Stan`

Has @mimo seen this thread ?

Well does the error pop up eveytime you open the map ?

Do you have a way to reproduce it ?

You have to use SVN https://wiki.mageia.org/en/Svn_for_translators Just follow the first instructions to install svn, then in the terminal type svn co http://svn.wildfiregames.com/public/ps/trunk/0ad -r18915 and follow the build instructions for mandriva

Todays IRC conversation 11:55 < elexis> FeXoR: you wrote the wall placement code right? do you think we can feasibly extend to work with bridges? 11:58 < FeXoR> elexis: I wrote it for rmgen, yes. And yous it can be extended for bridges. To do this propperly in rmgen we would need terrain analysis there (for slope, passability and water coverage). This should not be a new implementation/duplication of e.g. the ingame dock placement so those functions should be shared. 11:59 < elexis> no rgmen, ingame wall-placement 12:00 < FeXoR> The actual state of the rmgen wall builder is...well, messy, since the templates don't contain the information we'd need (or rather the concepts of ingame wall placement and rmgen are different so they are incompatible including the values in the templates). 12:02 < FeXoR> The ingame wall placement was written by voetsjoeba, at least he calls himself that on youtube 12:03 < elexis> perhaps we could just claim its a simple ticket if we tell that its only one file to change (for ingame bridge placement) dx 12:04 < FeXoR> However, if you plan to add this cosider shared functions for placement checks that can than also be used by random maps to avoid code duplication and further incompatibilities 12:04 < FeXoR> elexis: It is not simpe at all... 12:05 < FeXoR> Tough one could take the dock placement for inspiration ;) 12:07 < FeXoR> However it's also related to wall placement to make bridges have arbitrary length. And since we don't have walkable actors (AFAIK) it's also related to terrain deformation which we clearly did not want to have ingame so it's not possible without also implementing walkable actors. So no, it's not simple ;) 12:07 < FeXoR> (Also includes a pathfinder rewrite if done correctly 12:08 -!- wraitii [~Adium@foe37-1-88-183-130-79.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #0ad-dev 12:08 < FeXoR> (For multiple planes - other than the terrain surface - to be checked for paths) 12:09 < FeXoR> I'd like briges both to be easier to place in Atlas as well as in random maps and ingame. However, if we do it we should do it sane ;) 12:15 < elexis> it would have the same mechanic as wall placement 12:16 < elexis> start a bridge at the shoreline, extend it like walls, finish it to the shoreline 12:16 < elexis> *at 12:16 < wraitii> I feel like bridges would be better if they were between set "can build abridge here" points to avoid lame-ing 12:17 < elexis> hf letting rmgen decide which points are lame 12:20 < wraitii> eh, doesn't seem that hard to me, but whatev' 12:20 < wraitii> whoever implements the feature will decide as usual 12:23 < elexis> shoreline to shoreline, max-length, min-length, max-angle 12:24 < elexis> an issue might be the terrain changing while placing a preview, or units (f.e. ships) moving in the way while in the placement preview 12:25 < elexis> or we allow placing partial bridges, just like partial walls 12:25 * Philip recommends not doing anything that makes pathfinding harder than it already is :-) 12:27 -!- sbirmi [~sbirmi@117.212.91.11] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 12:34 < elexis> (I guess thats about the unit motion rewrite) 12:35 -!- sbirmi [~sbirmi@117.212.91.11] has joined #0ad-dev 12:35 < wraitii> nah, the unitmotion rewrite is making pathfinding easier :P 12:37 < Philip> I meant bridges, since multiple movement planes makes everything hard, and dynamically changing passability is annoying 12:37 -!- sbirmi [~sbirmi@117.212.91.11] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 12:37 < wraitii> btw re-unitmotion rewrite I'm taking all reviews gladly, I'm kind of not going to do much until it's accepted (or scrapped entirely) 12:38 < wraitii> in the meantime I'll probably focus on reviewing other stuff 12:39 < Imarok> So nobody should review your unitmotion, until you're through the rq ;P 12:40 < wraitii> er, the phabricator RQ :P 12:41 < Imarok> ^^ 12:41 < elexis> why multilayers? the pathfinding grid could just be updated to the position of the bridge 12:41 < Imarok> Shall I port the trac rq to phabricator for you? ;P 12:45 < Yves`> elexis: if something can pass below the bridge, you have multiple planes. If the bridge just changes water to land, then you only have one plane. 12:46 < elexis> nonono, nothing can pass there 12:46 < elexis> only units on top of the bridge 12:50 < elexis> wraitii: going through your campaign patch, looks like a good start 12:50 < wraitii> there's not necessariliy multiple planes if it's another passability class that can go below the bridge 15:17 < Stan`> Why does everyone want complex bridges, while pre defined neutral structures with two angles 0 and 90° would be perfect... Also I also believe that when you make a map you put things here and there for a reason 15:17 < Stan`> not for anyone to hack in there by putting a dumb 37.5° bridge in some random places 15:19 < wraitii> that's the FOSS effect 15:19 < wraitii> everybody wants everything in every way 15:19 < wraitii> and it never makes any sense after the second post 15:19 < wraitii> Stan`: performance wise it should be the same, it's just another way to do mostly the same thing 15:20 < Stan`> I also do believe in forbidding docks in those kind of maps. That would make the land unit fishing 15:20 < Stan`> wraitii, Yep, but gameplay wise it's dumb 15:20 < Stan`> also, artistically speaking it's lame 15:20 < Stan`> I'd rather have thre our four really nice bridges 15:20 < wraitii> making games is difficult, as it turns out 15:20 < Stan`> than one ugly one, that can adapt 15:21 < Stan`> no need for another wallPlacement.js clone 15:21 < Stan`> for bridges either 15:22 < Stan`> FeXoR is having enough trouble on that 15:22 < Stan`> Land fishing ticket #1437 15:22 < WildfireBot> #1437 (Decide on land unit fishing) – http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/1437

