Leaderboard

You need to move it out of the bottom panel object, i.e. replace: <!-- START of BOTTOM PANEL --> <!-- Limit to the minimal supported width of 1024 pixels. --> <object size="50%-512 0 50%+512 100%"> <object size="50%-512 100%-200 50%-312 100%"> <include directory="gui/session/minimap/"/> </object> <!-- Supplemental Details Panel (left). --> with: <object size="0 100%-200 200 100%"> <include directory="gui/session/minimap/"/> </object> <!-- START of BOTTOM PANEL --> <!-- Limit to the minimal supported width of 1024 pixels. --> <object size="50%-512 0 50%+512 100%"> <!-- Supplemental Details Panel (left). --> (Or whatever the size is you're using: it's size="left top right bottom".)

First version released for download https://www.moddb.com/mods/mayas-0-ad/downloads/maya-preclassic-0ad

not exactly in 0 A.D article, but if you use an image capture of our game as an preview for his video about history of Spain and I follow this freelance journalist who is also a historian. Last year after reading his two books a world that changes and Jesus more than a rabbi. That César Vidal put in the preview, although in reality who does this is his editor Isaac, but that in his YT podcast and on his channel he has an image of our video game 0 a.d. to explain the Iberian culture.

Flood

Fixed in SVN (so for A25). (For fun: it was commit r25000.)

A 2v3 map, intended for 2 human players versus the AI. The 2 human players bases are very close together. Updates and other maps can be downloaded from my 0ad Maps GitHub repo. aa2020-1_0.0.1.7z

You still benefit more if you use the extra effort to use control groups and separate formations of troops and positioning them and all that. I myself have been experimenting a lot with the right-click drag positioning feature (funneling enemy attackers to the center, arraying ranged troops to the rear, properly spacing cavalry flanking maneuvers so that they spread their attacks more efficiently across the desired target units, etc.).

Okay, so, the case for a dielectric, transparent, glossy layer over a diffuse base begins similarly to the case of dielectric over specular metal. We have a sunray coming in, 'a', that hits our dielectric and splits into a reflected ray, 'b' (the name of which got cut off in the pic), and a refracted ray 'c'. We already have the math for all that, except for one detail: My calculation of reflected light by the diffuse base was based on ndotl (normal dot lightray vector, or, the cosine of the angle), but light refracts and changes angle, so I should consider the refracted lightray, versus the original lightray. The good news is that the new Fresnel function gives me the cosine of the refracted angle already, as it needs to compute it internally anyways; so I don't need a special calculation; I just need to use that output of the function. So, our concern here is what happens from the moment 'c' is about to hit the diffuse layer. When 'c' hits the diffuse base, it explodes in all directions evenly. At least that is the simplified model of diffuse optics. Rays shoot out in a semi-sphere of even distribution. Some of the rays, shown in green, make it out of the dielectric layer; and some of them, shown in dark red, reflect off the dielectric interface, heading downwards again. This is simplified because the rays escaping are actually split, with a portion reflecting; however the portion is miniscule and can be ignored here. I put gray lines between the green and red, forming a triangle. This is the escape cone, whose half-angle (radius), which I marked in the drawing as 'x', and therefore solid angle, are a function of the material's refractive index alone. The higher the RI, the narrower the escape cone gets. THIS is what the function in the previous posts was all about. But note, as an aside, that the distribution of rays coming out of the dielectric and into the air is not limited to the cone of escape, because they refract, expanding again to a semi-spherical distribution. With this we can calculate how much light will refract out, and how much light will reflect back in to produce yet another diffuse spherical distribution, and so on and so forth. So, given a 'c' ray, let's follow the saga in pseudo-code: void saga_of_a_photon( vec3 ray_c, vec3 normal, vec3 MatDiffuseRGB, vec3 RefractiveIndex vec3 RefractingOutRGBlight, vec3 ReflectingBackInRGBlight ) { vec3 ExplodingRGBlight = dot(ray_c,normal) * MatDiffuseRGB; //diffuse explosion RefractingOutRGBlight = ExplodingRGBlight * RefractiveEscapeFunction( RefractiveIndex ); ReflectingBackInRGBlight = ExplodingRGBlight - RefractingOutRGBlight; } Before you jump horrified that RefractiveIndex is a vec3 instead of a float, there's a reason for it: most materials' refractive index changes with wavelength, so it is not the same for R, G or B. In the latest water shader I have the index of refraction for water as a vec3, not that I'm going to boast of noticing the difference in the results, but every little bit helps. And you might ask, how am I going to specify these "anisochromatic" refractive indices with only one texture channel, the definitive answer is I don't know yet. But seriously, chromium oxide, whose properties are what causes iridescence in chrome-plated Harley exhaust pipes, has steeply changing refractive indexes. To model iridescence I will need to model them correctly. There is one problem that arises from the picture and the pseudocode. I was going to grab the middle of the 'c' ray as my starting point to define the repeating cycle to then solve as standard geometric series. But now I realize I cannot do that, because the angle that 'c' is coming at is input light vector-dependent, whereas the reflecting-back-in rays are not. In fact, I would say that the average angle of light reflecting back in is (90 degrees - x) / 2. Don't forget we need to compute dot(ray,normal) at each diffuse bounce. So, my repeating cycle really begins AFTER the first diffuse explosion. Time for a break; I'll work on the other shaders for a bit.

