All Activity

The biggest part of the problem is calculating pathfinding and collisions between units. That's the main source of problems in all RTS games. And unfortunately, it has to be done in real time.

ok

Still, precalculating AI decisions early on won't work. Game state changes so fast that plans become completely invalid beyond just a few seconds into the future. That early precomputation does zero to relieve late-game CPU strain, in fact, it does the exact opposite. Constant re-planning wastes processing cycles, massively complexifies the codebase, and drastically increases the risk of CPU throttling right when performance matters most.

The purpose was to free cpu space, not ram

This won't work for 0AD. The main issue late-game is CPU lag from live pathfinding and unit checks, not a lack of RAM. Precalculating AI plans early on wastes CPU cycles because as soon as a human player moves a single unit, the AI's precomputed plan is invalidated and has to be thrown out anyway. Disk swapping AI instructions would also cause massive frame stuttering.

I was thinking of how an operating system uses extra ram to speed stuff up; "unused RAM is wasted RAM". I was wondering if that could apply to 0ad somehow

Would it be helpful if when the game is paused or the ai is not doing a lot or when it is early on in the game, that it planned the next commands or tasks that it would execute (where to build, etc.), and store it in the ram, then it checks if that command would still work when the time comes to execute, and if so, it does it. The idea is to take some strain of the cpu when you are in a more cpu heavy part of the game with lot of units/structures, by calculating certain things when you aren't doing much. Now, if it is storing it in the ram, and you need more ram for the current stuff, it could just delete the current instructions, or like memory swapping, save it to the disk. I don't even know if it would help, or if it would make it worse. (sorry if this doesn't make sense ) If you are confused, just say so, and I can try to explain it better

You could always open issues or even better pull requests and get the problems fixed. It is surprisingly easy to make a PR for text changes using just the web UI.

I'm not 100% sure. It might be the link. I've changed settings etc to try and limit the spam posts, but it's hard to find the exact spot where we have as few spam posts as possible, but also no issues for genuine forum members, so sometimes topics/posts are held for moderator approval which shouldn't. As soon as a moderator has time to approve it it should show up though

I see there are some typo corrections, which reminds me I did propose some in More specifically (the first a typo, the last 3 mix up plural with singular): -Tyrtean Paeans -> Tyrtaean Paeans. -Perioikoi Hoplite -> Perioikos Hoplite. -Perioikoi Cavalryman -> Perioikos Cavalryman. -Skiritai Commando -> Skirites Commando. And the most necessary (upcoming) fixes regarding the Athenians: -In the civ description, “fell in 330 BC” should be “fell in 338 BC”: a mistake regarding the Battle of Chaeronea. -Catafalque names should be given in two lines: for the Athenian one I’m reading “THENIAN CATAFALQ” because it’s in one long line. Those given in two lines look much better, being kept inside their crest. The Germanic one is missing “Germanic”. Maybe these obvious things should be posted somewhere else? And why is this even posted as "Hidden"?

No we started working on both when we reached Feature freeze for R28

In there is says: "Development started by Wildfire Games on 2025-10-14" Did they start 29 before they release 28? Or did someone forget to update it?

@lilypoppy, I'm not sure what's going on with that writing format, but it took me a lot of time to try to edit a quote, just to lose everything like 3 times just by doing CTRL+Z on text that wasn't even in the quote. Also, I wonder if you are tagging incorrectly, since I saw your post by chance, it doesn't appear in my notifications, and also I didn't see it under Unread Content, which is even weirder... Anyway, regarding potential allies, the source states that the Romans hired the Celtiberians (Belli and Titthi) against the Lusitanians, even after the death of Gaius Vetilius. It's later on that Viriathus detached them "from their allegiance to the Romans". I'd say first read all that's said there about Viriathus, and then think about how you want to organise the whole campaign. I wonder if you really have to limit yourself to just 3 scenarios. Also, the Vettones are pre-Celtic, like the Lusitanians (both were usually allies), thus not Celtiberians (although some claim otherwise, but doesn't seem the main view). All of them appear in this map (these things might not appear on ancient sources, you have to read modern texts also): EDIT: that map represents the situation 150 years before Viriathus, but 100 years later (200 BC) the situation was still quite similar:

The official page is here https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/wiki/Release29, but it's likely a bit behind.

