Stan`
-
Posts
17.010 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
524
Posts posted by Stan`
-
-
13 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
I think the one @vladislavbelov posted is pretty good, but its missing plenty of changes. I think it might be worthwhile putting together a more player-attractive patch notes document.
Some type of summary paragraph, then start with gameplay, then balance, then art/audio, then major engine improvements and of course a section for the new graphics backend. Important changes like that can get a paragraph explaining and summarizing the change, and simple stuff like (Elite athenian spearmen may promote directly to champions) can be a bullet point under an "Athenians" subheading.
Adding some gameplay screenshots to the document could also help make it more eye catching. I think this way, the trailer could be shorter and more focused on exciting players than on communicating changes.
If its missing changes then it's bad. It needs to be updated. In a perfect world commit(er)s would update it. Basically any relevant changes to either players or modders should be there. (Also anyone following commits can update it)
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, Grautvornix said:
Of course you are right! Was just referring to my casual SP strategy.
BTW - did not notice a diminishing yield in the current game (A26).
Has that been implemented in SVN (A27) yet? Is there a plan for a strategy to counter this, e.g. like adding fertilizer, selecting more fertile soil, adding water or the like?
It's been there since at least 13 alphas ^^ (Alpha 13)
https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/1318A few years later it was added as part of the tooltip https://code.wildfiregames.com/D1803
-
1
-
-
53 minutes ago, alre said:
I also want to remind that there is a pretty solid consensus in the forum for taking away the diminishing returns mechanism of fields.
Oh really ? That's sad :/
-
It's inverted roughness (more or less). You can also try to combine the metallic but it won't have much added value. Spec map can have some color but not sure how long it will be supported (currently is)
-
1
-
-
Don't think we support inline links. Most of the time we use buttons for that. And you have to warn people they are leaving the game. Also internationalization might be troublesome.
-
2
-
-
Also do note that replays are bound to a specific version of 0 A.D. so if your replay was for Alpha XXIII you can only replay it reliably on Alpha XXIII. Else the outcome of the match will be at best really different. At worst the map or the units will no longer exist so you will experience issues.
-
1
-
-
if that's the only game you wanna play you might consider linux as chances are it will run better there.
-
2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Thanks for the review
You're welcome.
Maybe the CI should print checkref's result in the comments or something so if it's broken in a revision you'd see it
-
NFO - Checking public's integrity.
INFO - The following mods will be loaded: public|mod.
INFO - Loading maps XML...
INFO - Loading maps PMP...
INFO - Loading entities...
INFO - Loading actors...
INFO - Loading variants...
INFO - Loading art files...
INFO - Loading materials...
INFO - Loading particles...
INFO - Loading sound groups...
INFO - Loading audio files...
INFO - Loading GUI XML...
INFO - Loading GUI data...
INFO - Loading civs...
INFO - Loading random maps...
INFO - Loading techs...
INFO - Loading terrains...
INFO - Loading auras...
INFO - Loading tips...
INFO - Looking for missing files...
WARNING - Missing file 'art/textures/ui/session/portraits/units/maur/ship_bireme.png' referenced by: public/simulation/templates/units/maur/ship_scout.xml
WARNING - Missing file 'art/textures/ui/session/portraits/units/maur/ship_trireme.png' referenced by: public/simulation/templates/units/maur/ship_arrow.xml
WARNING - Missing file 'art/textures/ui/session/portraits/units/rome/ship_quinquereme.png' referenced by: public/simulation/templates/units/ptol/champion_juggernaut.xml
WARNING - Missing file 'simulation/templates/units/noldor_ship_scout.xml' referenced by: public/maps/scenarios/shipattacks.xml
INFO - Validating actors...
INFO - Validating variants...
INFO - Validating gui files...
INFO - Validating maps...
INFO - Validating materials...
INFO - Validating particles...
ERROR - /zpool0/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/art/particles/light_ray.xml: Invalid sequence in interleave, line 10
ERROR - 1 particle validation errors
INFO - Validating simulation...
INFO - Validating soundgroups...
INFO - Validating terrains...
INFO - Validating textures...
INFO - Collecting materials...
INFO - Collecting actors...
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Looks like some files are still referencing template_unit_ship_warship_medium
-
1
-
-
Currently hardcoded in one js file called ambient.js or something. Maybe it could read the biome data or something.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, hyperion said:
I played a match with SM91 vs SM102 an
Yeah usually those are non trivial bugs. Also I assume you tested on Linux
Mileage may vary.
Still distros will other than arch and stuff will never write our migration patches between SM versions
-
16 minutes ago, hyperion said:
So if they can they really would prefer that option any day, but the rigid check makes this somewhat tricky for packagers.
Maybe the minor check could be omitted, @Itms or @wraitii would know, but the major check has to stay. I don't know if it got better, but our SM versions are usually heavily patched and that could lead to trouble maybe? The distro would just say the package is broken and give up on it ?
From my experience talking to maintainers SM is always the biggest pain, sometimes NVTT (no longer an issue now) and finally Fcollada when compilers decide to change things ^^
In the current situation given the missing parts I'd say we're not ready for 102.
-
16 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:
At this detail level the wiener is not a concern for our modest community?
