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)

I'm not goalposting anything, but I am quite sick of the constant accusations you throw my way. I don't care to argue this anymore if you're just going to be insulting, my stance is that it should say Windows-exclusive and it'll just have to wait until more input before anything is changed.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 20:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The information is clear. The discussion was goalposted and derailed throughout. It is very evident that nothing I have said was an accusation, nor an insult. Taking a stance of pathos is not constructive to the integrity of information this wiki is supposed to provide, and especially so for a technical segment. An appeal to emotion does not provide factual validity to any of your claims. I will wait for a third party review of the information. Sitzkrieg (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm not trying to "appeal to emotion" or "taking a stance of pathos", I'm simply calling out your behaviour. You are very clearly implying I'm somehow obstructing the truth, as you have done on the Source code talk page discussion as well. You can disagree with it as much as you want, but that's not wanted behaviour on this Wiki.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 20:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Zero rationale provided. It appears to me that you are taking great offense to nothing, a situation where no insults were thrown, which does in fact confirm your stance of pathos. Intentional or not, you are not only obstructing truth, but defending lies. My behavior this entire time has been professional and on-topic. My comments and edits are focused on maintaining factual accuracy of the wiki. Your last 2 comments here were not constructive to the central point of the disagreement. The discussion is no longer on topic. It has been completely derailed to revolve around your own personal feelings, which is not relevant to the scope of the edit. No matter how emotionally distraught you may become, vulkan is not a windows exclusive launch option (or render API). I am not here to hurt feelings or cause distress. I just want the wiki to be right. Sitzkrieg (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Your central argument of "If I run the Windows version of TF2 on Linux it's no longer Windows exclusive", frankly makes zero sense to me and I see no reason to change the current wording. Also, you're being argumentative and rude over something extremely minor. Mediarch ♥ Talk ♥ My Edits 21:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Let me make it clear for you then: your current behaviour is not acceptable. If your edits will result in pages being locked, then the ensuing discussions are just you saying "anyone who doesn't agree with me is obstructing the truth and wants to destroy access to information" your editing time on this Wiki will be short. Your behaviour being problematic needs to be called out, whether you agree with it or not, pretending like I'm getting super emotional over this issue instead of going "hey, you're being rude and your behaviour isn't acceptable" is just straight-up annoying.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 21:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

That's an obvious strawman attempt (or potentially a genuine misunderstanding) of what I actually said. I provided 1 practical example of a scenario when TF2 on Linux would not default to -vulkan. It was also not the central point of my proposed change. If it doesn't make sense to you that is OK. Not everyone is a technical professional or familiar with Linux. Different people interpret things in different ways, but interpretation and facts are ultimately different things. I do not see how I am being argumentative or rude. Also, neither of you are arbiters of reality. This is supposed to be a 'public wiki' from what I've been told, not a 'edits are only accepted unless the grand council agrees' wiki. I am not "problematic" just because the two of you disagree with me. Your appeal to authority does not scare me. I have done nothing wrong. I have not done anything rude. Defending my point is not an act of aggression or an attack. It is simply defending my point. My statements of appealing to emotion, goal-posting, and derailing have been long confirmed now. I do not see how any of my behavior has been unacceptable. I presented and defended my case multiple times over. The Vulkan launch option or render API is not exclusive to windows. Sitzkrieg (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. Your edits don't need to be accepted, but if there is a disagreement a discussion is a standard way of doing this. Staff opinions don't matter more than others, so an appeal to authority is not even possible. Me saying that is a warning about your behaviour, where a staff opinion does matter, your own opinion on your behaviour does not matter in this case. The issue is not disagreeing with people, that's fine, but this condescending behaviour of pretending your opinions are fact-based and backed up with arguments and claiming I am just being emotional and using fallacies to try and be right is not constructive in the slightest.

