hyperion

Well, for a poll to be meaningful it has to run for more like two weeks than two days, then a month of play-testing at the bare minimum, then a debriefing of at least 2 weeks. As I see it, there is just enough time to cleanup the current changes and have a discussion on which changes had a positive/neutral/negative impact, then based on that discussion merge whats left into main before FF. @Kampot stated earlier in this thread he feels the current state is a mess, where many don't even clearly know what the changes are. The author of half the changes and most active player stating having time over new year (for many this is a busy time) to play test another dozen changes doesn't help if you want for the changes to have a broad acceptance. Probably, but having a poll of cleaned up changes (code-wise and listed in prose) and a discussion (what @alre intended here) would be a means to foster trust. Keeping the proposed changes out for now would also mean there is content for community-mod early instead of late in the a27 cycle. Trying to get in as much as possible right before FF may lead to stress and extended periods of FF, which no one profits from. ---- I haven't had that much time testing the changes but the reduction in territory radius without adjusting min distance felt far from ideal in closed maps. The reduction in cost of CC is actually what might have a positive impact and I don't see why they need to be a package.

The engine is called pyrogenesis. Using it for an fps is possible, actually there already exists a mod that does use first person view, just can't remember where I saw it. That said, it's probably not a great choice for a modern fps, more for something a la wolfenstein.

For this to be believable we actually need to see changes dropped ... time will tell. The other thing is we are close to FF and a whole load of new changes might get merge last minute, this would basically be throwing away the label of "play-tested".

Do you have an example of a component messaging another within the same entity? Also do the components know which other components belong to the same entity without querying the engine?

Thanks to capture, basically yes.

And only implement the top 5 changes in 0ad proper, so we don't end up changing everything every other release.

Acceleration I'd say should be an artist only property, make things looking and feeling good is the only legitimate purpose in my book.

The only sensible thing is to remove the diminishing returns for all civs, @maroder had such a plan, a hidden bonus to a hidden feature doesn't make sense at all. Just because a parameter exits doesn't mean it has to be tweaked. Increase gather rate for a civ if you want a farming bonus.

This is a typical road "texture", guess this would be plausible as well. The slabs to the left by the columns would also be a fine texture for the plaza and what I had in mind.

Guess dirt would be fine as well, just that this texture feels somehow wrong to me.

Instead of a "mod" repo a branch in a 0ad fork would probably be better for later merge. A script to create a mod from a branch is trivial to write.

No one would use Windows then. Sure functionality wise the UI isn't a master piece but I wouldn't call it broken. PS: A designer told me that the first 8 seconds are the most important. Leaving the start page in that time is close to impossible on first visit. Personally I also go for functionality, that why I stick to config files.

it's not about functionality but styling, the current UI fits the 90'

@wowgetoffyourcellphone me thinks perfectly square tiles are a better fit for Greek architecture, the issue with the original model was missing tiles (to make it more visually interesting, I have my gripes with that idea) and somewhat skewed symmetry. Anyway, me thinks they would have never used randomly sized slabs here.

Some random points: Start page has 4 different hover effects and there are more variants in other places red old style buttons need to go tooltip background transparency (only used sometimes) may lead to hard to read tooltips radio button are of the old theme, same for drop down arrow ai options icon color button borders come in variants some enabled buttons lack hover there is an issue when expanding the menu in-game full screen pages like match-setup shouldn't have inset window borders/decorations As for incomplete, well, the in-game game controls are untouched as of yet. While there are many small issues, overall I feel like the direction is right so I hope you won't give up on it as this is an aspect that I think is in dire need of some love.

I guess the issue is the UI, shiny is a major improvement, sadly it's inconsistent and incomplete as of yet. Edit: ply0ad.com also has outdated feel

And those that are viable are mostly the same for all civs ...

The in range depends also on height, changing that would make it cheaper and allow to use let's say l1-norm to filter possible targets first

Obviously all civs need catas if fortifications should have any decent role in this game, which IMHO they should.

Beware the latest release isn't master, the latest commit to master looks like the fix for this issue.

That explains it, thanks. I'm patient, no worry.

To my knowledge it's gpl compatible with optional non-free components that require comping yourself if you want support for them. Horse head and mane doing different things, or capes going rampant. Haven't noticed this in-game yet. There are quite a few things I'm willing to do after the switch to git or any vcs respecting authorship

Depends on what you call video support Currently there is exactly one user able to create videos, namely Stan, so this fails my definition of video recording support. While not critical I guess there would be users of this feature. Don't know about vlc but a very simple sdl video player using ffmpeg is probably no more than 200 lines of code and a well featured one is available under lgpl 2.1 at https://github.com/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/blob/master/fftools/ffplay.c I use the actor viewer as preview, so I currently need it. And I guess artist creating actors have use for it as well. Anyway the cost of "creating" it seems negligible to me. That reminds me that animations seem to be buggy in actor viewer.

I build against 3.2 and it works well. Yes, see Ideas: A feature that went missing over time is video, camera path is still there but it seems useless this days, would be nice if that could be added back again. A minor fix could be make the window icon available for non windows, throws a warning at startup every launch. An actor preview instead of an actor path only in the sidebar Edit: The window icon issue is actor editor only

Rams, balistae, elses, are already decently large units for game play so I'd decrease them all by another factor of 2 or so in size. Anyway reworking ships is much appreciated.