All Activity

Here I will now share a modified map of "battle of the tiber" scenario. I call it "rome with crossing". Water depth is modified so that ships have more movement options. Especially in the swamp area. Altough there first the trees need to be cut. There is also a small foot-path to cross the tiber river in the middle of the map so that land units have a small path to cross the river. Altough not wide enough for rams etc. they still need to take the long way around the bridge. Hence the change of the name. In the beginning only merchants and fisher can pass, also when trees cleared all ships have passage there. Merchantman can travel almost up to Vai while military ships only half the way. There are also lot of treasures all over the map but also to give rome a boost in the start, because they start with no units unlike other parties having a small group of champs. The screenshot shows a arrow ship in the swamp surrounded with worker units. PS: This is the map with my water-fall messing up in topic "waterfalls" Rome-with-Crossing9.xml Rome-with-Crossing9.pmp

Seems like a bug to me. And I wonder how many other mod options have this issue.

Okey, I found the reason..... some time ago, I tested Mod Gui.... and disabled eye candy features. It seems this option is still active when mod is disabled. I need to activate autociv and Mod-Gui [0.28.18] to have the option back in the menu, and with enabling eye candy features the waterfalls are back again. ( Well I have not seen this setting left back in user.cfg) I did not have this in mind because I thought with disabling these mods I can eliminate this reason.

@Sundiata trying to inbox you about an artwork of Amanirenas I'm looking for but my account may be too new

This really points to the work network or router rather than the game itself. UDP traffic being blocked would explain why some players can connect while others cannot, especially since it only happened at work.

It runs fully sequentially, but there is good potential to parallelize parts of it. This is something I'm working on actually. Yes, I think so. Sadly, I personally don't know enough about it to implement it myself, but I know that there have been experiments/attempts by others in the past.

Depends on what. Rendering and simulation are on the same thread, pathfinding runs in multiple threads. Sound is in its own thread. The OS decide which threads goes onto which core. @vladislavbelov is working on a way to run the rendering on parallel to the next simulation turn. That will help although on higher end machines, rendering isn't so hard on the GPU.

They don't exist as anything but actors. Them being missing in the game is concerning though.

Does 0ad use multi cpu cores, or just one?

When you mention render submission being the main bottleneck, is the core issue that Pyrogenesis's rendering pipeline runs sequentially on a single CPU thread, or is it already multithreaded and just struggling with massive draw call volume late-game? Furthermore, is there any prospect for optimization through GPU instancing to batch identical units and cut down those draw calls?

Is there another way you can use hardware when not all of it is being used, so it can free of some when you need it more?

Pathfinding is not actually as performance expensive as one would think. The individual pathfinding requests each turn can be (and are) nicely computed in parallel by the engine, so on machines with decent hardware concurrency they finish surprisingly fast. The render submission process and rendering itself are a much more perfomance-constraining factor.

Indeed, and unfortunately you cannot pre-calculate all possible paths. That could be possibly an acceleration factor.

Okey, well, well.... seems I can not do that, my windowmanager (marco) thinks it is command to him..... I deleted the sections in xml-file, put them in again, and then removed actor attribut. It all simply changes nothing. It is there but unselectable in Atlas and not there in the game.

Lilly poppy, I’m not too skilled at the map editor, but I do have a handful of trigger scripts that I can post that might help you out.

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"?