The Ptolemaic Egyptians Hellenized Egypt Above: Ptolemy I "Savior" (left), Ptolemy III "Benefactor" (right) Above: Ptolemy IV "Father Loving" (left), Cleopatra VII (right) Above: Egyptian Priest/Healer Above: Egyptian Citizens (left), Egyptian Slave Laborers (right) Above: Their Minimap Background emblem

Some template changes after A24 released makes the templates not appear, so you wouldn't be able to see your shader changes on buildings and units and such. I'll just let you know when the terrains repo is up.

Yes, I'm on SVN. I'll check out Delenda Est, thanks. Where do I find it? I just found another error in the current, official terrain_comon.fs: The normalmap only affects diffuse lighting; not specular. It's funny because normalmap is best shown in specular; that's where it really shines; but in this shader it is invisible to specularities. I'll fix that, of course; but this is generally how my shader set keeps getting closer to becoming a reference. All I'd have to do is remove metal detection, etc, and they would be far more of a reference than the official shaders. You might not think much of this bumpmapping gottcha, but chances are that you, as an artist, using the current shaders, might think your normal-mapping looks too subtle and strive to increase it. Once you see it through a shader that uses the normalmap in both diffuse and specular, however, it may look transdimensional. I also don't understand why is there parallax in so many of the shaders, but not in the terrain shader. And why there's no skybox. EDIT: Sorry, it was in your signature.

Can't wait. My only concern is what you guys use as a reference shader to know what the final work looks like. My shader set, I called it "PROHIBITED" in the video because it is supposedly NOT to be used as a reference shader for artists to use, precisely because of my metal and skin detections, and corrections of overbrightness. On the other hand, the current shaders aren't really much better, and in many ways worse than mine, in terms of lighting correctness. Case in point, I just discovered that terrains had no Light dot Normal modulation for sunlight. You can tell how high or low the Sun is by how the shadows project, but not by the brightness. The brightness is the same no matter if the sun is high above or near the horizon. So, now, what happens when I fix the problem and introduce modulation of brightness of ground by Sun angle? What happens is the grounds in maps not at noon will look darker. And everybody will blame my shaders for it. Right now there is no reference shader. NONE whatsoever. That's what I'm worried about.