Salut, je pense que le plus simple pour toi serait de télécharger le source code et de le compiler. http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/BuildInstructions I think the easiest way for you would be to build the game yourself as as far as i can your distro doesn't support ppas.

The problem I have with that is that it doesn't allow for more than two variation of the bridge. Also it makes the artist make a number of pieces, and those pieces have to be exactly at the same height.

My point was simply to have something basic at the beginning, not some kind of steam machine with mesh blocks getting together to make a bridge to see if it works, and then see what we could improve from that.

I totally understand how you guys meant it. The issue is the code here, the closest thing we have to that in the wall placement, and it's bad. Plus imagine the issue of having scalable foundations, since units can't walk on water AFAIK, that's why I said the best would be to have only three sides, and fixed points, for simplicity sake.

Ah missed the point of your last comment.

Which makes it a tiny path on both sides of it.

Like this for instance

Yep but mountain path don't change and make it bug anyways I agree, my concern is also that you need some kind of modulable art structure to make modular bridges. So looking at the current messy wall placement code, I can't help but wonder how the one for bridges would be. That's why I propose three size, big medium and small bridges.

Hey @Juli51 It looks nice, I really like the fountain in the middle ! What is your next drawing gonna be about ? BTW good news, @wraitii managed to fix the Sierra bug, they are going to submit a new package.

My concern would be the performance cost of such an ability. Imagine the disaster for the pathfinder if they are bridges everywhere. That's why I'd rather have them thought of by mapmakers.

Changed maps ? Map size can come into play

IA has a big impact on memory consumption, and might have some serialization issues. So that might cause issues.

Any downloads in progress / issues with the router ? EDIT: My bad I missed the info. What RJ45 speed have you got ?

I meant there is no reason to put those awesome animals representations on shields if that is not more accurate than them using aztec patterns.

Yeah but the idea is not to replace a wrong pattern by another inaccurate one.

Did they use it all on their shields ?

Would you mind providing the source links ? Just to know if those are compatible with our license for instance.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone could you try the attached patch for visible garrisonning ? 3488.16.diff

While I like the idea of bridges working like walls I think they should be of a standard size the players should't be able to place it wherever they want.

Hello and welcome to the forums. I apologize in advance for not answering the whole post. While I touch a lot of things as a modder i'll leave balancing and some other matters for the others. I'm quite surprised you manage to play with 2000 pop. Just curious what are your specs ? About citizen soldiers. While for romans I agree with you for gauls it makes total sense to me that the ones building villages are the ones who fight. Gauls weren't even a faction they were just random tribes just like celts represent all the barbarians of europe at once (source british museum) About the fact of adding more buildings and especially eyecandy I'd suggest you'd turn yourself toward mods such as delenda est. About the inclusion of ROTE the main issue is this one of the more complete mods which makes it a good example. I am however inclined for it to be included as another faction as I along with niektb and ayakashi made most of it. About the Kush faction by looking at some internet sources I can't really see how it differs from ptolemies architecturally speaking. Were it to become a mod someday i'd say youd need a pretty strong design document on the art side at least to make it interesting.