how many developers are still using 2.7x?

[EnterTheStory (aka tolworthy)]

Now that 3.x has bedded in, how many of us are still using 2.7x with no immediate plans to change? I ask because I don't want to keep posting questions about a release that is no loger supported.

I wish I could upgrade, but for me, Linux compatibility is very important, so 3.0 is not an option. Even if a Linux port is made, I'll probably still be with 2.7x forever, since my game is being released in separate sections that link using RunAGSGame. Are any other developers committed to 2.7x?

Apologies if this is the wrong forum (or has been discussed before) but I couldn't find this particular question on recent threads.

[SSH]

I've got a poll about this on my blog at the moment. Looks like a fair number are still using 2.72. Yahtzee's games are all made in 2.62!

As for support, as people who regularly use the forums move to newer versions they will forget how older ones were different. Scripting hasn't changed that much between 2.72 and 3.0, more editor changes. But of course, if you find an AGS bug that stops you from doing what you want, you'll have to upgrade to get any fixes, as CJ is unlikely (IMHO!) to release a fixed version of 2.72: rather he';ll include any fixes in the latest version.

[Radiant]

Me, I keep using it because my system has problems installing the dotnet stuff that is required for the 3.0 editor. Also, I consider Linux compatibility to be important. Heck, I'd use 2.5 for the Mac portability if not for the fact that it lacks several scripting features (as opposed to editor features) that I consider crucial.

[agentbauer]

I'm also still using 2.72,
I tried 3.x but I don't like the interface... :

Maybe someday I'll change my mind....

[Dualnames]

I loved
AGS 2.72 more than infinity squared did. So i tried to use 3.0 and I really loved it. you guys are missing cool things. I really mean it. I used to say that I can;t change to 3.0 (there's a topic about it somewhere) but I managed to.

[MrColossal]

I haven't upgraded to 3 because I'm making a 256 color game and last I heard 3 doesn't support that anymore?

[OneDollar]

8-bit is still there, AFAIK there were one or two bugs that were discovered late (and may or may not still be in the 3.0 release) because very few people were testing 256 colour games in it, but reguardless they should be gone by 3.01.

I'm using 3.0 because I love the new editor, layout and primarily the removal of the interaction editor which I found annoying. Then again I don't know anything about making my games compatible with Linux/Macs etc.

[Akatosh]

I'm still using 2.72 and I'm not planning to change that soon. Hell, I just barely recovered from the changes made after 2.71! 

[Gilbert]

I mainly use v2.62, as it's the last version with a DOS engine.

[Dusk]

I switched to 3.0 when it was released as stable, and I'm really happy with the new editor and features. By the way I did it being confident that a Linux port of the engine will be available in the near future, because I'm a convinced Linux user and supporter too.

Why the port shouldn't be done? The major changes from 2.72 to 3.0, as CJ frequently stated, are in the editor and not the engine, so I hope/suppose that releasing an updated Linux engine is something that will someday happen

[Gilbert]

One reason is because ports other than the original window$ one are not maintained by CJ, those who are responsible for the Linux and MAC ports are probably busy with other things at the moment.

[EnterTheStory (aka tolworthy)]

A real live mod is still using 2.62? That makes me feel better. Thanks for all the replies!

[Ponch]

I'm still using 2.72 and plan to for a while. The game I'm hoping to get out the door in a couple of months has been in the works on and off since 2004 (it was started with 2.56d!). I'll probably upgrade to 3.x for later games. I've played around with it a bit and it seems pretty swanky, though the new interface will take some getting used to.

- Ponch

[LeChuck]

I'm using 2.72 still, as I've been working on a project for a couple of years. I tried importing it into 3.0 but it gave too many error messages, so I'm sailing this boat ashore and jumping ships later.

[miguel]

I've finished a game using 2.72 and started using 3.0 for a different one.
It takes me more time doing things but I believe it's a question of time.
3.0 allows me to organize my work better and I like the windowed debbuger, it's faster and pretty handy!

[deadsuperhero]

I'm currently using 2.72, mainly because I've gotten so used to the "nonprofessional" interface that I've come to love so much. One day I'll switch to 3.0, as it has a billion amazing new features, but I'm still loving the old GUI at the moment.

[GarageGothic]

I pretty much always work on my game using the latest version, even the betas, to take advantage of new features that I've requested. I never used the interaction editor, so porting the code has never been a real problem, even though I started development in version 2.62. Parts of it were completely rewritten when object oriented scripting was introduced. But I still have quite a bit of legacy code (using old style strings and whatnot) and will keep them as long as they work.

[Elessar]

I'm still using 2.72, but I plan to start using 3.0 or 3.01 soon. That being said, I'll probably hang onto 2.72 for reference.

[The Suitor]

I use 2.72, and I wanted to switch to the latest version (3.0.1?). I figured the new interface out and I like it. But It seems no matter what I do in it I get billions of errors. So 2.72 for me until further notice

[Da_Elf]

im still old school with 2.7x (well. i would be if i was still working on my game)