@Panther A *.pyromod is a renamed *.zip; you can rename it back to *.zip if needed. I'm having a hard time with bringing back specularity to terrains. Initially I tried testing with my favorite terrain, the Belgian Bog, but nothing I was doing had any effect; then discovered that Belgian Bog has specularity turned off via xml settings. Maybe that's one of the reasons it's so nice So then I turned to my pet-peeve map, which I knew had specularity, the Acropolis Bay. So, first I wanted to know what exactly am I dealing with, so I made the shader output raw specular color to the screen, and this is what I found: I have no idea why some patches have almost full specularity. It seems totally random. There's nothing particularly different about those areas to tell in the diffuse texture. I mean, if the diffuse intensity went down as the specular intensity went up, those areas would turn metallic; but the diffuse intensity is rather uniformely too high; too close to white, in fact. And there is no material that could possibly be white in diffuse AND in specular; this is complete trash. But then, as I brought back specular code that I had erradicated from the terrain shader with full prejudice, I noticed something peculiar: The alpha channel in the specular texture is used to alpha-blend specular color with diffuse color AFTER lighting, which I'm still trying to wrap my head around... Why not just pre-multiply this alpha channel by the specular RGB, and use the alpha channel for a more valuable purpose? I decided to try and see what this alpha channel contains, so I converted it to grayscale and put it on the screen: As you can see, we find no relief from specular absurdity in the alpha channel. I was hoping that maybe those bright patches had low alpha to compensate, but the alpha channel is not only conceptually wasteful, it is wasted in actual fact by making it 255 all across. How is a poor shader supposed to deal with garbage at the input? One map can be beautifully well done; another can be totally absurd. But I'm not sure who exactly I'm pointing a finger to, though I certainly am. Is this the map-maker's fault?, or is it the materials?, or the engine? One thing I know is that I looked at the textures in the materials library a week ago or so, and I found the texture that makes up the tiles (that we barely see in the second picture above, so bright they are). That texture, as I said to Stan, is way too white, and on top of that has content in the specular channel. What my so hated terrain shader has done is inject beauty into this acropolis bay absurdity by toning down those whites, removing specularity altogether, and increasing contrast at the high end, thus making the tiles noticeable AND good looking *** for the first time *** ... ... but what do I get for it if not hate? How is it even possible? Or is this just the case of one little tyrant's opinion that everybody else is afraid to confront? @wowgetoffyourcellphone Can you please tell me which map is so badly affected by my terrain shader, so that I know what is it exactly that I need to fix?

UnitAI \o/

@borg- look at what I found https://www.moddb.com/mods/mirror1

the second temple in Jerusalem.

@Trinketos I would like to show that recently there are some mods that show mayas and incas made by @Lopess https://www.moddb.com/mods/mayas-0-ad , https://www.moddb.com/mods/incas-0ad

nice.

Yep! 2003-2004 I believe. The engine was also used in an earlier game, Celtic Kings, and a later game which never received a US/English language launch. It seems Haemimont was very interested in tweaking the way the game worked internally, so each game plays rather differently according to the reviews I've read. The minimap is great with the abstraction of the dots. You can see unit flows easily and clicking somewhere on the map drops you out so you can see what it is. Edit: I think the mechanic of the fullscreen mini-map might have been borrowed from the Tactical (?) view in Homeworld (earlyish 3D space RTS).

at least the Romans in that series were authentic, I didn't see it but in its entirety, the Romans look authentic. Germans look viking Series (bunch of LARPs). i never expect anything from Netflix.

Can I advocate once again for an "aggression range" that is separate from vision range? It's the range by which a unit will actively attack another unit or structure. It can be a separate number or a percentage of vision range (kinda like the relationship between walk speed and run speed). Stances would then adjust this range. So, Aggressive would be at 90% of vision range, Defensive would be at 50% of vision range. Point would be to make units easier to control and act less maniacally.

Preliminary results for our statistics: 800x600: 0.31% 1024x768: 0.88% 1280x720: 2.28% 1280x800: 2.11% 1280x1024: 1.80% 1360x768: 1.49% 1366x768: 21.68% 1440x900: 4.52% 1536x864: 4.43% 1600x900: 5.05% 1680x1050: 2.68% 1792x1120: 0.39% 1920x1080: 37.87% 1920x1200: 1.67% 2048x1152: 0.44% 2560x1080: 0.79% 2560x1440: 5.70% 3440x1440: 0.92% 3840x2160: 1.40% Other: 2.15%

Seleucids have Asian elephants as well as all the necessary infantry as well as their awesome cataphracts. Spearmen now do decent damage to rams so they have early ram defence. Since the whole game is slower now their mediocre boom is no longer a drawback. Celtics are now weak because slings are nerfed and they don't have cata, bolt or crossbow compared to Seleucids.

Bumping now that campaign support has been merged. IMO your "0 A.D. interactions" section should come after Basic Economy ? I definitely need the tutorial campaign should be scenarised too, and not just a tutorial.

from my perspective passive should be just passive so do noting. generally I do not see much use of violent stance since aggressive is good enough while frustrating at the same time because units generally move too far away and one needs to micro them back so I would like to redefine them at some point and then set non combat units to flee by nature (so they would not fight at all) or add them "new" flee stance.

