cannot find -ltheora

[Another Guy]

Tried that. No good. Dunno how Muton solved it.

Now I can compile all files with no errors, but for some reason, it does not seem to compile right. Comparing with Odie's Installer files, his Ufo.exe has 7.630 KB. Mine has 1.929 KB. UFORadiant.exe has a ridiculous difference: Odie's version has 29.718 KB and mine 2.229 KB. Mmmm this can't be right.

[Muton]

The official C::B lack some libs and/or header files
Odie compiles a debug version those are bigger than release builds

[BTAxis]

Yeah, the release targets are all considerably smaller. Also faster.

[Another Guy]

Oh, this explain things. Thx for the answers.

Maybe Devs should consider updating wiki official C::B Pack with the missing libs? Or just replace it for muton's. It's a lot smaller then official one (doubt it's only due to the compression type  ).

[odie]

Tried that. No good. Dunno how Muton solved it.

Now I can compile all files with no errors, but for some reason, it does not seem to compile right. Comparing with Odie's Installer files, his Ufo.exe has 7.630 KB. Mine has 1.929 KB. UFORadiant.exe has a ridiculous difference: Odie's version has 29.718 KB and mine 2.229 KB. Mmmm this can't be right.

Oh, i know my reply is a bit late (due to my annual stocktaking on at moment, plus my officer's course and Adult first aid refresher's course 2 wks back).

For your query on my ufo.exe -> I do a DEBUG version (select this from your CB program, and switch to debug, and u will see difference).

DEBUG if u do not already know, allows certain commands to be input into the program while running, and allows debugging of the game (grrrr, i sound like i am an idiot saying that lol). Things such as forcing a certain parameter into the game.

It should be so called for development purposes (and not for cheating) and for stable releases like 2.2.1, it will NOT be so for 2.3-stable versions, and should rightfully not be.

Plus one more thing, if u r just compiling it for your gaming's sake, u should stick to non-debug version, as the compilation procedures is longer, esp if u r not running a decently-fast machine (like quad cores or dual cores 2.8GHz 3.2GHz with some 2GB - 4GB RAM).

Oh yar, one more thing, since u r into SVN already, u might need to 'compile_maps.bat /clean' command from time to time, esp when the way maps are being built are changed. This usually happens when u see someone changes the behaviour of pathfinding (like the current walk up and down stairs issues).

This CAN BE and DEFINATELY will be an UBER time consuming tasks - which i believe u already know, since the initial map compilation will take u some 2-3 hrs (even on a dual core 2.8GHz machine with 2GB Ram). A "compile_maps.bat /clean" will repeat that procedure, whilst a subsequent "compile_maps.bat" command can take some only 2-3 mins (If no new maps update) or maybe <30 mins (if only 1 to a couple of maps get updated).

Have fun!

[Another Guy]

Haven't realized that, although u always stated it was a DEBUG version in ur posts. 
I fell quite displicent now. lol

And yeah, compiling maps take about 1.5 hour for me. It's a Intel Core Quad Q6600 (2.40GHz), 8GB RAM. I'm running Windows Vista Ultimate 64 bits.
Dunno if videocard does anything for the compiling speed (most probably not), but it's a GeForce 8800 GT.

[Muton]

to speed up map compile time check out
http://ufoai.ninex.info/forum/index.php?topic=3604.0
http://ufoai.ninex.info/forum/index.php?topic=3583.0

[odie]

Haven't realized that, although u always stated it was a DEBUG version in ur posts. 
I fell quite displicent now. lol

And yeah, compiling maps take about 1.5 hour for me. It's a Intel Core Quad Q6600 (2.40GHz), 8GB RAM. I'm running Windows Vista Ultimate 64 bits.
Dunno if videocard does anything for the compiling speed (most probably not), but it's a GeForce 8800 GT.

1) Haha, no worries on that debug part. We all have some of those silly days. Me inclusive.

