elexis

What kind of 'free code' do you mean? Not the already free game code? Funding developers to write new or improve existing code, or do reviews, or artwork, presenting the game software conventions, or whatever else Wildfire Games needs to accomplish the objectives of Software in the Public Interest. There is still a lot to do until this game is finished, and a successor to this game was planned too.

Wildfire Games is a member project of the non-profit organization Software in the Public Interest because we create free software, not only gratis, but also free to modify and redistribute under the same terms. Donations to Wildfire Games are tax-exempt and allow Wildfire Games to continue developing the game without such practices. Wildfire Games can involve donors a bit more than a hidden Donate button on play0ad.com however. About the T-Shirt shop proposal, that actually seems to be possible, given that Blender Foundation also has one. Not sure if it will be possible with the mentioned services (or whether it would be worth the effort). We should reward donors with free code first. If we get that going, we can look into TShirts for secondary project funding next.

Sounds like splitting game content (tempates + map + art) from the pyrogenesis engine (code): #5366

Looks good. The entire VisualActor will be the mine that units surround and play the gather animation from? Should work, but what will happen to the actor once the mine is depleted? It sounds like it might look awkward if theres an empty spot in the map that was designed to have this little hill and flora there. So perhaps that could use some 'damage variant' or the decaying 'corpse / rubble' actor mechanism? With damage variants, the transition could be smoothened, but of course costs a lot of additional work. Replacing the active mine actor with a depleted mine actor would be easier. Also if this is a huge actor, then it will be a ghost / have no obstruction. So it should probably transition into an entity with obstruction if not entirely removed after depletion (should not be so hard from the code side).

Depends on what the implementation will look like. Not everyone will be able to implement that, so I suspect few big companies will offer such a service and most might end up using that. Then the change the users see would depend on what that corporation decides to filter for. Also there is a difference between not being affected and not seeing how you're affected. If you can't read the books that were burned, you don't know if you missed something. It's true that they probably can't kill the message itself, but people like investigative journalists, political activists and such who rely on facebook, youtube, twitter and co to reach a big audience invest years of work into maintaining these channels and have been blacklisted for random stuff. Quite many. It seems like the main use case of such global monopolies, slowing things down as well as possible. In fact there have been alternative social media systems being put up, they got censored on the financial services paypal/mastercard too, went for CEOs etc.. If you look at China, it doesn't seem impossble to lose our internet freedom. It's a little remaining oasis. Meatspace also getting invaded by the internet of things, every lightbulb and toaster being connected to the internet... and as a computer science student I was supposed to help with that, thks, I'm fine, let's do some GPL non-profit software first. Maybe one can't silence the expression of a widespread belief, but how many whistleblowers uploaded to some honeypot whitleblower platform and disappeared without anyone ever noticing? We only know about people who were public figures and wanted to publish some controversial material before they ended up in a suspcious death (for example Gary_Webb allegedly having shot himself twice into his head). I don't think that the law is about copyright but establishment of more control mechanisms in general since they introduce just the next law to establish upload filters, this time against terrorism. Seems like looking for reasons to establish upload filters, rather than looking for means to stop terrorism and copyright infringement. Whenever terrorism laws are introduced that provide the government and private corporations more control, that is typically widened some years later to be used against the average user who has the wrong hobbies. They are even requiring artifical interlligene / machine learning to detect terrorism content upon upload. Would my post also be affected? Am I stirring hate that could result in terrorism already according to this AI? The Voss guy for sure talks bull on the interviews. But the politicians just pass on what some people hand them over. So the question is whether the law (and new laws passed in general) dont actually exactly achieve what they're supposed to accomplish, and just break (internet or meatspace) freedom except that of few whitelisted megacorporations; consolidation. Related: I heard there is new legislation against darknets coming up.

