Leaderboard

That seems mostly to deal with entity templates, which are certainly one part of the translation issue, but not all. We'd still have to come up with custom solutions for JS, JSON, and GUI XML? Personally I'm leaning toward the approach taken on http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/67 that uses existing libraries, tools, and data formats. I don't have experience translating software, but if someone who does says that's a common approach, it's a major consideration. If the tools are out there to do what we want, why reinvent the wheel? It's true that this: at first glance seems less friendly than this: but I'd be wary of spending time to solve problems other people have already solved over the past decades. It seems tools are out there to work with .po files, sourcing them from files in multiple languages. Writing a tool to parse our own custom translation format is yucky enough, do we want to be doing the same for entity and GUI XML, let alone arbitrary JS scripts and JSON data files?

Fixed the texture. darn hard to find good photos for the wing from above. http://www.flickr.co...shi/6580254701/ http://www.flickr.co...shi/5488404797/ Edit: Aw crap. He had NC on those photos. Edit2: I sent him an email asking if he would consider dropping NC on those two photos.

Just go to http://trac.wildfiregames.com/report/9 and check the ones under "Art and animation". The rest will have to be added of course, but for the ones already on Trac it's just to look at that list

I wasn't referring so much to the format of the file as to its contents. POs are normally converted to the binary MO format anyway, which is more tightly packed than the format you are suggesting. Did you notice how much functionality you are throwing out by using the allegedly simpler custom format? I'm just trying to point out that the options seem to be either something on the level of complexity I suggested, the IMO strongly neutered format you suggested, or standard PO. I would prefer the latter, but it's always a good idea to at least take note of the alternatives.

see: template_unit_mechanical_siege_ram.xml <RestrictedClasses datatype="tokens">Organic</RestrictedClasses> <PreferredClasses datatype="tokens">Gates Structure</PreferredClasses> Replicate this. This is how it's done for what you are talking about in this thread. In the example you give with your siege tower, you would put "Support" where "Organic" is in my example.

Well, I am new and I can assure I will be very active in the forum. Because I tried the game and I enjoy it, and so I would like to help improve the game. (If I would not like it/see potential, I would have never registered, not even to improve the game) Not only by suggesting, but my plan is to start learning modelling and texturing and do little things like decorative stones & skins and later a bit more difficult stuff like European flora (I know about some edible plants and trees in Europe, and I would like them in the game) I enjoy the development reports. I think it's always better to have any reports than no reports, because it keeps your attention. There's a mod I enjoy, but I'm not that active anymore because there are no updates, and not much to chat about (I suggested everything I wanted and could because of engine limitations). A developer report could have something new, and that could be discussed. Without any news there would be less to discuss about I think.

If there is a correlation between a dev report and more forum activity/new contributors, I would be a happy man .

You'd face multiple problems by implementing your own system. You are using a keyword based system which is bad for the translators. Just look at the examples posted by historic_bruno: You have to translate some arbitrary keyword which means you have to lookup first the english "translation" to get its meaning and then translate. It's also bad for the developers as they now have to look at two places: The source code where the keyword is used and the english translation. Why not just use the english phrases in the source code and extract it from there (as is the case now anyway)? The developers just have to maintain the source code and the translators get an english phrase or real word to work with. That's what gettext does. How do you do updates? How do you inform other translators that the english translation of a keyword changed? What do you do with old obsolet/unmaintained translations? How do you inform translators about new keywords? You'd have to write tools for all these situations and probably more (like context and plural). Gettext and PO-editors have all these features already. And i just have to second zoot. PO files are text files. If you don't want to use a PO-editor with nice comfort functions or an online translations system like transifex then just use a plain text editor.

