the resolution of the ingame window. You're right, that would be a nasty idea. The problem is though, that it's not the idea posted in this thread.

Well, seeing the emotional reactions I got from my last post, I got my point accross as well as I can get it, you're just mad because I'm right.

At any rate, I don't come to the game forums to be insulted or to insult, those are just a byproduct of dealing with close minded people.


Also, while making a new sdl library would cause maby an hour or two of work, what makes you think your idea of rescripting the interface wouldn't? Last I knew, Stefan liked making things more customizable, not ramming things down people's throats?

I'm not going to argue this any further. The interface changes you've proposed to be implemented to graal weather people like them or not are stupid, so they make a great test for graal's main creator. If Stefan wants to implement them, thats his funeral.

I can only laugh at that statement.

You're talking about rendered windows within the game? The objects handled by the new GUI script stuff?

Well, that's fine, but we were talking about separate window objects, not simulations thereof.

I know that (ex-GST, remember?), I only wasn't sure what you were saying because you're being ambiguous. You're using the same term for an actual OS-handled window object and a Graal-handled GUI component.

Yes, of course. It doesn't matter that you threw the first insult, or that you're arguing on a topic that you barely understand. You're perfect and can do no wrong. Anyone who disagrees is just jealous!!!

We're not talking about "making a new SDL library". We're talking about making a new SDL.

Who said anything about rescripting interfaces? You clearly don't even understand the original idea, and it would take barely any work at all (hence, as Kat mentioned earlier, Stefan's receptiveness to the suggestion).

We're talking about adding an optional feature that extends the capabilities of the engine. That seems to fit better in the former of your categories than the latter.

You weren't really ever arguing it - you were too busy insulting people and chasing imaginary topics.

I was talking about both, SDL can only handle one graphical window at a time (that makes use of SDL), whereas you could also instantiate additional non-SDL windows if you wanted to.

If I wasn't clear enough, sorry. :(

Ah, yes, that would be possible. It would be quite tiresome if the windows had any complexity, and it'd eliminate most of the point of using SDL in the first place, but it would work.

sorry :(

Dunno, adding fuel (on the part of others, mind you) to the fire seems to validate things.

Well, aslong as its optional, I don't care. I still think the idea is bs, though.

Ironic that I'm the one who is so busy insulting people, yet I said I'd shut up (in the words of not "arguing" it further) to stop it, and yet you kept adding fuel to the fire. Yes, you're so mature, and I'm just a whiney brat.

shhh.... calm down... :rolleyes:

And it's interesting that it actually wasn't your last post, and you in fact came back to throw some more insults. Listen. You can't attack somebody and then declare the argument over, as if your departure suddenly brings the issue to a close - especially if you don't actually intend on leaving. Using your favorite metaphor: That's like adding fuel and expecting it not to burn. If you put insults or arguments in your final post then it's perfectly reasonable for your opponent to respond to them.

I must say, this is some complex stuff...
"Arguing about arguing"

Wow, one of my most newbie threads!
I still think this would be a great idea for Graal v5

Isn't it possible to do this in V4?

It is. :)