2) U have a quad core 8GB Ram? Tats a good machine. It should compile way faster than mine.... probably u r underutilising your machine. Do Win-Secret tweaking on it if u must. Vista sux btw. Lol.

3) And no, videocard ram / stuff DOES NOT contributes to compiling speed - its simply for rendering graphics' sake - which means it will affect only graphics related processing : 3D rendering, graphics loading, etc....

And GeForce GT 8800 is not bad, i used to have tat card on one of my older machines. Though i would not claim its the best. I know someone on this forum is "more MAD" than i do on benchmarking of speed and performance, but i guess i leave u to find out (or that person to reveal him/her-self). lol.

[Duke]

And yeah, compiling maps take about 1.5 hour for me. It's a Intel Core Quad Q6600 (2.40GHz), 8GB RAM. I'm running Windows Vista Ultimate 64 bits.

When did you compile them the last time ? By the end of may it took me less than 40 min on my i7, but some 2 weeks ago, it was more than 2++ hours again.

Dunno if videocard does anything for the compiling speed (most probably not), but it's a GeForce 8800 GT.

That's a very interesting question I'd like to pass on to Mattn. Most of the total compile time is used for lighting, and I can well imagine that some libraries might make use of the graphic processors for that purpose.
At least I know it's possible.

[Mattn]

this is not yet the case - i'm not sure whether some things can be calculated on the gpu as most of the stuff is about traces (pathfinding and lightning)

[odie]

this is not yet the case - i'm not sure whether some things can be calculated on the gpu as most of the stuff is about traces (pathfinding and lightning)

Mattn,

Being curious here. Wondering if u r using Linux (os?) or windows (32 or 64 bit?) machine to compile?

I read somewhere before that it is actually possible if u r on Linux, to do something abt utilising your graphics memory as swap or something, but its too technical here to list. Better not, in case someone messes up their comp..... but its worth the try if u r the one, since u know this proj inside out.

Let me know k? I see if i can still find em and pass u the links, perhaps on PM.

[Another Guy]

When did you compile them the last time ? By the end of may it took me less than 40 min on my i7, but some 2 weeks ago, it was more than 2++ hours again.

Actually I only did 2 complete map compiles, both around june 20th to 25th when I was actually getting C::B to work for me.
After that, I only rerun the .bat every new compile to update any new maps in the SVN trunk. I'll probably need to do another full recompile soon after harvester stairs are completely solved to beta test it properly. I may post here the elapsed time then.

Hopefully if more ppl post it too (along with their system specs) this will lead to some good wiki gudie on tweaking map compiles to optmize performance for some processors (as mutton already did on another topic for his sys spec).     Can never dream high enough. lol

[Another Guy]

Last night, I did a complete map compile and it took me ridiculous 16 hours to compile (last time it took me 60 minutes). No relevant changes in windows or new installed appz. It worried me enough to check my PC with 3 antivirus (AVG, Mcafee and NOD32). PC is clean. Anyone else with same issue?

Edit: created a new topic for it here.

[odie]

Actually I only did 2 complete map compiles, both around june 20th to 25th when I was actually getting C::B to work for me.
After that, I only rerun the .bat every new compile to update any new maps in the SVN trunk. I'll probably need to do another full recompile soon after harvester stairs are completely solved to beta test it properly. I may post here the elapsed time then.

Hopefully if more ppl post it too (along with their system specs) this will lead to some good wiki gudie on tweaking map compiles to optmize performance for some processors (as mutton already did on another topic for his sys spec).     Can never dream high enough. lol

I have done a reply for u there.
In summary, no it is not the case for me.

[Duke]

I just wanted to compile radiant for the first time and ran into the problem described above:
"cannot find -lgdkglext..."

Question: does the latest C::B zip from the wiki link now contain a gdkglext for window$ ? Or what is the *official* way to do it ?
(Yes, I've seen Muton's offer)