Stan`

One way to solve this would be to restrict naval classes on some maps, which would I think make more sense. Naval Maps → Boats Other Maps → Bridges Also, since we do not have weather ( #40 ) and thus no frozen lakes, it could make it interesting, to have big bridges keypoints to hold could even be a new game mode. (For now likely lag mod but heh)

Can't become a smith if you don't start smithing right ? =)

Okay, so what went wrong ?

Well me too, I wanted to learn c++ but that wasn't an option. But I believe the only way you can make progress in c++ (assuming you know the basics) is by practising.

Not soon. Are you sure we cannot help you ? I managed to compile it by myself after a few attempts, I had never done it before. We could write a step by step tutorial, for people who are not tech savy.

I'm reviving this thread to continue the discussion. Here is the above refered IRC discussion (Dead links) : 23:55 < _0ADFan> lol code that 23:56 < _0ADFan> ships pass under bridges 23:56 < _0ADFan> you know..even in real life ;-) 23:56 < franklin> Maybe a length limit... Or weight limit... 23:56 < _0ADFan> at least we will get archers on walls..that's something 23:56 < _0ADFan> in alpha 17 23:57 < franklin> You can already garrison them in towers 23:57 < _0ADFan> but not on walls like in stzronghold 23:57 < _0ADFan> will come in 17 23:57 < _0ADFan> eager to see it...yiüiie 23:58 < scythetwirler> leper: Did the design committe consider bridges yet? 23:58 < franklin> How about stone bridges carrying more weight than wooden ones? 23:58 < _0ADFan> would make sense as well franklin 23:58 < _0ADFan> logical 23:59 <@leper> Would make pathfinding even more fun 23:59 <@leper> (also you need to find a nice way to implement it) In order to make map mapping and gameplay more interesting, I thought of two implementations of bridges. 1. Hack the current system of gates for bridges at least draw bridges Theory: Just like gates change obstruction, bridge change the water moving restriction. It would then make an area passable on a simple click just like for gates. for full bridges though. Bridges should have a higher weight than the rest of the paths, because they are more annoying to cross, especially if we aim to have formations. (In this case they should be disbanded when on the bridge) Advantages: Performance savvy compared to other solutions. Less coding required Issues: Not really aesthetically pleasing (you cannot have arched bridges for instance) Bridge height depends on water height unless a origin hack is used. 2. Use prop points to define the path. Theory: units would be using the prop points in the Collada (*.dae) file in order to make a custom path following the points. Path would be cached to avoid to recompute the arc again and again. Depending on a given size in the template, the game would make a fake and invisible terrain in stead of the bridge. Advantages: Visually more pleasing. Arched bridges Different heights possible Not related to terrain around Issues: Performance costly compared to other solutions. More coding required More use of interpolation functions. Common Issue: Both bridges should have a height offset not to have the bridge collide with the water and units collide with the mesh. Xml coul Xml file could look like this : <Obstruction> <Obstructions> <Right width="11" depth="8" x="13" z="0"/> <Left width="11" depth="8" x="-13" z="0"/> <Pathway heightOffset="15" width="15" depth="8" x="0" z="0"/> </Obstructions> </Obstruction> Variants: Draw Bridges If you want to make bridge passable for boats It would require an active query to check whether the approaching unit is a boat or a unit, which might it really slow performance wise. Also the case when both units happen to get on the bridge that could get messy To solve this, maybe don't make it automatic like gates. Bridge will switch with the same button than for gates. Today's discussion <Vladislav> Stan`: yep, but AFAIK current pathfinder doesn't support few passable layers on the same (x, z), so another solutions looks like a hack .:Stan`:. Vladislav, I'm pretty sure we could get the same result that on the first screenshot .:Stan`:. which is the theoreticall terrain <Vladislav> Stan`: the bridge demo map already implements this "bridge" .:Vladislav:. But for ships it's not passable .:Stan`:. Vladislav, but as terrain, not as a buildable mesh <Vladislav> Stan`: yep, so for us it would be good to have sanderd17 patch about terrain modificators .:Stan`:. Vladislav, I don't really understand what it does? Does it create a fake heightmap ? <Vladislav> Stan`: It could change visible height of map, or only collision height, or both, at least it should be there I think .:Stan`:. Vladislav, Ah yeah indeed in that case. And if you can do that interactively, you can make draw bridges .:Stan`:. which imo .:Stan`:. should be the only ones allowing ships to cross them .:Vladislav:. If we will a bridge logic to pathfinder then it will be slower in common case, because more conditions aren't good for caches .:Vladislav:. *have .:Vladislav:. *add .:Vladislav:. Or I could suggest to use 2 different maps, for ships, and for ground units .:Vladislav:. then it will be possible .:Vladislav:. fast and easy enough to implement .:Stan`:. Vladislav, Would make sense as wll .:Stan`:. having uncrossable areas unless you make a bridge would change gameplay a lot .:Vladislav:. Yep .:Stan`:. I guess the best thing would be this .:Stan`:. map makeers put foundations .:Stan`:. on random areas of the map .:Stan`:. (not random) .:Stan`:. and then players can only build bridges there .:Stan`:. thoses bridges should be neutral .:Stan`:. and for now... indestructibles

They can be, as long as someone is willing to make a faction out of them.

Can someone ever finish learning c++ ? WoodenBridge.7z

+1 for restraint Looks nice ! Keep it up

Statue was made by Enrique (wild guess) from another mesh made by an other artist under cc0

Indeed I'm going to make a thread for it soon in my idea on how to implement them giving as much technical details I can. Maybe that'll motivate someone to work on it. Even myself had I got the skills.

To be honest I don't know I didn't take the time to make static, dynamic, and cinematic analysis of the structure. I can make two other variants of it if you'd like

It's not. I put it into the game I'm not at home so I cannot provide screenshots nor the files. I'll do it later this week.

Hello @Angga Hermawan and welcome to the forums. I'd suggest you to have a look at http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Atlas_Manual and you can ask all the questions you may have here in this thread.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone Something more like this ?

@Juli51

It is not doable yet. Simply because we do not have that much buildings variations.

You mean make it unavalaible after that ? I guess that could work like when units were upgraded by techs forever Then the icon would build directly the higher houses.

Via techs you can I guess

Athens I guess ?

Sssshh

@Juli51

It means a faction with a restricted building sets (ie houses could be incorporated in civ center) I'll upload it when I can

Have you seen

You could go for the iberian storehouse. All those buildings have a little tower on them except that one. Edit 1: For further differentiation you could draw a gaul variation for the rotary mill Edit 2: You could draw some concepts for the African Mini Faction. Edit 3 : If you feel like doing some coloured work you could try helping @Lion.Kanzen with civ emblems