Question regarding the next contest

[Kyo]

I'd like to address Valtteri's reason to not allow lunadll
"It's too complicated"

That would have been a good point if LunaDLL was released a week ago. But we've had almost a year of time to practice it. Now, this point sounds like refusing to go a step forwards. I mean, you all wanted a SMBX 1.4. If it involved practicing a little bit of scripting, would you leave it and continue with 1.3? Besides, LunaDLL doesn't create a significant advantage at all, as proven by certain previous posts. I think we've made clear that installing LunaDLL isn't a big issue anymore. Then why, Valtteri, why would you still disallow it? It's about time we make that step forwards, and unless PlatGenWohl or VSMBX becomes a new SMBX later, the amount of features that can only be implemented using LunaDLL will only increase.

tl;dr, complexity is not a good reason to block it completely when everybody has the chance to learn it. Also, I don't think I have to clarify why "don't feel like" is not a good point.

[Raster]

Here's why LunaDLL shouldn't be allowed:

1. It's not a widely known extension that everyone here uses.
2. It's not exactly easy to install for some people and it is not endorsed by the staff at the moment.
3. We don't need LunaDLL in contest levels. You can still be original and creative without using it.

[DarkMatt]

That would have been a good point if LunaDLL was released a week ago. But we've had almost a year of time to practice it. Now, this point sounds like refusing to go a step forwards. I mean, you all wanted a SMBX 1.4. If it involved practicing a little bit of scripting, would you leave it and continue with 1.3? Besides, LunaDLL doesn't create a significant advantage at all, as proven by certain previous posts. I think we've made clear that installing LunaDLL isn't a big issue anymore. Then why, Valtteri, why would you still disallow it? It's about time we make that step forwards, and unless PlatGenWohl or VSMBX becomes a new SMBX later, the amount of features that can only be implemented using LunaDLL will only increase.

tl;dr, complexity is not a good reason to block it completely when everybody has the chance to learn it. Also, I don't think I have to clarify why "don't feel like" is not a good point.

LunaDLL still isn't standard issue no matter how hard some of you try to force it down the community's throats. This is why it's probably not going to be allowed for a while. Only way this is ever going to change is if it becomes a god of features or we stop getting complaints that it's a virus. I know Kil's still working on it but for god's sake it's hard to understand just what it can do and where it's at when there's nothing but a command reference. No changelog, no dedicated progress thread, not a lot of anything. Fact of the matter is LunaDLL is still just a niche thing some people are familiar with and I don't see that changing in the forseeable future, even if we start allowing the usage of it in contests. If you love it so much, fucking make levels with it and post it in the Levels forums. You only have yourself to blame for not using it as frivolously as possible. Seriously, for being so stalwart in trying to get LunaDLL allowed in the contests, I sure as hell don't see levels using it floating around, now, do I?

42 post circlejerk over people whining about how we treat LunaDLL. Yep, that's a dynamite thread of...a simple question about whether or not we're using LunaDLL like yo it was just a question not an argument. I better see some compelling points made to redeem this trainwreck or down the toilet it goes.

The only argument I buy is "it plain won't work"

Then why are you still posting because you know that's not the argument being made. Really, If you're going to shitpost, at least be productive. Why you gotta be such a complainer at times?

[Sednaiur]

So its this luna.dll problem again ^^.

For me it is fine, when luna.dll is allowed in the contests. I mean, maybe people are right about it, but I know for sure, that I am just too dumb to even get it to work. Period ^^.
I asked leif ericson about it long ago, but he and also the others didn't even understand my problem at all.
I have Avira installed, and it never fails me, but when it comes to luna.dll, it blocks it, then I tell it to ignore it, then it ignores it, then it dosn't works, because it already got blocked, when I started up the exe. So I close the exe, restart it again, and Avira blocks it again, even when I tell it, to ignore it forever.

That is my story, and if luna.dll is allowed, I am fine with it, since people shall have fun with it, and it sure is a lot of work to code something like that. I also have some nice ideas for it, but well, what I can't handle, I better shouldn't use anyways. Just like humans should do with nukes and stuff.
Then I just won't paticipate, which will not do any harm, I guess :-).

[Kyo]

Darkmatt, your definition of whining might be a little off. But more importantly, you should calm down because that kind of attitude is what usually leads to redundant arguments and I assume you are not aiming for one. It's hard to take you seriously with the way you are uttering your opinion.

That being said, you are right with that first paragraph, but still, I can't find any persuading reason as to why LunaDLL must not be allowed. The point that it is not going to put someone who uses it in a considerable advantage still stands. You can't really object that. And the point that you can easily install it by making an exception for it on your antivirus still stands as well. One could argue that learning how to do it might not be worth it, hence I proposed to make LunaDLL levels optional in ToB8. The complexity of using it doesn't really play a role there. I still fail to see why LunaDLL must be, under no circumstance, disallowed for those who spent time on learning how to use it correctly.

