WhiteTreePaladin

At revision 15573. ERROR: JavaScript error: simulation/ai/common-api/utils.js line 32 TypeError: b is undefined m.SquareVectorDistance@simulation/ai/common-api/utils.js:32 m.TransportPlan.prototype.onBoarding/<@simulation/ai/petra/transportPlan.js:287 m.EntityCollection.prototype.forEach@simulation/ai/common-api/entitycollection.js:196 m.TransportPlan.prototype.onBoarding@simulation/ai/petra/transportPlan.js:237 m.TransportPlan.prototype.update@simulation/ai/petra/transportPlan.js:225 m.NavalManager.prototype.update@simulation/ai/petra/navalManager.js:554 m.HQ.prototype.update@simulation/ai/petra/headquarters.js:1939 m.PetraBot.prototype.OnUpdate@simulation/ai/petra/_petrabot.js:85 m.BaseAI.prototype.HandleMessage@simulation/ai/common-api/baseAI.js:85 Ticket: http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/2690 Files attached to ticket.

That was quick. Thanks for fixing it.

Revision: 15562 Had some more errors related to the AI. Also, seems that the AI stops attacking after a while. WARNING: JavaScript warning: __internal(32) press line 0 reference to undefined property g_Selection.toList(...)[0] WARNING: ERROR in army.js: ent from army without position nor transport plan ERROR: JavaScript error: simulation/ai/petra/army.js line 377 TypeError: ent is undefined m.Army.prototype.onUpdate@simulation/ai/petra/army.js:377 m.DefenseArmy.prototype.update@simulation/ai/petra/defenseArmy.js:113 m.DefenseManager.prototype.checkEnemyArmies@simulation/ai/petra/defenseManager.js:170 m.DefenseManager.prototype.update@simulation/ai/petra/defenseManager.js:24 m.HQ.prototype.update@simulation/ai/petra/headquarters.js:1923 m.PetraBot.prototype.OnUpdate@simulation/ai/petra/_petrabot.js:85 m.BaseAI.prototype.HandleMessage@simulation/ai/common-api/baseAI.js:85 ai stalemate.zip Tickets: http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/2685 http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/2686

Would be good for a Helm's Deep map...

There is a Blender 0AD Export Addon? I didn't know such a thing existed. What does it do?

I'm afraid that hardware is just not powerful enough. Even with future optimizations, a 2.2 GHz Pentium from 2011 with integrated graphics will probably never provide a satisfactory experience in 0AD. I suppose if you are really desperate, you could try running in windowed mode and lowering the resolution to to 1024x768, but I don't know if that would help enough. [edit] Looks like it's the graphics that are the biggest bottleneck with that processor, however, since that appears to be a laptop CPU, you can't add better graphics. You can try lowering all the graphics settings, and loading up a small map with little water and very few trees. Select 2 players max and no AI. Run in windowed mode with 1024x768 resolution. If you can't get significantly above 30 FPS with those options, then there's nothing more you can do but get new hardware. (Alt+F should show FPS in the game)

On a small map with all settings turned down, one opponent (empty, no AI), and original starting units only: Sandy Bridge (2011) mobile (not ultra low voltage) i3 @ ~2.2ish GHz with HD 3000 (12 core graphics) - 1366x768 Sandy Bridge (2011) desktop i3 @ 3.1 GHz with HD 2000 (6 core graphics) - 1080 Both get around 15-20 FPS. Start any action and the frame rates fall from there. The Pentium listed only runs at 2.2 and has slower graphics cores than the standard HD 2000. While a graphics card might be able to be added to the system (assuming a desktop), that would only bring the experience from bad up to poor. A new computer will be necessary to run 0AD reasonably well.

There is no ticket. Didn't know if it really warranted it.

Not sure which one of these it is, but it should be one of these two. 0ad logs.zip

If we allow the AI to cheat, I would like that to be it's own difficulty. In other words, if "very hard" cheats, than "hard" should be the same, just without the cheating. The cheating advantages should include Line of Sight visibility in addition to resources. Right now, I think all AI's have full LOS, but that will change eventually.