It's the delenda est subforum, so nudity is their concern
-
Remesh will give you millions of polygons
So probably not the right approach unless i misunderstood your goal. Usually you remesh then decimate
3000 tris isn't that bad considering it won't be displayed often, but given the above screenshots I'm feeling like there might be some places where you don't need the details.
I suppose the clothing wrinkles could be part of the normal map, and using an aomap the details could be put in the diffuse (for the people playing with material quality 1.0)
Another solution for the body is to steal the one from the units this way you keep the same level of details.
35 minutes ago, nifa said:So far my baked normal maps aren't perfect either, I might come back for that. What would be your suggestions in terms of smooth shading? Auto smooth or edge split modifier? I'd like to make edges sharp individually, but don't want to add more geometry
Marking edge sharp should only add more vertices, not more triangles. I would say use whatever gives you the control you need without having to spend an eternity marking things sharp
-
1
-
-
Why do you need to remesh it and not just decimate it ? Although Ideally it should be done by retopology.
-
1
-
-
Spidermonkey also breaks API in minor versions sometimes (happened for 78). Another issue was the ICU problem where you need to have the same version between spidermonkey and 0ad else it will fail to link, but they do not pick it from the same place.
-
2
-
-
Not yet until Atlas is integrated in the main game. But @trompetin17 hasn't made much progress
-
20 hours ago, hyperion said:
So a player using a mod outside of mod.io doesn't deserve to find players to play against or has to convince everyone else to also load that mod in the exact same order as everyone else. I'm thinking about my mute sound on pause patch I carry for a few years (1), which would make me a cheater if I read the intent of your suggestion correctly.
I'm not sure deserve is the right term here.
But point taken.
20 hours ago, hyperion said:Or what I suggested, everything in vanilla was reviewed by our formal process and as such by definition corresponds to our vision of the game, you can mod the game and as long as you don't hide it it's fine for rated games in the official lobby, we won't get involved into discussions of what modifications are appropriate and which not as every individual has a different take anyway (2).
Define Vanilla ? How do you review it? What prevents you from dumping 5 mods in the public mod? Cause to me it's assuming people play fair and that' apparently not the case
20 hours ago, hyperion said:For me it currently looks like there is the imaginary evil of cheating and a group with a mission to fight it. Let's call that group The Committee. Then I at least expect The Committee to publish, let's say on the wiki, a list of modifications that they deem harmful and don't wish to be seen used on ladder in the official lobby. The Committee shall not come up with anything that needs recurring involvement of devs and shall not hinder what is considered a legitimate use case for the last decade and one of the aspects that makes this game charming.
So far all the discussions ended in disagreement with regards to what is cheating
But I suppose that's normal considering everyone has their opinion
13 hours ago, ChronA said:
I think the best way to handle this is to make tools that encourage players to build personalized trust graphs for matchmaking. Let them mark people who they have good relationships with, and those who they do not trust, and then preferentially match with players within their cluster of extended positive connects. It could even go beyond matchmaking to auto-muting anyone in lobby chat who is is not on sufficiently positive terms with your trusted group, and all of it adjustable according to individual preferences.Reputation points are generally nice, however If my understanding of the current lobby is not too outdated the problem is that there is a small group that always play with each other and never with new players and due to the sheer lack of players that just makes them quit the game
-
1
-
-
Since it's a pointer (Ptr suffix) maybe you just need to dereference it ?
-
14 hours ago, Boston said:
I have a question. If I do use this to create a bunch of 2d animations, how do I distribute them under the terms of the creative commons licence?
I suppose they fall in the "derivative works" category so they would be CC BY SA 3.0 as long as you give credit to wildfiregames it should be fine
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I kinda don't understand this. So, according to your opinion, WFG should sign any mod as long as it's not directly malicious? Even if it gives multiplayer players macros and other things? What if it's a "no fog of war" mod? As long as it's not a virus, then WFG should sign that and add it to the official downloads?
That is where the ignoreincompatibility check comes in play (i wonder if a small countermeasure would be to make that flag work only with signed mods).
It's written in the signing mod rules that any mod touchig simulation cannot be signed with ignore compatibility checks to true. The rule is not perfect but it's the rule.
The idea is just to say well you might run into sync troubles but also this mod changes thing in a way you might not want to play without it.
-
2
-
-
@hyperion Sure.
IMHO mod.io's goal should be to ensure general mod safety. Not to ensure anything else.
Commercial games have little ways of preventing cheating opensource ones even less so.
-
On 22/12/2023 at 4:02 PM, hyperion said:
I struggle to see why WFG should even try to get involved in this mess (a social problem with not technical solution at all). Why not simply add a vanilla badge to user in lobby that don't use any mods and make the only form of cheating recognized by WFG modifications to show said badge when not appropriate. If hosts of games or even tournaments want random mods rules then it's their business.
Even that badge wouldn't be enough. Some people just edit the public mod these days...
-
1
-
Alpha 27 Pre-release/Release Candidate Build Testing
in Game Development & Technical Discussion
Posted
Yeah you can actually do that just with git log --format.
But the problem is here is that not everything is relevant, you don't want to see 200 autobuild commits
Nor fixes for art typos. Just the art commit itself. They can sometimes be grouped. That's why we (used to) do it by hand.