Depending on the size of the hill necessary to make the mine look more authentic, Most maps would have to be significantly reworked in many cases to integrate large hills. Can we find a visually pleasing model and texture for any existing maptype and biome? Reserving something like 20% more map area for hills will mean either (even) less area for players to build, or require players to play with larger mapsizes (i.e. simulation performance improvements become more important). Gameplay wise, if there are less locations on the map that provide resources, then not capturing and keeping the few points central to resource gathering may be too punishing, snowball the game more easily. Some maps already have hills, but only one or very few. For example Pyrennean Sierra or Jebel Barkal. If only the existing hills can be mined, the maps are either not as playable anymore (lost central hill = lost game) or not playable at all in the other case. Some maps are intended to be entirely plane (Anatolian Plateau). What about the starting mines at the civic center? So the screenshot looks good and it should be implemented for all relatable maps, but it doesn't sound like vanilla could use that approach for many if not the majority of maps / map ideas?

The ratings are in a separate database, so aren't deleted. I think @Hannibal_Barca might help you out with that (should verify that you aren't an impersonator). You may want to backup your user.cfg to preserve the login.

Find one who can configure their router to forward UDP port (by default 20595) for his local IP address, then everybody should be able to join that host (with or without STUN).

That must have been under the assumption of creating maps like we used to (players, one river, random hills, random resources, voila). That were 200-300 lines of code. Now we have 1500 lines or whatnot and the ceiling to map quality is the performance bottleneck. The next barrier to tear down in particular is being able to work with a precision smaller than 1 tile, so that maps can look as good as on those screenshots.

https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/forum/468-alpha-23/

Vanilla + leftovers that don't change the simstate

HALT STOP

@stanislas69 I recall spending a lot of time with ffm trying to reproduce the bug, messing with forged replays, never worked reliably. Looked at the code, looked like it shouldn't be possible to bug. It's a Schrödingers bug. If you can reliably reproduce the bug, or with high likelihood, you should report the steps to reproduce. Should try at least 5 times. Edit: It might not be that bug, if the construction site just appears very late and the screenshot is taken before then.

#3381

cmpAttack.template.Capture should be equivalent to testing for GetAttackTypes. I only found "this.template" , no other "*.template" in the source. I suppose it's a convention in order to not have components parse templates unless it's the template of their own component. cmpAttack.PerformAttack should be called if a capture attack is ordered and if it can capture, or if an attack is requested and the entity doesn't have buildingAI. Perhaps that can be phrased as a ternary: (order == capture ? canCapture : !hasBuildingAI). In the model of the current code: cmpAttack.PerformAttack shoots a single arrow or does a capture attack BuildingAI shoots many arrows Before rP17784, it shot many arrows +1 and captured, after it, it shot many arrows and didn't capture anymore. Hope I didn't make a flaw, I'm speaking of memory.

Those weren't two solutions but one. Players, scripts, AIs may send arbitrary or broken commands, so the component should test for both conditions to be true simultaneously. Only testing for the latter would be wrong, because the idea of the commit mentioned above is that arrows shot are either handled by UnitAI for units that only shoot one arrow at a time, or by BuildingAI if they shoot multiple. (So the purpose of the fix had never been to correct a tooltip, but the broken tooltip was one of the consequences of the oversight addressed in that commit)

Evidently not committing the oneline fix was worse than committing it. In other areas of the file, I see this.order.data.attackType == "Capture". I didn't test, but cmpAttack.GetAttackTypes().indexOf("Capture") != -1 doesn't work for the SiegeTower?

The question is really what people want to achieve. To edit the technical documentation, they can get started right away. The trac wiki is editable by anyone. Posts for play0ad.com can be posted here and we can copy them over if they are good. If we like your contributions and think that you are responsible, you will be invited into the team (whether you wrote an applicaiton or not). One more thing about the technical documentation, I do believe it should be first in the source code (doxygen and JSdoc), and secondly in the wiki. We want everyone who distributes the code to be able to receive that information, and receive it right in place, rather than having to dig out the right article. The technical documentation however has space for articles that don't fit into the source code (for instance an article may not relate to an individual file but an entire folder).

