Hardcoding part 2.

[TF6049]

What if PR decided to roll BF2 way back to when there wasn't much hard coding in BF2? Everything I've heard says that hard coding was only due to a patch being implemented...

[waldo_ii]

What if PR decided to roll BF2 way back to when there wasn't much hard coding in BF2? Everything I've heard says that hard coding was only due to a patch being implemented...

The BF2 engine is no more closed source now than it was before DICE worked on patches.


Also, what is "hard coding?"

[TF6049]

I remember reading somewhere that it started out as soft code, and then patches they applied over the years were applied in hard format. Also, what if the PRT did tell EA, "You offer us the source code under conditions of not releasing it (Non-disclosure agreement) outside the DEV team, we'll revamp it and give you a finished game to have your way with (you can sell it, you can scrap it, whatever)."

[SkaterCrush]

Even if you managed to raise some amount of money for the source code, it would be much easier in the long haul to just start PR2 or something on a new engine.

[Burton]

Ok, but this isn't a regular event. It's like asking for FCS in PR. Yes, it's possible, but it's unlikely to happen.

The only way you'll see FCS in PR is by playing CA.

[Hunt3r]

Wrong,

You might've misinterpreted mate.

I meant that you could get something exactly the same as the original source code, but doing so would be against the EULA and law.

Anyhow, C4 engine has the ability to have things like rotor wash, jet wash, etc, with capabilities to precompute forces on 2D planes.

Basically, C4 engine, with enough programming and time, can achieve similar flight dynamics as MSFS, or close enough for PR2.

Anyhow, not worth the time to reverse engineer BF2 and risk getting sued or something. The devs of PR already have a C4 engine license, so what's the point?

[deemoowoor]

"Hard coded" usually means that some parameters are written in the code, so that they are not configurable. It can also mean, that some functionality was implemented in a distinct manner, instead of being implemented in a generic reusable way.

If something is hard coded in the engine, it usually means that you need to do a lot of coding on the engine's code to be able to modify it. And it also means that you need to have the engine's source code to do that.

Disassembling binaries, while usually being against copyright holder's license terms (unless it's open source software) is also very impractical, when you want to make big changes (i.e. implement something that isn't there). Sure, many people do that to e.g. fix simple bugs in archaic software, by modifying short assembly sections in disassembly code, or even "crack" binaries to remove different copy-protection checks (e.g. NoCD cracks are done this way, AFAIK). But this is all possible only because usually these copy protection checks and bugs are just same code snippets, which are easily bypassed or fixed.

But when you talk about something like implementing a generic feature in a 3D game engine, it's usually a lot of coding work, which requires enough effort as is, without the added difficulties of disassembly editing.

[Garmax]

buy the engine and stuff is.. expensive.. thats why PR2 has been chosen to use the C4 engine

not much is hardcoded with that engine and a lot is possible

[deemoowoor]

Well, if you want optimised code in the first place, then you will most likely have some assembly code in the source. It can run a LOT faster than code generated from a C source file, as you have control over exactly what happens in the processor, and you can count exactly how long something will take.

So, disassembled code might be just as hard to change as the original source, since both could be in assembly.

Well, I'm not that much into game development, but usually assembly is required only in very small bits of code, extracted to e.g. inline functions, compared to all the logic, that is done to actually use that optimized code.

My point was that disassembly code is quite different even to whatever assembly code a developer would write, because:

1. it lacks any comments whatsoever
2. it is mostly compiler-generated, which adds a lot of unneeded code overhead, which makes it even harder to work with

That's why C/C++ is almost always preferred: it makes code much more clear to read and work with. There are critical places, where you may need to implement some functions (even whole libraries of those) in assembly, but mostly C/C++ will do.

I'm just trying to communicate it to the general public here, I'm pretty sure PR developers understand all this even better than me. My point is that modifying the engine from disassembly is not a viable option.

[CodeRedFox]

bottom line is while it would be possible to court EA/Dice for the source code we have no plans to. Which is why as you all know PR2 is in development.

[Katarn]

buy the engine and stuff is.. expensive.. thats why PR2 has been chosen to use the C4 engine

not much is hardcoded with that engine and a lot is possible

errr, we have the source code so nothing is hardcoded.

[Gore]

errr, we have the source code so nothing is hardcoded.

can has nukelawncher like in fallout pliz=

[Chilidrew]

whats pr2?

[Garmax]

errr, we have the source code so nothing is hardcoded.

wow even better!

oh and follow the link for pr2 info

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f10-pr-general-discussion/64205-pr2-faq.html

[Chilidrew]

wow even better!

oh and follow the link for pr2 info

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f10-pr-general-discussion/64205-pr2-faq.html

we would have to pay for pr2?

[snooggums]

errr, we have the source code so nothing is hardcoded.

Rocket-propelled attack dogs with fast ropes here we come!

[CodeRedFox]

we would have to pay for pr2?

Nope, but you will have to buy your own in game gear meaning only the rich players will have bulletproof armor.