Adrift - Axe Software Forums

  Axe Software Forums
  Quest Developer Forum
  Adrift

Author Topic:   Adrift

Sockets posted 19-07-2002 23:08 BST
Adrift is better than this junk. Go to adrift.org.uk to get something much better. We have more games and a better forum. Be sure to stop by sometime and say hi. Tell 'em Sockets sent ya.
gamer1962 posted 20-07-2002 12:56 BST
Better ? You cant even save a created game with more than 10 rooms unless you buy the registered version, If you want to test it out by trying other games you cant because the website doesnt have any games with the current version available and the new version wont automatically run older version, you have to convert it, and guess what you cant convert it either without the registered version. Better?
Alex posted 20-07-2002 05:59 BST
I wasn't aware of any 10-room limit in ADRIFT - I wasn't aware of a registered version! I always thought it was free. Anyway Sockets, I've linked to ADRIFT from this website for a long time - see http://www.axeuk.com/quest/qlinks.htm . So go ahead, try it out, see if you like it. Quest is considerably more powerful, but suck it and see. Whatever works for you.
gamer1962 posted 20-07-2002 08:28 BST
I tried to go there and check it out, when I went to save a game it told me that I could not save a game of more than 10 rooms without getting the registered version. I may have spoke ignorantly about the cost, it may be that you can register for free:)
MaDbRiT posted 20-07-2002 15:13 BST
Alex wrote

quote:

I wasn't aware of any 10-room limit in ADRIFT - I wasn't aware of a registered version! I always thought it was free. Anyway Sockets, I've linked to ADRIFT from this website for a long time - see http://www.axeuk.com/quest/qlinks.htm . So go ahead, try it out, see if you like it.
Quest is considerably more powerful, but suck it and see. Whatever works for you.
Don't know about the 10 room limit, but (AFAIK) ADRIFT version 4.0 onwards is now a shareware product that has limitations until registered. Versions up to 3.9 were (and remain) free.
This has been commented on in the past on some of the IF newsgroups. This puts Quest Pro & ADRIFT 'on the market' at roughly equal cost to the author.
I don't propose to get into a language war as to whether Quest is better/worse than ADRIFT, frankly both do a fine job of letting authors create from a graphical interface without having to soil your hands with nasty code writing although they go about it in rather different ways.
My take (for what it is worth) is that ADRIFT does more by way of providing a range of objects to be used 'out of the box' and therefore can seem easier to use at first, while Quest requires more initial effort to create from the basic object, but as a consequence allows far more control over what can be done. This discrepancy in ready to use objects is something I am personally trying to address:-
I'm making an effort to give Quest a range of object types that authors will be able to use 'out of the box'. To that end I'm working on an improved library of types that can be accessed through Q.D.K. I have my own ideas as to what sort of objects are required, but any suggestions will be seriously considered.
On the subject of writing nasty manual code - Quest authors have the option of coding manually OR through the QDK interface. Quest's ASL programming language is pretty easy to learn and deceptively powerful and this is a big advantage when you can't quite find a way to do something through the GUI, with ADRIFT you are rather more limited.
In Quest one is able to create various 'types' of objects, then inherit properties and methods from these multiple types. This is the kind of seriously powerful stuff that is normally the province of those using the expert coder's tools like TADS, Inform or HUGO, but Quest brings it to a (relatively) easy to use GUI.
Thus I think Alex's comment that Quest is 'considerably more powerful' is entirely fair and may even understate the case somewhat! :-) His conclusion do is 'spot on', no one is forcing you to use Quest (or ADRIFT for that matter) so choose the system that suits you and let other people do likewise.
It seems to me rather silly to 'rubbish' a system just because it doesn't suit you. I don't like the mega powerful & hugely popular 'Inform' system because I find the syntax really hard to read compared to (say) TADS, but I'd not presume to tell people Inform is rubbish and TADS is great, they just suit people with different takes on what is easy to follow code.
Al
carlii posted 21-07-2002 18:50 BST
What nerve that guy has...just turning up here and bagging you guys out! We never do it to them.
As for which one is better, I say Quest. It's simpler, richer and rawer than Adrift.
And of course, doesn't have those weaknesses mentioned before.

