myconid

You have to hack the shaders to do that. Remove or comment out this line in binaries/data/mods/public/shaders/glsl/terrain_common.fs color *= los; This needs GLSL mode to make a difference, and it removes all the LOS. Additionally, you need to modify binaries/data/mods/public/shaders/glsl/water_high.fs. Replace this line gl_FragColor.rgb = mix(refrColor + 0.3*specular, reflColor + specular, fresnel) * losMod; with this gl_FragColor.rgb = mix(refrColor + 0.3*specular, reflColor + specular, fresnel);

In Atlas, drag Ctrl+MMB (or Ctrl+LMB+RMB if you don't have a MMB).

That's correct. Disable the LOS and the transition between land/sky will be barely noticeable at low angles. Obviously this isn't meant for general gameplay, but it's good enough for screenshots and such.

I forgot a semicolon.

Ok, done. Someone should check if it works, as I'm logged in remotely right now. It's controlled through the "showsky" option in the config, or Alt+Z in-game. Through Javascript (or Atlas) use "renderer.showsky = true".

Sure, should be easy. I'll do it tomorrow when I'm not half-asleep.

The reflections skybox looks decent enough, actually. It can be enabled by adding a single line to the renderer, but it needs a recompile to work. Like they mention in that link, there's a small issue around the edges of the map, though it's not the end of the world (pun, haha).

Try that now.

Hmm. And I'll assume gentangents=false, too. I think I know where to look.

Looks like it's something to do with the UV mapping. (zoot, the alpha channel is used for player colour, so if the UV mapping is weirding out, the player colour also appears in funny places.) Since this happens with distance, the only things that are relevant are mipmapping (which I haven't touched) and the LOD stuff. The latter you can mess with by changing the materialmgr.PARALLAX_DIST.max value in the config to something smaller, and see if the artifacts happen closer. Btw, does this happen in ARB mode too or is it only in GLSL mode? If it's only in GLSL mode, can you roll back to an old revision and see if you get similar problems with GLSL? (that should give me a hint about where to look for a fix)

I was hoping people would use the script to bake new textures. I guess if I modify the script a little, it can then automatically re-bake the textures using the existing UV sets, so it'll be a matter of just replacing a few images...

kao_chen, after it crashes type in "bt" to get the debug information.

I've been told about that before, I think by zoot. I'll have to look into it separately, as it's unrelated to the stuff I've been doing in this thread. A quick look revealed that the minimap/UI use ancient fixed-pipeline functions for everything, which will need to be replaced eventually. It might be a bit of both, tbh. It's related to the shadowmap implementation, which works for some people but not others, and it's also inconsistent between ARB/GLSL even though they share most of the code. A combination of hardware detection with a working options menu will be best, I think.

On Windows, I think you can move or delete %appdata%\0ad\cache\mods\public Take care not to delete any custom mods you might have.

You can set windowed=true in your config file.

Unfortunately I had to undo one of the changes we'd made, because it broke something completely unrelated on my PC - there seems to be a bug with the liveness analysis in fglrx's GLSL compiler, though I couldn't think of a workaround. Sorry, man. To see the windy trees, you have to be in GLSL mode (generally, you can use ARB effects in GLSL mode, but not GLSL effects in ARB mode). If you can put up with the flickering, you could try setting materialmgr.PARALLAX_DIST.max = 0, and it may help you a little with the errors. Anyway, wraitii's ARB versions should be on the way soon, so that should be the end of the problem.

Clear your cache..? Either that, or you need to recompile.

To remove the territory borders, move or rename this file: binaries/data/mods/public/shaders/arb/overlayline.fp Also of interest might be the "restrict camera" and "reveal map" options in the developer console (Alt+D), as well as the Ctrl+W and Ctrl+S shortcuts.

So to summarise so far: - If possible, we should stick to CC-BY-SA 3.0 or public domain images from outside sources like Wikipedia. - CC-BY-SA < 3.0 may have problems with Debian's DFSG, so we'd need to contact the author to relicense under CC-BY-SA 3.0. It looks like CC-BY is mostly okay (accepted in the repos, but still kind of a grey area). - CC-BY-SA 3.0 images not made by us require attribution, so the details need to be stated in a text file, like gudo suggested.

They'll have a heart attack when they see the textures from CGTextures.

Yup, that looks sufficient. Further reading: http://wiki.creative...g/Marking/Users Alternative licensing blurb for LICENSE.txt could be (according to CC website):

Yeah, that works. Another thing to think about is the licensing of elements in texture "atlases", where you combine several textures into a mega-texture like the roman_struct one. Maybe there needs to be an annotation system with little numbers in the margins or something (I doubt there'll be too many images that we can't create ourselves or can't find public domain versions of, so something like this won't get in the way too much).

I mean the whole point of CC licenses is that you change your LICENSE.txt file a little and that's it. Credit goes where it's due and everybody's happy.

That needs to happen anyway - that's the whole point of attribution/sharealike.

Surely, textures created by Wildfire games are under CC-BY-SA 3.0, but that doesn't mean that textures from other sources need to be re-licensed to be used in the project. We might not need to contact the authors unless we want to change the license of something from whatever incompatible CC version to CC-BY-SA 3.0. What I'm trying to say is, there's probably no problem as long as we honour the original licenses of the images. If for instance, an image is CC-BY-SA 2.0, we'll need to have somewhere that says we're redistributing that image under CC-BY-SA 2.0, not CC-BY-SA 3.0, and here's the link to the 2.0 license and here's the author's attribution. Afaik, there's no issue with mixing different-licensed textures on the same model, just like there's no issue with mixing various different-licensed images in a Wikipedia article with GPLed text. But yeah, something like this sounds too reasonable, so I must be wrong. Better ask a lawyer to be sure.