I've tried Metamod source and a few others ( Yes I used the orange box
versions ) but they refuse to load. I even tried on Omega's Project Valkyrie
mod - didn't load either.
___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
I don't have problems with Metamod: Source (it worked a few days ago).
Make sure that:
1. You have a Metamod: Source 1.6 release.
2. You have extracted it into the right place (for TF2, you should have
a path named orangebox/tf/addons/metamod from wherever you chose to
install the Source
I'm talking about mods not commercial games like TF2, I did state that in my
mail.
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Ondřej Hošek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't have problems with Metamod: Source (it worked a few days ago).
Make sure that:
1. You have a Metamod: Source 1.6 release.
2. You
You haven't provided very much information, but you should check if the
metamod plugin is loaded (plugin_print), and see that meta list shows the
plugin you're trying to use. It may also be that the specific plugin you're
trying to use is incompatible with the mod you're running. It's not unheard
You need to post that on HLDS.
Tony omega Sergi wrote:
Well since you mentioned valkyrie; On monday I can take a look at metamod
and whatnot and see if it works in my current version, sometime i need/want
to re-write that thing, using the template I made for the sdk.. lol
Oh, and if metamod
There are only a few sections where the gains were at all significant.
Rather than a divergent library they probably could've realized a few
optimization patches and gotten the same benefit. The thing I don't
understand though is why so many software companies to this day still
try to do so
I thought FireFox could do no wrong?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 8:32 PM
To: hlcoders@list.valvesoftware.com
Subject: Re: [hlcoders] CUtlVector*... Memory management?
There are only a few
It doesn't. Firefox manages it's memory exactly the way it wants to; by
caching the back button.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Spencer
'voogru' MacDonald
Sent: Sunday, 1 June 2008 11:12 AM
To: 'Discussion of Half-Life Programming'
True it has. I can't find the site at the moment, but yes, Firefox has been
improved vastly.
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Jorge Rodriguez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 9:22 PM, Stephen Gigante [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It doesn't. Firefox manages it's memory exactly
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 9:22 PM, Stephen Gigante [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It doesn't. Firefox manages it's memory exactly the way it wants to; by
caching the back button.
No, no, that's not true. It does consume a huge amount of memory caching the
user history, but it also has many memory
10 matches
Mail list logo