[DarkMatt]

That being said, you are right with that first paragraph, but still, I can't find any persuading reason as to why LunaDLL must not be allowed. The point that it is not going to put someone who uses it in a considerable advantage still stands. You can't really object that. And the point that you can easily install it by making an exception for it on your antivirus still stands as well. One could argue that learning how to do it might not be worth it, hence I proposed to make LunaDLL levels optional in ToB8. The complexity of using it doesn't really play a role there. I still fail to see why LunaDLL must be, under no circumstance, disallowed for those who spent time on learning how to use it correctly.

Perhaps not, but that's not the point I'm making. I'm talking about how LunaDLL hasn't been demonstrated to give a terrific spin on levels. I've still only seen it do two things: add in a timer, and change what NPCs throw out what. (I've also heard it could do more powerful layer control but I haven't seen anyone actually do that.) (And mess with the HUD. Neat, but aesthetics.) That does not revitalize SMBX by any margin. That's not all; though, literally nobody has any idea (exaggerated) how people can keep in touch with how LunaDLL is progressing. I mean, the help thread here/in talkhaus is nice, but that's for people climbing the hill. For the sensible people who are still at the bottom, they need an actual clue as to what it actually is before they take such an endeavor; the community can't exactly fill in that blank themselves. (Well they could, but, well, everyone has taken to trying to spread it like Christianity instead of indoctrinating LunaDLL.)

And another thing, maybe to you and me adding an exception or, using antivirus software that isn't fannies is easy, but these are kids we're talking about: kids who have never touched anything involving a sense of computer literacy in their life. These kids will have to ask and it's not as easy as walking into this forum and typing up a barely legible post. Some of them might just be stuck without a paddle, due to their computer being family-owned or them just incapable of understanding instructions or so on so forth. If they never think twice about the antivirus they use then telling them "OH JUST ADD AN EXCEPTION HERE'S HOW" is like giving a script monkey a DDoS tool, or some other bad simile. Point is, there are plenty of people around here, ONE WHO EVEN POSTED HERE, who can attest that installing LunaDLL can be a real pain depending on your circumstances. I've installed more fickle things on my computer but I have a knack for getting such toys to work. People like me should not be used as a baseline for gauging whether or not LunaDLL is simple to use.

[Kyo]

That is a good point, but look. LunaDLL isn't obligatory for a contest level. Some gimmicks might be broken without it, or not work at all. But if you can use it, why should you disallow it? And for the second paragraph, due to that, LunaDLL levels should be optional, so anyone can complete ToB8 without going through that halfway complicated installation. That solution would satisfy both sides. LunaDLL users can use it without gaining a big advantage, but those who simply can't use LunaDLL, can still play ToB8 and can participate without being put in a disadvantage. You all are pointing out completely legitimate flaws of LunaDLL, and I have absolutely no problem with that. But I just don't think LunaDLL should be disallowed completely if they can simply be made optional for the ToB, if you get what I mean.

[Mable]

Here's why LunaDLL shouldn't be allowed:

1. It's not a widely known extension that everyone here uses.
2. It's not exactly easy to install for some people and it is not endorsed by the staff at the moment.
3. We don't need LunaDLL in contest levels. You can still be original and creative without using it.

Pretty much this^

[lighthouse64]

I believe people should get to use lunaDLL if they want.

[Shadow Yoshi]

Valtteri can correct me if I'm wrong, but LunaDLL will be supported in all official community events once 1.3.0.2 is released. By that time we'll likely have fixed all of the issues with antivirus programs detecting smbx.exe as a virus.

[Shadow Yoshi]

No, that's incorrect.

[Kyo]

No, that's incorrect.

Then what are you planning to do?

[DarkMatt]

No, that's incorrect.

Then what are you planning to do?

I'm pretty sure it would involve altering LunaDLL to either not have code that makes antiviruses jump or do some simple tweaking so that SMBX asks for LunaDLL or some nonsense like that. The thing that needs to be changed here is how LunaDLL interacts with SMBX, and that should be easy enough to do. (Hopefully. I'm just spouting nonsense.)

Anyway, the question now is, "Would you place them along with the levels that don't use LunaDLL or judge them separately?" The problem here is how to make LunaDLL optional without causing problems. I figure this would more compelling if, again, LunaDLL was more ACTUALLY EMBRACED by the community.

Hope you enjoyed me playing devil's advocate.

[FanofSMBX]

This is an address of DarkMatt's posts

1. I agree that there could be a change log. If you want to see the main functions look at Darkchao's thread or use his app. I am making an episode with it that is over 2/3 complete. I'm posting *because* I don't buy these points. I can't sit back and allow this to continue especially from the staff.

