wraitii

Hello everyone, I have just committed SM60. I'll be around for any bug report should I have missed something. The most interesting thing about this upgrade was that we now compile the game using the C++14 standard. Now, I will work towards using Visual Studio 2017 (I'll make another forum post about that), and once that's done, we can start looking at SM68.

They aren't actually removed yet You need to set the Realm creation option "SetToSourceEnabled" : https://github.com/wraitii/0ad/commit/08fe2e8e86a671228c3cffac6734e16b0b896087 I do think it'll probably be removed entirely in a future ESR, but in the interest of going fast I'll tackle that problem later. (BTW thanks for noticing the JS_PUBLIC_API thing of structure clones)

You were right, previews don't have a size, and my original fix was further buggy. This is fixed now, I'm running the windows auto build. Sorry about the gameplay disturbance.

Indeed I had made a mistake on that commit, and as you noted, we fixed it (in fact, the fix went in before you posted this topic, but the auto build was this morning ) Thanks for playing SVN !

Hello everyone, as promised above, SM52 is now merged in SVN. If you experience issues with building the game, please drop by #0ad-dev on IRC or create a ticket on trac (or, if all else fail, write about it here ). Work will now continue towards SM60.

Rejoice everyone, for this is coming to svn (soon™) I've got a branch up and running on SM78 here: https://github.com/wraitii/0ad/tree/sm78 (with stops at SM60 and 68). Work is ongoing to upgrade svn to SM52.

Following @Itms lack of time recently, I have taken up the mantle of the spidermonkey migration. For SM52, most of what he had done is directly usable and I plan to commit the upgrade in the upcoming days. I will be uploading patches to Phabricator, but for those using git, you can access the whole thing here: https://github.com/wraitii/0ad/tree/sm52-clean My plan is to try and move rather quickly up the ladder, since we need SM78 for Python3 support (which we need to not be dropped by linux distros), and that will take 3 more rounds of upgrading.

Cheers, love a good CBA. You can easily do things like giving improved attack/defense/other by using modifiers. You can check out the "Cheat.js" file for how to use this.

The solution is actually to delete your matchsetttings.json (and the MP version) in your user settings folder, see https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/GameDataPaths

Hello @Adunakhor, The current alpha release ought to work, and the next-one will too. The "development" version needs some patches to function.

It would be nice if you could also show the other panels from the in-game profiler, such as the Draw calls one. I agree with Vlad that you appear to be using quite different graphics settings.

i don't think so, but I did notice that also. I've made a ticket to make sure we won't forget about this too easily: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/5807#ticket

Wikipedia concurs and cites a book that I couldn't find online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirrup#cite_note-Chamberlin80-13 Looking at the location of the temples where those engravings are (from wikipedia again), it's right in the middle of the Maurya empire, and the dates kind of fit - I would say it seems like a very good late-game technology. Historically, it might be 50-100 years too early, but it's an interesting trivia and it feels unique enough that we might give it a pass.

Hell @1dabred , Can you confirm that you ran: cd libraries/osx ./build-osx-libs.sh -j3 and that you had no errors?

I'm really warming up to D2875/shrink variant, I think.

It's been committed now, thanks for reporting

My opinion/argument is that it is impossible, unless we: Effectively reduce the # of civs (e.g Celt, Greek, Roman, Kushites), by making the different "sub-civs" very similar. Effectively make all civs very similar. We can't get AoE2 level of variety because our tech tree/unit tree is much too small. @Genava55 seems to side with #1. I'd rather take the 3rd option I'm presenting in the OP.

I know, but that particular RLInterface project doesn't use pch, so that it makes a difference at all is a bit odd to me, but there's obviously something I'm missing.

Are you compiling without precompiled headers perhaps? I find it odd that it fails, since the CI worked, but it seems like it could. I've posted a diff here: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2928 can you patch and confirm?

Just to clarify: I don't want to prevent Briton vs Mauryan fights for example, I just don't want to guarantee that this would be a balanced fight. So players would pick from the same "group" in competitive MP.

I updated the first post, removing notes about "tiers" since that's not really the heart of my argument. My point is that we should have "groups" of civs, which are internally diverse yet balanced. Matchups between civs from different groups are not guaranteed to be balanced. The logical conclusion is that some groups might end up overall stronger than others, but I think the highlight here is that civilisations in history adapted to their rivals and their context, and thus sentences like "Would the Roman have kicked the ass of the Zapotec?" make no sense.

There kind of has to be generalisations if you're going to tier our civilisations. My claim is that these generalisations will actually be less than what we need to do to balance all civs together. Yet it is unarguable that they were at some point the biggest empire in the world. Time periods change, but I don't think it's absurd to group them alongside Macedonians and Mauryans as the 3 biggest empires of our time period (which is honestly more like 500-250BC than 250-0BC... Rome is a bit problematic in this setup) I'm not trying to make a comment on which civilisation would be best overall, in fact I'm trying to do the exact opposite. My point is that we can balance Macedonians and Persians and Mauryans and have some fun gameplay. I mean, the Romans did beat Carthage in the first Punic war owing, in parts, to a strong navy. Yeah, this is exactly what I'm trying to do here, but I've obviously failed to convey that.

This has been merged: https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP23917

I think it would be _awesome_ to do a UX-oriented review of our GUI and our screens.

I think you just have to iterate over it, or use some set-functions: https://developer.mozilla.org/fr/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Objets_globaux/Set