WhiteTreePaladin

I think those links have to do with the change from http://forums.wildfiregames.com/0ad/index.php?showtopic=[....] to https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/[...] It should just be a matter of putting in the correct topic, but it wouldn't work for me either since I wasn't sure what the topics were. The second post had a link to a private post, but Stan has access.

Thanking yourself? Is self-notifying the forum version of setting a reminder?

I remember someone saying that it turned out to be a good decision that JavaScript was chosen due to how browsers have spurred many JS performance improvements. That was years ago though, and I couldn't find the post. There is a little here in this thread, but for the actual details, I've asked elexis to check the relevant meetings if possible. https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/12716-scripting/&tab=comments#comment-202793

That's really interesting. Thanks for the explanation.

Well, that means that we can potentially add some of that. If we already had all of those, then there wouldn't be as much room for improvement. Multithreading and LoD are some things that we have wanted for awhile. Do we not already have instancing? I assumed that common static models like trees and structures are instanced, right...? Yeah, originally the scripting language was going to be Python, but JavaScript was chosen instead. JavaScript has gotten a lot of attention and performance improvements over the years, so I don't know that Python would have been any better. We could port some things back to C++ if there is a clear reason to do so.

Did you create more than one account? Only a single account is allowed according to the Terms of Use that you agreed to when you created a lobby account: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/gui/prelobby/common/terms/Terms_of_Use.txt A lobby moderator can confirm if this or other reasons are the cause.

I've never heard "redacting" used that way although it is technically correct. I've only heard it used for limiting information, which made me wonder what we were hiding in the Privacy Policy.

Maybe some areas of grass could be carved out of some spots of forest to allow for different beach transitions and more variety. Perhaps the island could be more irregular to allow for more interesting shoreline shapes like the nice crescent cove in that photo. Some of this could be directly added into the island shape, and some could be implemented in offshore sandbars or other features. Imagine building a tower on a coastal rock. It's up to you. It's a nice map either way. Be careful with the number of trees and the amount of smoke. Back when I had a graphics card installed and I loaded the current gray volcano map, I could directly control the fan speed by just moving the camera on and off of the smoke particles.

I like it. Might require a few minor changes, but I hope it can get added in the base game.

Probably will be handled by the property owners which I think is the French government? The Catholic Church has full permission to manage Notre Dame, so I'm sure they will have some involvement in the process. I don't think fund coordination will be any worse than any other government restoration project (natural disasters, etc.)

Perhaps regrowth would only occur in certain areas. There could be a vineyard structure that could be claimed and would generate berry bushes periodically.

That's sort of like contributing some amount and having the government match it by 900%. A little odd, but could potentially be useful. Still, seems a little early to be asking for tax breaks.

I agree. And, yes, I actually have noticed rubble size mismatches (and destruction textures, etc.) Every attention to detail and completeness adds value. Even little bits of polishing contribute to the overall shininess. @stanislas69 your work is appreciated by many.

Well, I think the main concern was about the integrity of the stone portions of the structure. The combined interactions of the heat from the fire and the cooling from the water could have caused the stone to become brittle and collapse. Even now, they aren't fully sure what condition the stone is in and whether it is sound. It does appear that they were able to save many of the movable contents, so that is very good.

I like the current effect, but wouldn't mind if it had to be tweaked for balance. However, if it were removed, what alternate effect would the lighthouse offer?

Hey, I'm one of those 50% and my computer is not a toaster. (Although now that I look at it, it is sort of shaped like one...) I'd buy a basic graphics card if I had too, so I personally am not opposed to dropping older hardware. It's just hard to determine where the cutoff should be though.

Most current issues relate to things that we have to write for ourselves regardless of engine like pathfinding, AI, etc. All a separate engine could really provide is a somewhat better graphics capability, at the cost of massive rewrites. We could use that effort to just improve the graphics portion of our engine without the dependence on external engine development. However, the main reason we don't have fancy graphics in 0 A.D. is mostly because we are trying to support old versions of OpenGL and by extension, old graphics hardware. According to the recent talk by @vladislavbelov if we dropped old hardware support, we could very easily add many nice graphical upgrades with our current engine.

Many of you were probably already aware of this, but I only found out a little while ago. Notre Dame cathedral has suffered catastrophic damage due to fire. It is a very sad day for France, and everyone really.

Yeah, city phase could include a fortified wall technology to preserve balance.

I almost did that also, but decided that it would confuse people, so I didn't. The reason I considered doing that was because I wouldn't mind a siege workshop in town phase as long as most powerful siege weapons were not available until city phase. I wouldn't want powerful siege weapons like our current battering rams available in town phase, but would be OK with the simple carried log battering ram in town phase. There was no way to properly express this with the current poll options. [Edit] This was basically covered in the @wowgetoffyourcellphone post.

@elexis I remember that there was discussion of this at the time it was converted to JS, and they did take performance into account. (I know there was a cost, but I think that it wasn't considered a bottleneck at the time.) @historic_bruno would definitely be a good one to ask.

Yes The only real difference between the original purpose (creating a fun, modifiable game), and the present is the added open source component. From what I remember reading, the original devs wanted 0 A.D. to be open source. However, they were afraid they wouldn't be able to prevent multiplayer cheating with open code, so they chose "freeware" instead of open source. (Multiplayer wasn't implemented at that time, so there were many unknowns about it.) That was the early 2000's; I imagine that they might have created the project as open source if they were starting the project today.

I think it is fine for developers to have different individual motivations. Some might care most about project leadership, or open source software, or even just the challenge to create something. For many others, the overarching goal is to create a fun game that can be fully modified as desired. I believe this is likely the common goal referenced by Smiley, because it is similar to the original creators' purpose for 0 A.D.

@Bigtiger Looks really nice. Do you plan on filling it out to use a more square footprint (fences, gardens, etc.)?

Only if it doesn't work... Otherwise we're all in serious trouble.