Have ranges changed again?

[wowgetoffyourcellphone 6.394]

Seems like at some point ranges have been changed back to center distance from edge distance? 

Edited January 25 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Stan` 7.017]

They have by @wraitiibecause it broke enemy unit detection

EDIT: https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP24776

[wowgetoffyourcellphone 6.394]

49 minutes ago, Stan` said:

They have by @wraitiibecause it broke enemy unit detection

EDIT: https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP24776

So, what uses edge distance and what uses center distance?  

Auras and UnitAI uses center distance detection, while BuildingAI uses edge distance for defensive arrow range?  

[Stan` 7.017]

Yeah so the problem it fixed originally is somewhat reversed from what I understand (e.g. towers with the same range as units, will be able to shoot farther than said units).

[wowgetoffyourcellphone 6.394]

4 minutes ago, Stan` said:

Yeah so the problem it fixed originally is somewhat reversed from what I understand (e.g. towers with the same range as units, will be able to shoot farther than said units).

I think BuildRestrictions/Distance/MaxDistance and MinDistance should be edge-detected. 

[Stan` 7.017]

Maybe, at least they use that code.

[wraitii 1.455]

Hey, yeah we tweaked some things around because I noticed that UnitAI range checks where breaking, and LOS uses center-to-center (as you well know) for now, so we need to match it.

Here's how things stand:

• Alert Raise is edge-to-edge
• Auras use center-to-center again - the reason is mostly Nescio's concern that edge-to-edge gave too big an effect to structure size
• BuildingIA is edge-to-edge (so building arrows)
• BuildRestrictions use center-to-center again - the reason being again that structures sizes can vary, and I didn't find either particularly better.
  • To be honest, since buildingAI is edge-to-edge, it might make sense to change that one again
• Gate range is edge-to-edge
• TriggerPoints are edge-to-edge
• Collision detections for arrows is edge-to-edge
• UnitAI is center-to-center

[wowgetoffyourcellphone 6.394]

36 minutes ago, wraitii said:

• BuildRestrictions use center-to-center again - the reason being again that structures sizes can vary, and I didn't find either particularly better.
  • To be honest, since buildingAI is edge-to-edge, it might make sense to change that one again

 

This is how I noticed it. DE has Market Stalls that have to be built within 30 meters of a Market. I was playtesting something and noticed that all of a sudden the Market Stalls had to be built much closer than before. Could you consider changing that back to edge-edge (A24)? Build Restrictions made sense to me being edge to edge, while auras could be a toss up (too many edge cases, perhaps auras could have a line of code in the aura json where you can choose edge or center emanation; A25, lol). 

[Nescio 1.514]

13 hours ago, wraitii said:

Here's how things stand:

Proper edge to edge or distance to circle around the obstruction?

And heal (as in healer), territory influence, and vision ranges?

Since only the middle part of gates is passable, I'd say centre to centre makes more sense for gate detection range.

[wraitii 1.455]

31 minutes ago, Nescio said:

Proper edge to edge or distance to circle around the obstruction?

I'm not sure what component you're referring to here?

Quote

And heal (as in healer), territory influence, and vision ranges?

Those are all center-to-center, because, respectively:

- healing range is handled in unitAI

- territory influence is handled in its own component doings its own thing - I believe it's centre-distance.

- vision range is LOS, which is handled center-to-center, hence the 'popping' of structures when exploring.

Quote

Since only the middle part of gates is passable, I'd say centre to centre makes more sense for gate detection range.

The problem is that large units might not open the gates (they'd have to be very large, but not unfathomably so). I prefer to keep it consistent for those with edge-to-edge. In practice, this remains a "circle around the obstruction", so this just accounts for possible visitor-size, it doesn't really change the range. And for once, making it larger/smaller depending on gate-size is probably a good thing.

[Nescio 1.514]

3 minutes ago, wraitii said:

The problem is that large units might not open the gates (they'd have to be very large, but not unfathomably so). I prefer to keep it consistent for those with edge-to-edge. In practice, this remains a "circle around the obstruction", so this just accounts for possible visitor-size, it doesn't really change the range. And for once, making it larger/smaller depending on gate-size is probably a good thing.

e.g. rome/siege_wall_gate.xml has:

  <Obstruction>
    <Obstructions>
      <Right width="11.5" depth="5" x="12.25" z="0"/>
      <Left width="11.5" depth="5" x="-12.25" z="0"/>
      <Door width="13" depth="5" x="0" z="0"/>
    </Obstructions>
  </Obstruction>

 

[gameboy 177]

@wraitii