DOSBox-X's website is a mess. Impossible to know which version to download.

[AsterixVortex]

As I said, DOSBox-X's website is a mess. A complete knowledge bomb where the user easily gets lost if he isn't interested in reading tons of text just to know which version he should download. If you guys didn't get already, I'll tell you: not everyone is a developer. Most of the people who goes for DOSBox-X just want to get that nostalgia feeling from running that ancient game from years ago.

I see you have a Wiki and the information are all well written and organized, but it lacks objectivity. The "get to the point" thing.

I just want to run "Star Wars: Rebel Assault" on a modern Windows 10 x64 computer in the best way possible. I bought it from GOG, but the "main" DOSBox 0.74 doesn't seem to fit my needs in terms of quality. So, I decided to go for DOSBox-X. That said, I have been searching for hours, and, still, I couldn't find which version of the latest build of DOSBox-X to download. Is it the Visual Studio or MingW build? After hours, I finally could find a piece of text that explains that the best version for Windows users is the ones built with VS. Wasn't enough, as for now I have to find which version between these two:

"dosbox-x-vsbuild-win64-20230501152329.zip"

And...

"dosbox-x-vsbuild-win64-20230501103911.zip"

Besides, where are the installer versions mentioned throughout the site [32-bit Setup (Vista+)* | 64-bit Setup (7+)*]? There's no link to it on the website and I can't find it on GitHub... It is a complete mess.

Don't take me wrong. I'm not a developer. I'm just a user who wants to play a game — and I bet my frustration is shared by many who are interested in downloading DOSBox-X.

[AsterixVortex]

It really seems to me that this project has been abandoned or is being managed by robots. Maybe someone should fork this repository and try a more hands-on, end-user approach.

Until that happens, I'll need to choose another DOSBox SVN build. I'll test the ones described in the Wiki of the original DOSBox 0.74:

https://www.dosbox.com/wiki/SVN_Builds#List_of_SVN_Builds

And, of course, if anyone has any suggestions, I'd like to hear them. It could help not just me, but also other users disappointed with the lack of commitment and active development of this project.

[Burrito78]

The currently easiest way to get Rebel Assault running on a modern OS is to use the DREAMM emulator.
https://aarongiles.com/dreamm/

There are different DOSBox ports for different needs and DOSBox-X is a very important fork for doing things no other port can do. But maybe it's not the best one for you. But DOSBox in general needs a little work from the end-user and is in general no 5 minute solution.

[AsterixVortex]

The currently easiest way to get Rebel Assault running on a modern OS is to use the DREAMM emulator. https://aarongiles.com/dreamm/

There are different DOSBox ports for different needs and DOSBox-X is a very important fork for doing things no other port can do. But maybe it's not the best one for you. But DOSBox in general needs a little work from the end-user and is in general no 5 minute solution.

"DREAMM is a bespoke emulator for LucasArts games, including [...] mid-90's Star Wars games (Dark Forces, X-Wing series, Rebel Assault series)"...

Thanks a lot, man! I never know such a thing could exist. I will try it right away! 🥇 👍 :D

[BridgeHeadland]

@AsterixVortex The project is not abandoned, some nightly builds have been added 3 hours ago.

[Torinde]

Latest versions are at: https://dosbox-x.com/devel-build.html

[Dobby233Liu]

the installer versions mentioned throughout the site [32-bit Setup (Vista+)* | 64-bit Setup (7+)*]

There's tooltips on the asterisks saying that these versions are not available, as they weren't uploaded. I'm not responsible for the uploading of the installers, but the meaning of the asterisks not being clear is on me, so apologies.

[Torinde]

@Dobby233Liu, maybe it's better the tooltip to appear when hovering over the any part of the text, not only over the asterisk

@AsterixVortex, your remarks about robots disappoint me and I think you need to look around a little more before making such statements. You're free to use or create any fork you like and such insults don't help anybody.

[joncampbell123]

It really seems to me that this project has been abandoned or is being managed by robots. Maybe someone should fork this repository and try a more hands-on, end-user approach.

Until that happens, I'll need to choose another DOSBox SVN build. I'll test the ones described in the Wiki of the original DOSBox 0.74:

https://www.dosbox.com/wiki/SVN_Builds#List_of_SVN_Builds

And, of course, if anyone has any suggestions, I'd like to hear them. It could help not just me, but also other users disappointed with the lack of commitment and active development of this project.

It's not abandoned. I haven't had much free time to work on this project recently. Most of the changes are pull requests that I merge in as others made changes they feel improve the project.

[founder-a500]

what's the difference between
"dosbox-x-vsbuild-win64-20230501152329.zip"
"dosbox-x-vsbuild-win64-20230501103911.zip"

[Torinde]

I assume "dosbox-x-vsbuild-win64-20230501103911.zip" is the official one, but interesting to know which of the collaborators made the second one and what's the difference.

[Torinde]

2023.09.01 VS builds also have duplicates... I agree it gets confusing:

[joncampbell123]

There are VS builds I made plus VS builds automatically compiled.

[maron2000]

@joncampbell123
We can stop uploading the automated Intel mac and VS builds for the Release versions, if you wish to build and upload them yourself.
MinGW (+low-end, HX-DOS) builds and Windows setup files will still be uploaded by the CI workflow.
ARM mac builds has to be manually built and uploaded due to that it is currently not supported by github CI workflow.

Unfortunately, HX-DOS build failed to upload again, so if you can, would you manually upload the following version?
https://github.com/joncampbell123/dosbox-x/suites/15743310390/artifacts/898915323

[Torinde]

There are VS builds I made plus VS builds automatically compiled.

File sizes are different, so I wonder what's the functional difference? Also, which file is your manual build and which is the automatic one - earlier time is automatic?

We can stop uploading the automated Intel mac and VS builds for the Release versions, if you wish to build and upload them yourself.

Intel mac build is not duplicated, only the VS builds are. But isn't it more convenient to keep the automatic uploads? Then @joncampbell123, you will have to upload only the ARM mac build?

[joncampbell123]

There are VS builds I made plus VS builds automatically compiled.

File sizes are different, so I wonder what's the functional difference? Also, which file is your manual build and which is the automatic one - earlier time is automatic?

We can stop uploading the automated Intel mac and VS builds for the Release versions, if you wish to build and upload them yourself.

Intel mac build is not duplicated, only the VS builds are. But isn't it more convenient to keep the automatic uploads? Then @joncampbell123, you will have to upload only the ARM mac build?

I guess I'll go ahead and let the automatic build run the VS builds and Intel mac builds then, but I am going to continue making a private local build prior to release to at least check they work.