feneur

Sorry to hear, and hope things work out as soon as possible. Good to hear that the CPU isn't broken at least. Pity that it's a laptop, otherwise you could always have gotten an ordinary fan and pointed at the computer until you had it fixed I wouldn't think that works very well with a laptop though =)

I would say that depends on how large the files are. If they aren't more than a couple of MBs in a ZIP file you could just attach them to a post in the forum (click More Reply Options and add and attach them there). I would guess it's more than that though, but any uploading site should work fine for now. If we decide to add them we can upload them to our site, so it doesn't matter much where they are right now

But that would just make them even more meaningless. And true, that might balance the game in the "no unit/civ is overpowered" sense, but at least to some extent we have to balance the units in terms of "all units should be useful" as well. A balance between the different units. If a unit is not useful there's no reason to include it in the unit roster for a civ at all, then the only use it could have is to confuse new players and make it harder to learn the game =) It's another thing to have more units available for e.g. scenarios, but all units which can be built in a normal game should be useful in some situation. That doesn't say that all units has to be useful in every match you play, some may only be good against say elephants and then they'll not be useful in a match against a Briton opponent, but there should be situations at a whole where using that unit can be what gives you the advantage necessary to win

I agree. I don't think there's much need for an obstruction to make you not build there after a building has been destroyed, after all, the units which destroyed it are likely to remain and could easily take out the new building. And yeah, I don't think there is any need to make something explicit (i.e. have the looting be literal in this case) unless it makes the game more interesting and fun. One could argue that having to mine the rubble to get the resources would be more realistic as both sides could benefit from the resources, but on the other hand that would make the owner of the building more likely to benefit from the resources as it's generally more likely for the enemy to have a longer distance to his dropsites. I think it's better to only have the opponent benefit from the destruction of a building as that both encourages more action and also forces the player to protect his buildings more

Hmm, maybe not =) But there are at least a fair number of different footprints, so they should each get different actors at least It might be cool to eventually have some more custom rubble actors for at least civ centers/fortresses/wonders, but that can be something that's kept low priority and that we can have as a good basic task to ask applicants to do as part of their evaluation process

Thanks Shared it with our G+ fans

Ah, yeah. I was mostly thinking about laptops Desktops should be a lot safer, especially with a bunch of fans

Please remember to post in this topic which building (and for which civilization) you are working on so that everyone else knows not to work on that one Also, it might be a good idea to create some basic rubble objects/textures to use as a base before starting to create individual rubble objects. If nothing else so we don't have to add like a hundred rubble related texture files instead of a few

Create a scenario Then you can give yourself the number you want

Hmm, what happens if you try to Alt-tab or whatever the equivalent is on KDE? (I seem to remember that it was the same, but it was like five years since I used KDE, or Linux at all for that matter )

Is it in a window? Then you should be able to minimize it just fine.

No. The towers which can fire arrows can fire arrows at all times (I think Michael has been hoping to give the outpost a small attack only when you have units garrisoned in it, but at the moment buildings which can fire arrows can always fire arrows), however, they fire more arrows when you garrison units in them (Though some units are excluded, I think it is female citizens and healers, but it might be a few more.)

The performance in general has very little to do with the graphics card so far (at least unless your graphics card is very old or possibly if you use the new effects), but rather with other things (there is still a lot of things in the engine that can be improved), and a decent integrated card should be able to run the game. However, I would personally recommend against using an integrated card for gaming as it could break your computer. Now don't take this as "It will break your computer!" But since an integrated card rarely has the same kind of cooling as a proper graphics card it's at least something to be aware of, if you have a reasonably good graphics card (I would guess that 512MB is enough to be safe for things like 0 A.D., unless we add too many new graphical features =) ), and isn't playing for too long at a time I think you'll be fine. I've just experienced it myself when an overheated graphics card ruins a laptop, so it's something I want you to be aware of so you don't have to experience it yourself

No, it's because it's an attachment, and the URL for them doesn't contain the extension at all, so I have no idea what to change to make it possible to post them I think it was possible before, so there might be a way. In this you can use https://lh6.googleus...rdens_final.jpg though =)