2. Have you played A2XT? It contains:
-every level having a "music" cheat that shows the music as text
-text that is shown on screen with no box, you can still move
-modified boss HP
-boss health shown under for example "Robirdo: 3" for every boss
-modified max hearts for Link during one level
-in that same level hearts can drop randomly from enemies
-a beam in the hub that gives you a life every few seconds with no sound or anything
-a level like Giana Sisters Twisted Dreams where you can duck twice in a row to switch between Mario and Luigi, which changes enemies and the level
-a level where you press switches to suck Thwomps to the ceiling or floor to bypass them
Not impressive? Well if it "doesn't change much" then what advantage would it confer?
I see your point about the virus alerts. That is why it is imperative to release 1.3.0.2.

3. SMBX does ask for lunadll. That's how it works. And who are you calling the devil? I know it's a phrase but I don't like being referred to like that and I'm sure Kyo doesn't either.

[FallingSnow]

This is an address of DarkMatt's posts
3. SMBX does ask for lunadll. That's how it works. And who are you calling the devil? I know it's a phrase but I don't like being referred to like that and I'm sure Kyo doesn't either.

dev·il's ad·vo·cate
noun

a person who expresses a contentious opinion in order to provoke debate or test the strength of the opposing arguments.
"the interviewer will need to play devil's advocate to put the other side's case forward"
historical

No one called anyone the devil. "Playing devil's advocate" is like an idiom.

[lighthouse64]

LunaDLL probably could get its source code altered.

[Axiom]

There's no way around the fact that 90% of antiviruses will regard LunaDLL as a virus, and here's why (if it's already been stated, I apologise)

Kil modded SMBX himself to inject some calls into SMBX that call the DLL, and due to this process antiviruses will mark it as a virus since they assume the library wants to do something harmful to the PC. Sadly, there's not really a way around it.

People also need to realise that there's a C++ redistributable that you require (I think 2010 is the one you need) and I believe you need .NET too but don't quote me on that. Granted, that could be fixed easily with an installer but then that leads us to another problem: the installer

With installers and folders and such, I've noticed that sometimes VB/.NET programs have troubles recognising what the "current directory" is. For example, back when I had a 3rd party installer for my Episode Manager:

-The program was installed to, C:\EPMANAGER (as an example). So we'd expect the current directory call to return C:\EPMANAGER. However, it would return the location of the shortcut, C:\Users\Mike\Desktop instead. And that's not SMBX's fault really, it's moreso Microsoft's fault. Something that's too late for them to fix in VB6 but they could probably still get under control in .NET.

I'm sure there's a way to fix this with the shortcut's working directories and stuff but that's way beyond my experience, as I don't use 3rd party installers to create installers. Hence, why I will recommend the .zip version of SMBX any day, you have alot more flexibility with where to put it.

[DarkMatt]

Kil modded SMBX himself to inject some calls into SMBX that call the DLL, and due to this process antiviruses will mark it as a virus since they assume the library wants to do something harmful to the PC. Sadly, there's not really a way around it.

Yep. This was the problem I was outlining.

I'm not going to magically assume Joey has the source and has managed to fuck around with it, but that is what needs to be done: have the call for the .dll not be fishy nailed in pieces of code. It would, indeed, involve recompiling SMBX n all that jazz, and well, I have never assumed anybody ever has the source code and has ever done anything with it, not even the person who made 1.3.0.1. So I'm not openly hoping for this problem to be fixed.

...It is a problem and I dunno why you people thought it wasn't. Enlighten me.

[FanofSMBX]

I thought people could flag it as non virusy but I guess not.
And no you can't "recompile" SMBX. Valtteri simply used graphics and hex (text) editors on the compiled 1.3 exe. Think of it as painting over an already painted wall.
@SnifitGuy: Kil made it for Talkhaus's project. They needed the stuff it did now and Kil was able to make it. People were complimenting PGW as "way better" than SMBX's "slow editor", so there's no magical attraction to SMBX proper.

[Axiom]

Kil modded SMBX himself to inject some calls into SMBX that call the DLL, and due to this process antiviruses will mark it as a virus since they assume the library wants to do something harmful to the PC. Sadly, there's not really a way around it.

Yep. This was the problem I was outlining.

I'm not going to magically assume Joey has the source and has managed to fuck around with it, but that is what needs to be done: have the call for the .dll not be fishy nailed in pieces of code. It would, indeed, involve recompiling SMBX n all that jazz, and well, I have never assumed anybody ever has the source code and has ever done anything with it, not even the person who made 1.3.0.1. So I'm not openly hoping for this problem to be fixed.

...It is a problem and I dunno why you people thought it wasn't. Enlighten me.

Yeah no one has the SMBX source code so that's not going to happen, otherwise it would be as simple as referencing the LunaDLL from inside VB6. But yano, redigit, beer, blah blah blah