Getting both of these errors on r15540. I looked for the commands.txt, but I'm not sure it's the right one. (Don't we only get one commands.txt per session? If we start a new map without restarting 0AD, does it create a new commands.txt?) ERROR: JavaScript error: simulation/ai/common-api/map-module.js line 35 TypeError: p is undefined m.Map.prototype.gamePosToMapPos@simulation/ai/common-api/map-module.js:35 m.Accessibility.prototype.getAccessValue@simulation/ai/common-api/terrain-analysis.js:327 m.AttackPlan.prototype.Abort@simulation/ai/petra/attackPlan.js:1409 m.AttackManager.prototype.update@simulation/ai/petra/attackManager.js:162 m.HQ.prototype.update@simulation/ai/petra/headquarters.js:1854 m.PetraBot.prototype.OnUpdate@simulation/ai/petra/_petrabot.js:85 m.BaseAI.prototype.HandleMessage@simulation/ai/common-api/baseAI.js:85 ERROR: JavaScript error: simulation/ai/common-api/map-module.js line 35 TypeError: p is undefined m.Map.prototype.gamePosToMapPos@simulation/ai/common-api/map-module.js:35 m.Accessibility.prototype.getAccessValue@simulation/ai/common-api/terrain-analysis.js:327 m.AttackPlan.prototype.Abort@simulation/ai/petra/attackPlan.js:1409 m.AttackManager.prototype.update@simulation/ai/petra/attackManager.js:162 m.HQ.prototype.update@simulation/ai/petra/headquarters.js:1854 m.PetraBot.prototype.OnUpdate@simulation/ai/petra/_petrabot.js:85 m.BaseAI.prototype.HandleMessage@simulation/ai/common-api/baseAI.js:85 WARNING: unknown type in garrisonManager undefined WARNING: unknown type in garrisonManager undefined WARNING: unknown type in garrisonManager undefined WARNING: unknown type in garrisonManager undefined

Here is his oos dump from the most recent one (fourth with britons vs britons) oos_dump.zip

Yes, we were both on the same revision and compiled.

Having trouble with OOS on REVISION 15539. Attaching files in zip. logs.zip

Considering that they generally do have personal information, it's probably best if we do hide/expire them all at some point.

Aren't the archived ones still publiclyaccessible? [Edit] Apparently they are not.

Well, there is easy for that. I don't disagree, but I think traders, heroes, etc. shouldn't be reserved for the highest difficulties. I agree completely. A "laid back" AI that focues more on defense (with walls) and masses of units that a good AI would not horde all at once, would be awesome to play.

I would say medium, hard, and very hard should use all features (barter, heroes, etc). It would be dull to have to up the difficulty just to see enemy traders or heroes. I wouldn't want the core experience to change as the difficulty rises. I would prefer the AI to expand territory faster, gather resources quicker, and use much more advanced battle tactics and strategy as the difficulty goes from medium to very hard.

Originally just added this ticket to reference files from IRC, but I guess it can be filled out more. I don't know what revision, but it had to be one of the ones on June 29th. It's happened long before that, so I doubt that helps much. I haven't been able to reproduce it although I think I've seen it twice. It's very rare. Made a ticket on trac: http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/2670 If it happens again I'll experiment some more.

Yeah, I don't think swordsmen should cost wood. Perhaps there can be an upgrade later in the game that lowers the cost. Early game they would be more expensive, then after researching some relevant tech, the cost would go down. The tech could have something to do more efficient sword making abilities like an improved smelting process or something. I think the Mauryan worker elephant can get around the wheelbarrow tech, but the other civs might miss it. Not sure why it was chained to lumber abilities anyway.

Well, I meant the design, not that actual version. Yeah, I think those are good candidates too. I believe some had an issue with it being a different style than the one we currently have, but I think the variety would be good.

That would make a very nice main screen background.

Generally the AI is already very good at collecting resources so I don't think a resource cheat will make it too much harder. It is poor at tactics, so the HP increase would help there. Personally though, I really don't like the idea of an HP increase and would really prefer it to use proper tactics and strategy. That's very difficult to code though.

I generally play with all the standard options (basic starting resources, 300 pop) on very hard. One AI opponent, random civs, and usually a random two or three player map. I can generally beat the very hard difficultly if the map favors defensive play (i.e. narrow channels, walls, etc.) or if the map has sparser resources because the AI doesn't know how to manage low resources well. On open maps with lots of resources the AI is very tough indeed and I pretty much always lose. I would prefer to keep the top difficulty as difficult as possible though. What I would like to see regarding difficulty is better battle tactics and strategy. The AI's resource gathering ability is already fantastic although it does struggle when there few resources. As far as levels, I would prefer to keep the five levels. I guess the main thing I would like to keep is a really hard level that doesn't cheat. I think the hardest level could allow cheating, but wouldn't want to have to play a cheating AI just to have access to better tactics. A death match mode where the AI mostly forgets about resource gathering would be fun and allow fine tuning the battle tactics / strategies.

Sorry, was really just using the post as a container to hold the uploaded files. The bug is that the metal mine has a farm texture on every level of zoom except the closest zoom level. Someone else has had the metal mine texture appear on their walls. http://www.wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=18185