historic_bruno

Hmm, that's weird, it's like your data/cache are corrupted, I don't see how the loaders could be failing. Try uninstalling the game and then delete everything from "%appdata%\0ad\" and %localappdata%\0 A.D. alpha" (assuming you installed the game in the default location). Then install again.

Can you post the full contents of the game error log? (%appdata%\0ad\logs\interestinglog.html)?

Premake4 supports Code::Blocks in theory, but I doubt anyone has tested that with our build system. Basically you want to run premake4 with the "codeblocks" option to generate the workspace (see build\workspaces\update-workspaces.* for an example of how premake is invoked). I don't know what OS you're using, but in Windows I suspect you'll need to use the MSVC toolchain (not GCC which is what Premake seems to be configuring by default, I think our source makes the assumption you will only use MSVC for Windows and GCC for other OSes). I've tested opening the workspace in Code::Blocks and it looks properly structured, but the build options are configured for GCC - maybe it will work in Linux.

Are you able to play any other OpenGL-based games?

Are you able to play any other OpenGL-based games? By "crashes" do you mean stops responding, or that something like an error pops up? A similar problem was reported here. Any success if you run the game in windowed mode? (press Alt+Enter after launching the game)

I like this, can the Loyalty concept be reused for "capturing" animals and females? Also I think it should be displayed prominently in the UI, adjacent to Health. What happens when 2 or more players are trying to capture the same building (regardless of diplomacy)? Does it get captured faster and by whom? Yes! Health and Loyalty should be closely coupled. We could even have a modifier that specifies weighting of Loyalty to Health in that equation, so certain civs and units have an advantage for sieging vs. capturing.

I believe one per player, since they offer such a big advantage and also the heroes are "subfaction" specific. So in other words once you choose which subfaction to play, you will have a choice of one hero.

So I did a test reverting the thread order changes from r10299 on 64-bit Ubuntu and actually those GL errors still persist along with the water shader problem in Atlas. In light of all the other graphical glitches people experience since Alpha 7, I'm thinking that the last major rendering commit had some bugs. Note that it came right after Alpha 6 was released. I'll update the ticket accordingly.

Just to clarify, is the build problem fixed or just your post?

Hmm, that message is bad, because it implies they can't try connecting again, but I think what Philip was saying is that they can try to reconnect.

I guess the only "danger" is if the file transfer is really, really slow, it might not be feasible for the reconnecting player to receive the complete state and fast-forward before the game ends. In general though I think that is the solution we should strive for. AOK would pause the game when a player disconnected, and it had really buggy disconnect handling anyway (due to reliance on UDP?), so we should aim higher

What's your OS?

Agreed. Will the disconnected client automatically attempt a reconnect, and will the game have to pause while the simulation state is sent to them? It would be amazing if this could happen transparently.

Norway or Sweden sound reasonable. I don't think I could ever learn to speak Finnish I happen to really like snow and winter, so I would even live north of the Arctic circle Not to mention the chance to see the Aurora Borealis, which I've never seen in person.

I've had some problems with ATI's "latest" drivers before (no hangs but very slow performance), so that now I'm always reluctant to upgrade. Maybe you could try slightly older drivers?

In the "target" market's selection details, once you've started the route.

Random comment, but maybe wall towers should require placement adjacent to a wall? And I don't know if there is a limit on them yet (nor if there should be).

Yeah, I'm just wondering how to best display that info As an FYI, build restrictions also plan to use a tooltip to describe invalid build locations, so I think this could be shared in the UI. Return to a reachable market if possible and go idle? We could even show some "event" indicator on the minimap if the trade route is interrupted.

Hello Darth, after some discussion it seems the technology tree has not been finalized, in fact what we have to this point is available in the mods data directory (binaries/data/mods/public/technologies/). However I don't think you should tie yourself to that data, because it's due for revisions and highly likely to change. Also see the design document which has some useful information, as on phases. Looks like there is some code for a previous implementation of techs in source/simulation/, just note that old code is totally not compatible with the current engine design Which part of territories did you want to work on? There is unlocking, which basically means a technology or entity becomes available once the player has satisfied some criteria (like researching other techs). The other part is entity stats modification, such as dynamically increasing HP of certain units. Of course they are intertwined, but I think you could focus on one or the other for an initial implementation. Unlocking would be great for a start. For specifying techs, I would suggest following the XML and inheritance structure we use for entity templates, unless someone knows of a better way. Also you needn't worry about finishing techs all at once, but rather incrementally, such as starting with a simple demonstration of unlocking allowing arbitrary combinations of entities, techs, and civs. With a good implementation it would be trivial for a developer to add, remove, or modify techs as they see fit, once we have the tree designed. There's no problem with adding new source files and any patches you submit will be reviewed anyway. Without knowing more information, I can't say whether you should add a new file

I would think including source files in all subdirectories of the given module is the best solution, unless there's a reason to have AI directories that don't get used

The problem is nothing to do with the engine but qBot assumes you will name the AI directory "qbot" instead of something like "quantumstate-qBot-93af3f2" (it's explicitly referenced by _init.js).

I was thinking more in terms of founding an alliance for trade, but I guess since trade could be two-way that is already a benefit

That would be my fault, since I changed GUIInterface but did not update the test

What happens when someone selects an unreachable market, on a separate island or across a river? Another case to consider: how should the unit react when attacked along the route? In AoK they just ignored it and got easily slaughtered, but should they break off the route and attempt to flee until danger has passed? This is not really specific to trade, more of a UnitAI concern. The gain from trading is in the form of a fee for performing the service, right? In other words resources are not generated from nothing. Are we assuming each resource has equal value/weight, so that a route that produces 100 food would also produce 100 metal? I wonder how it would be if the gained resource type was random on each journey. Maybe that would be annoying but I'm tossing it out there anyway Or each player could start with only e.g. metal as their choice but technologies could add other resource choices. How does a player change the route and/or resource type, does the UI reset after making the initial selection? Making this intuitive is probably the hardest part of the trading task. So you can trade between two allies? What I wonder is how do the gained resources get returned to you? With other resources you have to return to a dropsite, but in this case markets appear to be a sort of global banking system. Also what is the benefit for allies letting you trade between them? What if each part of the trade route benefited from the trade, more for the player who owns the trader but still some "fee" assessed for the allies? I think that's closer to how trade really works. This would encourage economic alliances. I think there should be a maximum practical limit but we likely need to test how the feature works to determine it. Hmm, me either unless it's a civ specific limitation. There's even more technologies that could be added, like maximum distance between waypoints, maximum traded goods per trip, speed, increased HP, possibly a fee introduced for the allies' benefit. We could add a dedicated "status" or tooltip area to the UI, a place the user could easily and frequently check for info (different than the scrolling player messages we have now). A cursor tooltip might not be a bad idea, do we want to show the player the benefit of trading with a given market ("Gain 100 gold from trading with this market")?

I wouldn't live in any of those places. If I were going to move anywhere it would be Northern Europe, no contest.