Sure, but that approach: The recommendations above are to recommend not limiting oneself to that. At least one contributor got himself a review by acting on that post, so it wasn't useless. If you see that people don't have enough manpower to keep up with the review queue, the obvious conclusion is that there must be more team members that do reviews, and thus you and everyone else capable should become one and allow others to upload patches in the principle "here it is, take it if it's any good". That may be true for newcomers, but you have gained much more knowledge than that. Contributors become educated over time, become able to take responsibility, so that they can also take decisions on community patches. If people persist walking, they will walk all the way. Finishing the game, making it available under exclusive free licensing, minimzing the cost for others to study, reuse and extend it, and thus for instance publish revision history. So apparently there are some differences. Great! what now? Just because it can take a while to get to the bottom of feature doesn't mean that we shouldn't start working towards this, but rather because it takes a while, we should start working towards this and document any pieces of information when we come across them. Hence I raised a concern on this commit, since at the comment is wrong, the documentation missing, and at least one more person than dismissible me having wondered the same about the possibility of more appealing solution. @Mijorious any progress with finding the maps ingame?

"I don't understand at all what is the goal of the team now? if it is to kill the project, you are doing a very good job."

Apparently not.

I haven't seen compelling evidence yet that the forum attachment and formatting options of the trac wiki are insufficient. The main purpose of the request was to pull in a large crowd (right?), that sounds good, but Wildfire Games should really keep a copy of all revant information on their sites. Even better would be if the information is created there in the first place, rather than having to move it over in retrospect. Especially if we're talking about technical documentation (that should even be inside the code first and on the wiki second), and WFG history. If the wikipage remains a duplicate, there is no disadvantage to WFG as long as WFG doesn't have to maintain that. Another problem with third party hosters hosting original content, is that the third party hoster may reserve rights, which may reduce WFGs rights to the work. The same arguments apply to Steam for instance. To utilize the large crowd at wikibooks, that large crowd could do their thing, and it will either remain in the state of duplication, or they will produce original content which someone should add to our pages, assuming there are no copyright grabs or similiar in their terms of service. The one who transfers it to our side could also be one of the wikibooks crowd, as our trac and forum are editable by anyone who complies with WFGs ToS. So realistically you could start a copypasta wikibook and leave a link at the top that people should keep the works in sync. But that sounds like needless overhead, why not fix everything in a central place... So perhaps there could be a short article and then a link to the technical documentation, so as to pull in as much of that crowd without requiring anyone to dissect copypasta. (or whatever)

The first line you modify comes from rP16577, I don't know about that. The second line you modify is a wrong line from rP17784, so it's correct to modify that if one doesn't want to redesign BuildingAI. But the line should not check for SiegeTower class, because every entity that has BuildingAI and can capture should pass if the order is to capture. You reminded me of things that were not okay.

A wikibook exclusive to strategies from players for players sounds good, but reading all the categories on the site linked, I'm worried that there could be important wiki entries posted that are relevant to development, and thus should be on Wildfire Games development platforms. The "Game history" is in fact "Wildfire Games history", I fully agree we need to write these articles, lots of public history is buried on the webarchive version of wildfiregames.com. We are in fact already a bit busy putting the history back together. https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/WikiStart#TechnicalDesignDocumentation would be the best place to add development documentation, there already is a lot, but it's outdated and incomplete. Everyone can edit that, add funky images or whatever. It's just a bit yellow, but a wiki with many possibilites for formatting. The Wildfire Games history documents should go to https://wildfiregames.com/, they could be pre-written on the forums. For gameplay strategy guides, our trac wiki might indeed not be the best place, and the forums don't allow for collaborative and revision-history editing. I guess for some people, the straegies are their personal ones, whereas there are some strategies that are mathmatical requirements to play better, objectively true. The more something is written subjectively, the less universal truth it holds, the less I worry that Wildfire Games loses that content. But if the strategy guide was written so that every player that follows these rules becomes better, it might be something Wildfire Games may want to keep on trac or their forums too. If you want to focus on the strategy guide aspect, I would recommend to motivate some of the competitive players. If you get one, the others might be inclined to participate.