elexis

I can just speak on behalf of myself on why I had decided to not contribute for the first half of this year but started committing to Alpha 24 now.

The message I got was "screw wfg", which led me here :-/

Disabling TLS also means disabling encryption, so it would be better fixed. You happen to be on Windows 10? Did you succeed to connect via TLS (in a23b) before? Did you install or configure some networking software (VPN, firewall) (since then)?

Did you modify any files during the pause?

When I first saw the fake ISO view I wrote #4638. One can hack such things by replacing default.cfg until the aspired implementation is deployed. (Ideally every mod could introduce custom config options without having to overwrite what exists, so that two mods can be launched simultaneously without breaking.)

Any mods enabled? Pressed alt+tab during the 6 minutes? Is it possible to reproduce without 6 minutes waiting?

Alt+tab?

I couldn't reproduce the issue without mods and I don't see in the code how it can fail as it is initialized in the init function. As reported on IRC:

That was +D, try #0ad-dev instead of #0ad if you want to talk to developers. Did you apply any mod? When did the error occur? Perhaps it was something like pressing a key combination during or at the end of the loading screen?

An option for an option sounds a bit meh (why only that one option and not for every option). There is also the fact that all chosen gamesettings are reset when changing the map for Skirmish or Scenario maps.

If I would post something that is completed to 27% that would only mean that it's being pointed out that 73% are missing, so I can only report when something will be done to 100%.

To answer the question, a lot of the alpha 24 work is in private github branches of different Wildfire Games members for the reason fatherbushido has posted. It's sad to see people decide to try to make Wildfire Games obsolete. I would have wished to continue to cooperate together, but Wildfire Games has a 20 year history, has created this very software and the online platforms and to me this is a value byitself to maintain rather than to actively help tear down. So I have to support Wildfire Games and 0 A.D. at the pice that I will have to pay for that.

The default is teams being locked, which I guess is the most prevalent setting? You mean having LMS the default over allied-victory if teams are not locked?

The error happens when enet (udp based network protocol) can't send the network packages to the peer / client (http://enet.bespin.org/group__host.html#ga6ba501b3ee576e5578c8e6d1694ebd49). This might be because a local firewall or other network setting denies the network connection. Perhaps you also have mutliple network controllers where one of them disconnected during the time of hosting.

(Or a CURL HTTP post with 0ad, UserReporter has a threaded example, ModIo has a non-threaded async example, but even a synchroneous call is probably sufficient and maybe quick enough if localhost)

Another common trick to avoid issues like that is to rename the file before doing something with it, so that the other process doesn't get into the opportunity of doing something to it.

Wasn't the file truncated to zero bytes and then deleted or something? Like that being two steps that can be affected by concurrency, not only one? It does speak of a different process though. And once python opens file access (regardless of exceptions), 0ad can't open that file for that time, no? It sounds like you dealt with the problem where python tries to open it when 0ad has it open already, but not the other way around.

Last line of the log. So gotta find some mechanism to prevent two processes from reading and writing simultaneously to the same file (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_exclusion#Types_of_mutual_exclusion_devices )

Maybe that would be more logical indeed. March 2018: rP21630 Fix UnitAI behaviour inconsistent with its stance for packed units and set default stance to standground for packed units. April 2018: rP21784 Fix a couple of packing problems from rP21630 rP21786 really fix packing problems reported in rP21630 May 2018: #5175 October 2018: So perhaps the fix to #5091 should be different, I didn't want to get involved with that mudding, but the unpack-loop issue remains reported and is put into the scheduled list #5328 (which means there will be at least three clicks being spent on the issue). (Already the case?) #4015 and D1520 as FeldFeld pointed out. Standground? Simulation commands are orders. The user sends an order so as to start a process. UnitAI has an order queue and performs that one step at a time. Orders can be cancelled by removing them from the queue. So it's logically consistent with the UnitAI in general, but this packing AI may be unique and warrant some different behavior. Reverting to 0% slowly seems sound to me instead of instantly jumping to 0%, which indeed would justify considering to replace the cancel command with the pack/unpack command, and account for that somehow in the packing part of UnitAI. Sounds like invoking spaghetti code but, maybe inevitable. But that's the weakpoint of siege engines, they should be and remain that vulnerable during that stage, no? Agree, it must be fun to play. That proportional-progress proposal is possibly still the right thing to do, depending on expectations of logic and gameplay design. For aggressive stance, and for forced attacks in any stance it sounds reasonable to follow the attacked target. I suppose it's important to satisfy the definition of an order. If there is an order to perform X, then by definition X is ordered to be performed, and that means doing the preconditions like packing to achieve that. So one could introduce an order type (such as ground based attacks) where the siege engine attakcs units in the target area without implying that a specific unit should be attacked (thus not providing reason to have it unpack at any time). Dunno. Images may vary slightly from actual product. There are many ways to skin a cat. Doesn't require hierarchical force to commit a catapult AI fix. But for my review I need a decision whether I want to be frustrated by throwing or riding the bomb.

As per @snelius request, here the replay of this Alpine Mainland 4v4 today: vs. It was a long, balanced and entertaining team game. 2019-06-17_0002.zip Former remains of my city in the center, rebuild and _zoro_s base squeezed together at the top.

The software license relates to redistributing possibly modified copies, the implicit or explicit usage rules enforced by moderators determine what conduct is permissible on the service. Performing a review is not necessarily harmful but can be benefitial if it happens in an acceptable or tolerable tone. In this specific case, there is the question as to which parts of the mod borg- would not disagree with to have in a24 of Wildfire Games. There were some thoughts by online players and even WFG staff members to adopt some of his work (that ought to be the task description if one has a review queue I suppose). From my side hard-counters were a thought I had that should be explored to make the gameplay less linear. borg- did explore that, it's his full right to do so to take it into any way he imagines, and good that he did explore things in general. Also good that he tested it with other human players. The real problem is the interaction between the developer that may have the thought to adopt some of the work and borg- exploring more things before getting one thing into a24 at a time, if he wants to take something into a24. borg- also repeated to me multiple times that multiple changes combined are necessary to actually test this. So I suppose it's really, well, a distributed problem. It's also my problem because I mentioned that I had some interest in seeing that patch, or the explanation of the conditions to having patches submitted for review to Wildfire Games. And the problem of others too who didn't provide borg- the feedback that he could use to become even better at what he is doing. All of that was called review work back in the day. Considering and testing the game with AI players is one of the areas subject to a review. So that particularly isn't bad to have done and reported. The question is really the one about dedication. Should this mod be reviewed for Wildfire Games or not for the purpose of adopting parts of it for Wildfire Games? Then it would meet the primary objectives of the organization, if the tone is acceptable or tolerable. If there is no wish to have the mod reviewed by Wildfire Games, then the claimed purposes of the thread would be less relevant. The discussion usually would take place on Phabricator, where a specific coherent feature would be taken out of the mod and analyzed for their impact on the game. If this discussion would be on Phabricator, there at least wouldn't be a discussion as to whether a review of the features makes sense or not. If I had finalized some dedication to a software repository decision we'd also have a different discussion. @Loki1950 say the line!

(not good)

See PM.

It says iddqdd is banned for the reason "One account per person, please"

If your main account doesn't work anymore, did you try the others?