There is actually some discussion going on in the Staff forums which might mean that we will move to Git sometime not too far into the future. I would say the question of an autoupdater and moving to Git are two different things though, at least in the sense of one program/tool/part of the engine that keeps the entire game updated. For everyone who uses SVN/Git already there's not much use for that + of course to have something that works on all OSs etc will take a lot of work. It is possibly somewhat related though: The solution we're discussing at the moment is to move to Git, strip all .exes and .DLLs from the repository, and then make them available for separate download. To make that easy the plan is to create a simple .exe that could reside in the top 0 A.D. folder and then be run to compare the checksums of the local .exes and .DLLs to the ones on the server and if the ones on the server are newer, download them and put them in the correct places. It would still not be ideal as it would be two steps, but hopefully it will be easy enough to convince the artists that we should make the switch (provided we don't find any other issues with Git of course now that we're looking at moving more seriously). In any case, where it might be related (though don't take my word for it as I'm not a programmer) is that the .exe that would be used to make sure the .exes and .DLLs are updated could at least in concept, if not in actual code as it's so limited and only for Windows, be a precursor to an autoupdating function for the entire game. I'm not sure (again, not a programmer), but it seems like it could be a good way to test out some concepts which will later be useful for keeping the entire game updated.

Is there really a reason to put the image in spoilers? It makes sharing the post on FB/G+ a lot more boring (since their automatic image detection doesn't find it). It's one thing if there are multiple images as not everyone has a fast internet connection/we might want to share images which are larger than the general width of the page and not having it in a spoiler could break the layout of the page, but unless there is a really good reason for spoilering all there should be at least one non-spoilered.

It's not as if you have much of a choice if you look at it that way as they are part of the walls (And yeah, as Thorfinn said, they can build defense towers, it's just that the automatically built wall towers don't shoot arrows. As with a lot of things this might change once we get closer to a finished game and are able to more thoroughly test and balance the game, if we find that this puts the Celts at too great a disadvantage we might give them the ability to fire arrows.)

No, there is at most a current lack in activity from gameplay programmers And even so there is 1 (and a half if you count wraitii who's mostly been focusing on the AI lately, but did some graphics related stuff earlier) active graphics programmer, and at least a handful other programmers who are relatively active (hard to define some people as solely being focused on gameplay programming though as some might do some GUI work in addition to gameplay programming etc). And almost all patches we receive from people who are not as closely involved in the development are either engine fixes or gameplay implementations, very few have been related to the graphics side. So it's not an overall trend, just that currently we've had one very active graphics programmer and of course graphics are more easily "marketable" than a myriad of engine fixes or similar

Yeah, part of the reason we discourage translation at this stage is that the English text might still change a lot, so the work done now might be rendered useless by the time the game is finished.

We do hope to have an autoupdater out eventually, but as has been explained by others it's not a priority at the moment. Hopefully there will be time during the Beta phase to focus on things like this though, as all gameplay features should be done by that time and only bug fixes/performance improvements and other systems like translation should be done during the beta phase.

I'm pretty sure (though I might be wrong) that was a hint to his own game project So I guess he will tell us more once he gets closer to having it finished

For all civs but the Celts that is true yeah.

A game company: http://tiltedmill.com/games/

Standard bearers/"musicians" (to summarize =) ) were considered a long time ago, but were postponed together with morale. Imho we should not start to try and put these things back at this point in development of part one. I think it would be a good idea to reconsider all of these things for part two though, but then to take it in a larger context: To me the theme of part two will be (at least from how I imagine it) more story-based and focused more on individual units. This could include things like triggers/cinematics to create story-based scenarios and campaigns, morale (and things like standard bearers to influence it), attrition/logistics/supply, spy units, etc. It would probably require us to automate the economy since you'd hardly have time to micromanage both the economy side and the war side, but we'll have to see how complicated people feel the economy is in part one (especially since it should be less management heavy once we implement a better farm system).

Generally speaking not for part one at least. It's more likely units will be removed as the more units=the harder it is to balance the game, and, perhaps more importantly, the more units, the more alike each other they will get, in other words: what's the point for a player to train two separate kinds of units to fill the same role.