Furthermore, listing ways in where it would not default to Vulkan by running the game in ways not intended is not a valid argument.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 22:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

If I might interject, I'd like to add that while the -gl command can be used to use ToGL instead of DXVK, the -vulkan command when used by the user isn't going to do anything as it is already enabled by default for Linux users, and the scripting commands provided on the Wiki are explicitly for commands for the user themselves may provide, not the developer. While the Windows version could be used instead and argued as an example of when a Linux system would need the command, the Windows version is still ultimately being used. I would potentially clarify that Vulkan is enabled via DXVK, as it doesn't replace DirectX outright, but I'd say it being considered a Windows-only launch command is justified.
Kibblekip ^{T | C} 22:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It is refreshing to have an on-topic response. Thank you. While my above example may not be the strongest, it was just a practical example of a common configuration that many Linux users take advantage of. Most users dual-boot, and since most users dual-boot it wouldn't make sense for them to reformat their NTFS game drive to a different file system to anything other than NTFS, as it is the only fs supported by windows. The -vulkan command when used by the user will not effect the native Linux binary by default, but as the scripting wiki page is covering tinkering, settings, options, etc. I think it is important to consider variables and scenarios other than default. What if the setting was changed from its default state by another script or similar entity? What if a user has a bunk config and is confused on how to restore their render API to vulkan? What if the spaghetti code of TF2 causes a serious bug to arise where Linux users need to explicitly change their render API? I could go on forever here. My main point is that the option works on Linux. It isn't exclusive. The launch option being enabled by default on Linux does not make it exclusive to windows. Vulkan is 'enabled' in a sense with DXVK (more so utilized), but this would sidetrack the discussion into a Theseus' Ship debate. Sitzkrieg (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

TF2 doesn't have spaghetti code, that's a common myth from people who don't know programming and parrot what other (equally unqualified) people have said.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 23:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

NTFS is not the only filesystem supported by Windows, as it can read exFAT, FAT32, etc formatted drives as well. That aside, while I'm unsure where you're getting the statistics that most Linux users dual-boot from (and as said, if we're assuming the Windows version is on aforementioned game drive, that is still the Windows version, not to mention Linux systems with kernal version 5.15 and later can read NTFS drives), we are assuming that the user has an at least mostly default configuration and, on Linux, is using the Linux version. The -dxlevel launch command does not affect whether the Linux version uses DXVK or not, and as mentioned above the game does not have 'spaghetti code', which as also mentioned is a commonly spread myth. If the -gl command makes the game use OpenGL instead of Vulkan I think it's more reasonable to argue it as a launch command that affects the Linux version (to which the -gl command should also be added, though not recommended to use), but otherwise I agree with the position to say its a Windows-exclusive launch command.
Kibblekip ^{T | C} 00:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Linux user here, and I do have to say that I am in agreement with what Grampa and Kibble have said. The second you have to start translating calls from a Windows binary to get something to run on Linux, it's "Windows-exclusive". You're not running it on Linux, you're running it in an environment that is pretending to be Windows so that it can act as a middle man between that Windows application and your Linux system. The game's executable is not runnable by the Linux kernel at all without this translation layer, so a feature that requires this shouldn't really shouldn't count as "supported by Linux". Furthermore, while I do agree that it could maybe happen to be of use in the circumstances you have mentioned, I'm pretty sure that adding -vulkan to fix such a problem is both out of scope for the article and is also not an appropriate fix for such problems in the first place (instead, one should remove the modification(s) that would cause their game to not use the default to begin with). To me, that feels like a "spaghetti hack" rather than an actual fix. There is no good circumstance where you should use -vulkan instead of just removing the very thing that overrides the default setting. J0w03L (talk) 02:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, another Linux user here! I do not agree calling -vulkan a Windows-exclusive launch option. It is enabled by default on Linux, yes, and if it's enabled... then it means it does something. In other Source 1 games, -gl is used by default, but -vulkan (where supported) can also be used. As far as I know, all Source 1 games use DXVK and ToGL, which are translation layers — in other words: no Source 1 game on Linux has any form of actual native rendering. Would it make sense to, for example, call -gl a Windows-exclusive? I don't think so. Previous comments suggested TF2 is running in a Windows environment, and that is not true. TF2 has a native Linux version, and doesn't rely on the Proton compatibility layer to run. The only thing it "uses" from Windows would be DirectX, which is translated to Vulkan because DirectX code is proprietary and not supported on the Linux operating system. But, even then, it's dxvk-native, which is "[...] a port of DXVK to Linux which allows it to be used natively without Wine." Considering TF2 runs in a native environment, and that the launch option works on other Source 1 games (and -gl also works, even if it's the default), then it's technically incorrect to call it Windows-exclusive, because it is not. Just because something is enabled by default, and just because it wouldn't do anything because it's already enabled, it does not mean it does not work and, therefore, it's Windows-exclusive.
Considering the current described form of the launch option, removing the mention of "Windows exclusive" wouldn't invalidate the rest of the text.
Tiagoquix (talk) 05:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)