The "Rathaus" oder "Bürgerhaus" ...

It's Sunday! Thought I might be thwarted by A24 dropping and none of the Mods working, so had to improvise a bit! Now you can see how shamefully bad at 0AD I really am! Compare the speed my brain works at with the likes of @ValihrAnt in his replays, it's pretty embarrassing! Ah well!

Yeah that's exactly what happens actually. I think there was already behaviour to do that in A23, but maybe it didn't work quite the same. My recommended "fix" is to simply make more dropsites, because efficiency goes down very rapidly with walking distance anyways. This is something I'd like to fix for A25, but it's not that trivial

Thanks for commenting this game! Was actually tough to be 2v1 on my side, and supporting a bit the other team. I could have done better. Instead of going to Crypto, should have get down WeirdJokes on my first attack, maybe, not sure.. Anyway, I felt bad loosing with @Boudicaepic performance! GG to team 1. The title could be 3v4

In "real life", slingers would have large ammo capacity, longer ranges, and much deadlier ammo against un-armoured troops, but I think they'd be far less efficient against shields. Pilum and javelins are few, short-ranged, but you don't stop one. Yeah that's my bad, UI isn't great there. I think players will find out via osmosis. --- Overall I think archers & can archers remain definitely a bit OP. Elephants are strong if left unchecked, particularly since unlike rams they can't be killed by women, so you need real units. ---- No idea about the house hotkey.

By the way, randomly saw this movie on tv a while back... Probably shouldn't be used as a reference... But it was kind of an enjoyable watch nonetheless...

Make Spearmen and Swordsmen have the same attack (hack only!), then differentiate them with a 2x bonus vs. cavalry for Spearmen and 2x bonus vs. infantry for Swordsmen.

So, I think ideally it should be done with the ranking feature, instead of adjusting the actor, footprint, stats, etc. with the "covered ram" tech. Just use the tech to rank up the log to the next rank which is a covered ram. Has that one patch been committed where we don't have to make the required xp 99999 for the log ram?

DE will be creating a progression for rams. First, it's a log carried by soldiers, then with an upgrade it becomes a covered ram. Perhaps EA can do something similar.

We'd need someone to port it to Phabricator. I do not think @vladislavbelov ever did.

You might better notice the flaws with this strategy when you play against good human players.

Other stuffs: https://www.facebook.com/dorsetodinists/posts/974389453043295 https://www.facebook.com/SamsonIllustration/posts/3314557838656844 JFOliveras made some illustrations weeks ago about Pytheas' journey, if I really like his art and his skill, I find it sad he isn't properly advised about the material he relies on.

I would very much like to see custom names it's a great idea

Having both options available wouldn't be bad. As mentioned, custom names could be useful for campaigns and whatnot, and there are a significant number of players that like this kind of roleplaying. I was the one originally which pushed for a UI option that gets rid of specific names, as I felt they cluttered up the UI a bit. Moving the specific names to the unit viewer would be ideal, but this is a different topic.

Depending on how its seen, if it has auto refresh after a time it may be considered Cooldown. If we have an ammunation carriage like Risk of nation with an aura refilling infantry ammunation could reduce micromanage to only a single unit positioning and opening the field to "supply" attack strategy. if weapon switching is implemented with automatic switching when ammo is 0 or too much close to use ranged weapons wouldn't be micro. and finally with batallions i don't see any problem since archers will have to fully retreat with a single click to replenish instead of selecting a whole group of single infantry. Just like you mentioned. For one side the micro management of ammo would make players twink twice on attacking whitout supplies and relying more on melee infantry/cavalry. and less to massification of proyectil before melee hits. It has his pros and cons. Wouldn't really know until the feature is fully implemented with every option mentioned above is up to the plan.

Eso sería genial para cierto mapa!

:3

Does not Hyrule Conquest have a similar feature ?

You mean single-player games start paused? That would be a nice addition, it's something I've wished for numerous times.

Ah I see, so the goal would be reduce the tiers of civs you can play against so that you only have to balance civilizations in that tier. Would make sense, but it would probably be utterly confusing for players, if not displayed correctly. Especially if playing with random civilizations ^^"