Graham1
-
Posts
91 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Graham1
-
-
Having re-installed Fedora 38 and applied the "borderless.fullscreen" option, the cursor is still slightly off. The top off the screen is showing a black bar. Any ideas how to correct this?
-
2 hours ago, Nilbud said:
How do I access this borderless.fullscreen option?
This option is under user.cfg (see screenshot below). This is on Fedora 38 using the flatpak version of 0 A.D. Other distros/OS's may use a different path.
Edit: The RPM version may be found under "Home/.config/0ad/config"
-
41 minutes ago, vladislavbelov said:
Have you tried the borderless.fullscreen option?
Thanks vladislavbelov. That has resolved the issue.
Should mention that this issue occurred in both the rpm and flatpak builds.
-
This ticket is similar to my original issue when using wayland with Fedora 37.
The issue in Fedora 38 is slightly different in that I can move the cursor within the whole (physical) screen. When set to full screen, the whole screen is not being used (only 3/4)
-
1
-
-
Since changing to "OpenGL ARB" the screen is now more full screen minus the top bar and the cursor still slightly off. Also, in windowed mode, unable to scroll up the map.
-
Hi All
Have just upgraded to Fedora 38 which was released today and found the 0 A.D is not using the full screen under xorg (wayland still has the same issue). The screen seems to be full screen mode but only displaying within 3/4 of the screen. The cursor can travel outside this area (unlike wayland) but does not match with the area highlighted. For the time being, have set to windowed mode. Any suggestions?
Edit: Btw, I'm not using any nvidia drivers, just the default.
-
1
-
-
On 11/02/2023 at 11:07 AM, Lion.Kanzen said:
I think that would work better with the shrines (map neutral object).
That could work. Regarding converting units (enemy), a priest would need to be inside to be able to do this (convert button becomes visible). Once a priest is inside, the shrine would change in colour to that particular player and return neutral again once the priest has exited.
-
On 05/02/2023 at 8:43 AM, vladislavbelov said:
@cantfind @Graham1 I've came up with another random idea: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/6649#comment:7, but it needs to compile the game.
Hi vladislavbelov. Thanks for the suggestion above. I am now using Fedora's default driver with Xorg so this isn't an issue for me anymore.
-
12 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
Especially if the garrisoned units are javs. The fight basically has to be right in front of you for it to ever make sense to garrison javs. I would personally prefer if they just become like towers and shot out arrows.
Maybe have more damage applied to the enemy in front of you (using javs and pikemen) but have slingers or archers apply less damage but with a further reach. I guess the main reason I garrison my units in this part of the wall is due to an invading army and not having enough towers to garrison in. Better in the wall than on it.
-
13 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
You mean the towers?
Not the stone and wooden towers but I suppose you could call them turrets as chrstgtr suggested. When creating a wall, this is the first part and then appears when expanded.
-
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Ranged units are garrisoned on top of the wall and loose their own projectiles. The units on the wall receive a range and armor bonus.
What about the units within the sections of the walls, like either side of a gate? Units can garrison inside of those.
-
Do units fire arrows when garrisoned inside a wall? If so, is the attack strengthened by the number of units? If not, are units healed quicker?
-
Thank you for creating the best RTS. Merry Christmas to all at Wildfire Games and forum members. Wishing you all the best for 2023.
-
3
-
-
8 hours ago, MSXML4.0parser said:
Perhaps then it would be better to hire a group of priests who would follow behind the warriors? Because the proposed option with access to enemy temples is more like an exploit rather than a useful feature. In fact, this turns the temple into a kind of Medivac Dropship from StraCraft 2. And with a quick entry and exit from it, it will be possible to deal damage and immediately hide. And in order to stop this, you will need to demolish your own temple.
In addition, religious conversion in foreign temples will allow you to forcibly fill the enemy’s population limit with some units of little use. Therefore, this kind of mechanics is a 100% exploit.
Tbh, I've never played with more than one priest during a game and when in trouble, usually convert a temple (with champions) when needing to restore. I wouldn't say it was an exploit but the population limit could be a problem and I'm not sure how this would work with AI.
-
45 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
My question is why would an enemy put his troops into you Temple when there is a real risk of you stealing (converting) his troops?