Really nice model. I hope you like the texture: Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Panthera_tigris_tigris.jpg

Yes, of course. I actually prefer a good optimised game than a bad optimised game with lost of gimmicks. Hence I present these as ideas (this could be done, doesn't have to). And I understand the developers have limited time and manpower, just like any voluntary game. Good thinking. However, I have no idea what would mean bad optimization and what not. So I present these ideas and let the developers decide if it is possible to implement regarding optimization. I have played mostly singleplayer, and 150 max also seems for me the best option. I like the idea of garrisoning a ram, or that the ram includes soldiers (by costing food). You make a very good point. Something like the rams for example could perhaps be in the options (though this does require more work no?). In the topic about gamemodes I forgot to say, that I prefer to have customizable gamemodes than a lot of different gamemodes. Worms: Armaggedon, a completely different game, has a lot of customizable options. I think that would be good. It's important that those options show up in multiplayer games. Democracy also applies to my ideas, that's why I made the polls. Maybe it would be better, if implemented, to be optional? Capping - on or off. I must say, I don't like my group bonus idea that much (because you already have an advantage with a big army). But bonuses or penalties depending on the territory I like. I also like a more detailed tech tree. Like I mentioned in the general suggestion topic, I hope to see more tech trees and especially choosing between them. Choosing between units would also be nice, the choice could be instant so it doesn't slow down the game. Like (example, I would need to do research): -Gaul kennel Irish Wolfhound anti-cavalry vs "Mastiff" anti-infantry One thing I don't like that much is people wasting soldiers (sending them on suicide missions). So I would like some additions that favour unit preservation over unit sacrifice. Though, I don't know how many agree with this, maybe I'm alone. Right now there are three: -saving units means you don't have to pay for other ones -saving units means you don't have to spend time to build other ones -experience gaining units means it pays of to preserve In games against AI, I float rescources in late game. So it does not really matter much if I preserve my units (though in the long run it's of course bad). *The experience goes quite fast, so it is easily regained, an idea: -Instead of additional phases, the excisting ones could take longer.

I don't like capping anything. It's quite unnatural that a civilization can build some fortresses, siege rams or whatever and then gets incapable of building another one. Instead I'd prefer to balance things. Unit capping might be needed though to ensure a fluent multiplayer experience (and balancing will not help here). I don't like arbitrary group bonuses as well. Some advantages might still arise from groups but they should arise naturally (like units shielding each other, fresh troops are cycled to the groups "border", ranged units are covered by melee units or such things). I'd like the tech tree in general (including phase upgrades) to be more detailed and dispersed. That might include other phases but dependencies of technologies, buildings and units would do as well (indeed no phases would be needed then). So in general I'm not opposed to more phases but think other dependencies in the tech tree would do better.

I believe it already filters by entities with UnitAI, i.e. only mobile units, so that wasn't the problem, rather it was a special entity used by formations. It should be fixed by r13484, please test

The new Mozilla's JS engine, IonMonkey, brought a lot of performance improvements, and it only landed in Firefox 18. So most probably v22 would be a lot faster than v17. But, if you could use v24 it would be even better, as the performance is improving from release to release, and v24 contains also OdinMonkey (asm.js) that you could use in some cases (for example for the AI, instead of moving code to C++, you could use asm.js so that the code would be a lot faster and there wouldn't be any performance penalty caused by JS-C++ calls).

If you go into developer mode (enable it via menu->settings), you can disable camera restrictions. It takes a lot of aiming, but it's possible with the zoom wheel and CTR+W/CTRL+S to get a FPS-like viewing perspective. For the controls, it's just a matter of re-mapping the keys. The biggest problem are the graphics. Currenlty, the models aren't detailed enough to always play on this zoom. And the animations aren't realistic enough either.

You can get a little team to do this. I like this idea when I play R&F Caw have mucho fun with that.

I feel pretty satisfied with the model now. tiger.zip

The game loaded from a multiplayer save without any errors. Opening the developer overlay failed with an error about the players array. In any case multiplayer saving should be disabled in the normal menu and there would be a hidden dev option to save for debug purposes.