Talk:Scripting

Talk archives
	Archive 1

Moving launch options to its own article

I feel like the launch options section doesn't fit this article. We should move it to the current OtherWikis Launch options article. · Ashe (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer a different page that also contains info about the beta branches. Maybe something like "Steam properties"?
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 11:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

 Disagree. The beta branches are not really important, unlike the launch options. There exist only for demo compatibility, so imo they are not relevant · Ashe (talk) 05:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I think having at least some info about it somewhere would be good. I don't think a separate page is necessary, so a combined page would be best. Seeing as so far there has also been a VScript branch and a Linux 64-bit branch, it's useful to have info about these because there aren't that many other places for it.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 13:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

If launch options are on their own page, beta branches belong on that page since it's essentially a launch option (an optional branch you set prior to launch). These appear to not be noted anywhere else on the wiki, it's something related to tf2, why would we not include it? Especially since there is a permanent use-case for them with demo compatibility. Your point of them not being relevant would have been more compelling prior to these branches since that feature was basically untouched for like 8 years. I don't think they need to be on a specially named page and can just sit as a section on the launch options article. Jh34ghu43gu (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Since both scripting and launch options are primarily methods for changing advanced settings, the wiki page should be renamed to a more encompassing term. It makes sense to have launch options, beta participation, and scripting to be all on the same page, but it does not make sense to categorize them all as 'scripting'. Another reason why launch options and scripting should be paired together is because they are not mutually exclusive. Most autoexec's will instruct for launch options to be configured, and scripts can even be executed from the launch options field. Sitzkrieg (talk) 02:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

""disguise 8 3" will not undisguise a RED Spy" is incorrect.

I made a video proof that the command does undisguise a RED Spy. Let me know if I need more proofs or if it is an incorrect information.

Nihil ( Talk | Contributions ) 15:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be outdated then, feel free to remove.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 15:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Moving launch options down

The launch options appear suddenly while explaining alias and bind, so it is awkward and does not look good. I want to move it down. were I a reader, I would be a little skeptical if launch options popped up while explain alias and bind. Howtoplaytf2happy (talk) 10:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

overrides

Separately from the above, I want to write about folder overrides. "autoexec.cfg" and "class.cfg" must be in overrides to run, but tf2wiki is missing that information. It's not that big of a bite, but it's essential and I think it'll confuse people who don't know they need it. Howtoplaytf2happy (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

That's only if you're using mastercomfig, if you don't use it they don't need that folder.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 13:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Vulkan launch option

The Vulkan launch option is objectively Windows exclusive. It can be used on Linux in the same way I can use -bringobrongo on both Windows and Linux but it will do nothing, hence why we don't have a bringobrongo launch option section. By default, Linux uses Vulkan and you have to go out of your way to disable it. There's no factual information to cover by adding that it is available on Linux, it only serves to confuse as it would either need to mention "(does nothing on Linux)" or it would just be misleading in saying it replaces OpenGL.

MacOS is completely irrelevant because they have officially discontinued support for it.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 07:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It isn't. Here's proof from both Valve and Khronos (developers of Vulkan):https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Command_line_options , https://www.vulkan.org/. Nowhere on the valve developer wiki does it state that -vulkan is windows exclusive, and on the official vulkan website it states, in very plain English "Vulkan is a cross-platform industry standard enabling developers to target a wide range of devices with the same graphics API.". There are many situations on Linux where a user may need to manually enable the -vulkan option. One such common situation is where a user downloads the native windows Steam binary (for NTFS file system compatibility, i.e. shared 'game drives' across drive partitions). With the Windows binary running on linux all games default to DX, and since Direct X does not support Linux (unless it's through some DXVK shenanigans,) the -vulkan launch option must be used. It does not 'do nothing'. There are many other scenarios where the -vulkan launch option will work and apply the function. There should be enough proof from my comment here to revert the edit. Sitzkrieg (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

In the April 18, 2024 Patch it clearly says vulkan is enabled by default and requires the old system to be manually enabled instead. I never said Vulkan doesn't work on Linux, though, so I don't think any of this is really useful information. I'll add a note saying Vulkan is enabled by default on Linux, but I think calling the option Windows-exclusive is fine. Also, the VDC is not Valve.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 19:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I provided proof as to how the launch option is not 'windows exclusive'. Goalposting the discussion to a different premise is not constructive to the central point of the edit. Enabled by default (on native binaries) and exclusivity are two separate things. Claiming this information to not be useful when it is literally proof of non-exclusivity is insane. It is deductively, irrefutably, not exclusive to windows and the page should be edited to reflect the truth. Dismissing information is not the same as validating information. Linux-based operating systems are incredibly complex, so things are not always as cut-and-dry as they appear. Sitzkrieg (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)