Say I was attacking the enemy (far from my base) and some of my units were very low on health, rather than let them get slaughtered, there is a chance I could drop them into a temple and regain some health. With all the action going on, it is likely that this could be done without the other person knowing as they (and yourself) would be concentrating on the action in a certain area. If you were to convert them, they would have the same health (not fully healed). The conversion could be over time (say 30 secs) rather than instant.
-
57 minutes ago, MSXML4.0parser said:
I just don't know how to explain it logically: you come to an enemy temple and instead of poisoning you, the priests most likely treat you, undermining the influence of their own state? This, even in the Middle Ages, would have been unbelievable with their right to hide from persecution in the abbeys. And then, I'm not sure that the English abbey during the war would have received enemies from France. This is some kind of fantasy.
And I do not quite understand the applicability of religious conversion to the ancient world. Authoritative books write that the pagans did not need it, perfectly connecting their deities with foreign gods, often forming double names, such as Hermes-Thoth etc. It seems that no one accused each other of heresy. Therefore, religious conversion from one paganism to another is extremely unlikely. This was especially funny to watch in the Age of Empires. But the Age of Empires has always been a kind of grotesque in history.
You don't need to, it's just a game
. If you want to be historically correct, I've no idea what went on during those times. It was just a gameplay suggestion.
-
6 hours ago, MSXML4.0parser said:
I did not understand anything. Why does a temple in my domain have to become neutral and accept enemy units? Better let the developers write a script for the AI to start hiring healers. I wouldn't mind if the AI just hired one or two priests per temple to at least just roam around the perimeter looking for the wounded. Well, or at least one priest just stood near his temple and helped to heal.
Why not? I wouldn't expect a barrack or stable to offer such a service. As the enemy, you take the chance of being healed or converted. It's just an idea.
-
How about making Temples a neutral zone for any player (only units, not siege) where ever you are on the battle field. For an enemy unit to be healed, they will need to go inside the temple whereas allies can still heal around it or inside. To make things more interesting, the owner of the temple is able to see who is garrisoned inside and if any enemy is identified, is able to convert them to his side.
-
1
-
2
-
-
This is the same issue I have on Fedora 37 (also posted on this forum). Apologies if this has already been mentioned (quite a bit to take in above). I have noticed that the area accessible via the mouse is more, if Fedora's default driver is used (in my case NV138). Nvidia's driver restricted the area quite a bit in that I couldn't get to some parts of the menu.
For me, this is only an issue with Wayland, Xorg is fine. When in Wayland, pressing Alt+Tab makes the full screen accessible again, so at least there is a workaround.
-
40 minutes ago, Stan` said:
You have not enabled the mod...
Thanks for pointing out the obvious.
. Please ban me for my stupidity but before you do, thanks for the fix 
.
-
1
-
-
On 09/10/2022 at 9:44 AM, wraitii said:
Mh, it's working for me. Are you sure you restarted the game with the new version of the mod installed?
Hi wraitii
Please see attached short video.
-
1 hour ago, wraitii said:
It's done now, if you Have 0.26.2 it should work out.
Tested with persist and hero garrison but still crashing with 0.26.2 I'm afraid.
-
32 minutes ago, wraitii said:
Sorry, the fix isn't yet in the community mod. I'll post an update soon to fix it.
No problem. Looking forward to the release.
-
3 hours ago, Norse_Harold said:
What? No. Please avoid posting statements that you haven't verified.
This post explains how to see the list of changes in the community-mod. There are no commits to the "main" or "signed" branch related to the Hero Garrison bug. There aren't even any merge requests related to it.
Yes, Stan said that this bug will be fixed in the community-mod, but that is a statement about the future, not the present.
I agree with what you have said above and was expecting a future release to fix this, so was surprised when the games started working with that release.
Having tested again, I can confirm that since installing this mod, I had since changed the settings to conquest and had been playing future games with this setting. Having reverted back to hero, the error is re-occuring
.
I apologise for my post above as it is misleading and will delete that reply. Now, I'm gutted that I have to keep setting up each game again
or I can just leave as conquest.
-
1
-
[0.26] 0 A.D on Fedora 38 (RESOLVED)
in Help & Feedback
Posted · Edited by Graham1
Thanks for the suggestion seeh. I did try the windowed mode which helped. It seems that this time it was user error
as I had set to "true" rather than "false". Now working as expected.