Is there a simple list of all the things they are changing for version 29?

I think it is pretty nice! and you can presumably share custom hotkey setups as a .txt file. I think it is useful, and simple enough that it fits with the existing intrastructure.

It's still there https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/src/branch/main/binaries/data/mods/public/art/actors/geology/geo_waterfall_double.xml Since it was placed as an actor you need to alt + select

Did this waterfall item change in update 0.28? I made a map using it. The eyecandy waterfalls are there in 0.27 but are missing when loaded in 0.28. Opening the map in atlas editor I can see them but not select or handle them. The section of xml-file is: <Entity uid="10404"> <Template>actor|geology/geo_waterfall_double.xml</Template> <Position x="1155.12537" z="847.9823"/> <Orientation y="-2.01528"/> <Actor seed="1508"/> </Entity>

@Thalatta I really like the resource. I find it a bit hard to read and fully understand, but here's my Scenario 1 based on the first chapters. SCENARIO 1 – UNITE THE TRIBES (Inspired by Appian, §61-62) Element Detail Objective Rally the Lusitanian tribes to build an army. Context After Galba's massacre, 10,000 survivors are in hiding. You must convince them to follow you. Hero Viriathus (leader). Potential Allies Belli, Titthi, Vettones (Celtiberian tribes). Enemy Gaius Vetilius (Roman general) – 10,000 legionaries. Historical inspiration Viriathus saved his surrounded army by a ruse : he scattered his troops and harassed the Romans with swift cavalry. 0 A.D. mechanics Build your base, defend against Roman attacks, send emissaries (or troops) to convince nearby villages to join you. Victory condition Gather at least 4 allies on 6 and repel Vetilius' army.

I've been working on a new feature to add to the game. The idea is to provide an easy way to preserve our hotkeys, create templates, and quickly switch between them. Potentially export presets into a plain text file. I currently have a basic implementation that covers the minimum functionality: duplicating and deleting hotkey presets, while always keeping a Default Preset as a baseline. The presets are stored in binaries\data\mods\public\moddata\hotkeypresets.json (in theory, this would be mods/user in a compiled redistributable version). Just like with user.cfg, this .json file only stores hotkeys that differ from the default hotkeys. Initially, I wanted to use an INI-style file structure, but I'm not sure if there is an equivalent function to WriteJSONFile for that. I chose this location because it is already included in the whitelist, so I can avoid making changes to the Engine. I also didn't want to use user.cfg and add dozens of extra lines to it. So basically, the code adds a .json file that stores, reads, and modifies hotkey presets, and then copies/applies the active hotkeys to user.cfg. As for mods that interact with hotkeys, the idea is to change the current workflow as little as possible. So if there are any details I should take into account from a modding perspective, please let me know. Do you think this functionality would be useful to have? And, especially for the devs, does this seem like an appropriate approach, or would you recommend a better alternative?

Thanks! @ShadowOfHassen If you have 2-3 sources handy, that would be a great start. Appreciate it!

we are NOT close twin

My recommendation would then be to try to make it historically accurate. You can check Appian in https://www.livius.org/sources/content/appian/appian-the-spanish-wars, where Viriathus' story covers from §60 to §75. I can help you with the distillation and writing of information if you need that. You could for example paraphrase Livy (who didn't write a lot about him) by stating somewhere "From shepherd to hunter, from hunter to bandit, from bandit to leader".

That sounds like an amazing idea, i don't know how many good atlas tutorials there are, but there are quite a few experienced mapmakers on the forums, I'm sure some of them can give you pointers.

This mod is good to be embed in alpha 0.29