Author	Topic: Adrift
Sockets	posted 19-07-2002 23:08 BST Adrift is better than this junk. Go to adrift.org.uk to get something much better. We have more games and a better forum. Be sure to stop by sometime and say hi. Tell 'em Sockets sent ya.
gamer1962	posted 20-07-2002 12:56 BST Better ? You cant even save a created game with more than 10 rooms unless you buy the registered version, If you want to test it out by trying other games you cant because the website doesnt have any games with the current version available and the new version wont automatically run older version, you have to convert it, and guess what you cant convert it either without the registered version. Better?
Alex	posted 20-07-2002 05:59 BST I wasn't aware of any 10-room limit in ADRIFT - I wasn't aware of a registered version! I always thought it was free. Anyway Sockets, I've linked to ADRIFT from this website for a long time - see http://www.axeuk.com/quest/qlinks.htm . So go ahead, try it out, see if you like it. Quest is considerably more powerful, but suck it and see. Whatever works for you.
gamer1962	posted 20-07-2002 08:28 BST I tried to go there and check it out, when I went to save a game it told me that I could not save a game of more than 10 rooms without getting the registered version. I may have spoke ignorantly about the cost, it may be that you can register for free:)
MaDbRiT	posted 20-07-2002 15:13 BST Alex wrote quote: I wasn't aware of any 10-room limit in ADRIFT - I wasn't aware of a registered version! I always thought it was free. Anyway Sockets, I've linked to ADRIFT from this website for a long time - see http://www.axeuk.com/quest/qlinks.htm . So go ahead, try it out, see if you like it. Quest is considerably more powerful, but suck it and see. Whatever works for you. Don't know about the 10 room limit, but (AFAIK) ADRIFT version 4.0 onwards is now a shareware product that has limitations until registered. Versions up to 3.9 were (and remain) free. This has been commented on in the past on some of the IF newsgroups. This puts Quest Pro & ADRIFT 'on the market' at roughly equal cost to the author. I don't propose to get into a language war as to whether Quest is better/worse than ADRIFT, frankly both do a fine job of letting authors create from a graphical interface without having to soil your hands with nasty code writing although they go about it in rather different ways. My take (for what it is worth) is that ADRIFT does more by way of providing a range of objects to be used 'out of the box' and therefore can seem easier to use at first, while Quest requires more initial effort to create from the basic object, but as a consequence allows far more control over what can be done. This discrepancy in ready to use objects is something I am personally trying to address:- I'm making an effort to give Quest a range of object types that authors will be able to use 'out of the box'. To that end I'm working on an improved library of types that can be accessed through Q.D.K. I have my own ideas as to what sort of objects are required, but any suggestions will be seriously considered. On the subject of writing nasty manual code - Quest authors have the option of coding manually OR through the QDK interface. Quest's ASL programming language is pretty easy to learn and deceptively powerful and this is a big advantage when you can't quite find a way to do something through the GUI, with ADRIFT you are rather more limited. In Quest one is able to create various 'types' of objects, then inherit properties and methods from these multiple types. This is the kind of seriously powerful stuff that is normally the province of those using the expert coder's tools like TADS, Inform or HUGO, but Quest brings it to a (relatively) easy to use GUI. Thus I think Alex's comment that Quest is 'considerably more powerful' is entirely fair and may even understate the case somewhat! :-) His conclusion do is 'spot on', no one is forcing you to use Quest (or ADRIFT for that matter) so choose the system that suits you and let other people do likewise. It seems to me rather silly to 'rubbish' a system just because it doesn't suit you. I don't like the mega powerful & hugely popular 'Inform' system because I find the syntax really hard to read compared to (say) TADS, but I'd not presume to tell people Inform is rubbish and TADS is great, they just suit people with different takes on what is easy to follow code. Al
carlii	posted 21-07-2002 18:50 BST What nerve that guy has...just turning up here and bagging you guys out! We never do it to them. As for which one is better, I say Quest. It's simpler, richer and rawer than Adrift. And of course, doesn't have those weaknesses mentioned before.