151
Bug reports / Re: v3.6.0 : Battlemage with 5 kills after promotion to Archmage is not an Exper
« on: 20 December 2011, 21:22:47 »
Yes, clearly this should be configurable in the unit xml
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
152
MegaGlest / Re: Support of Bulldozer achitecture.
« on: 18 December 2011, 19:24:30 »
I'm curious, Omega, can you explain this hyperthreading thing and how an application might support it?
153
Off topic / Re: Congress wants to censor the internet
« on: 15 December 2011, 07:44:11 »I agree that the concept of the bills are both very bad, though myself am very safe up here in Canada.
Sadly, as the vast majority of everyone's Internet traffic goes via USA, and as much of your data is hosted in the USA, you are not at all immune.
Sadder, as you are not a citizen of the USA, you have even less chance of redress.
https://plus.google.com/109813896768294978296/posts/Dt6FoRv6hXJ
154
Feature requests / Re: Please offer re-downloading in case of checksum mismatches
« on: 13 December 2011, 06:40:05 »
I meant it sound like poor error handling. The lower layer that does the transfer knows if there is an io error. It could also be taught to resume.
A dialog is a band-aid on the symptom, not the cause?
A dialog is a band-aid on the symptom, not the cause?
155
Feature requests / Re: Please offer re-downloading in case of checksum mismatches
« on: 12 December 2011, 15:41:25 »
(How can the checksum fail? Suggests software bug?)
156
Feature requests / Re: Formations - how I think they could work
« on: 10 December 2011, 23:28:48 »For marching in formation, would a simple way be to give each unit's destination the same offset as they have from the center of the formation? I.E., if the unit is two tiles to the left and one tile to the front, then the unit's destination will be +2 to the left and +1 to the front.
Yes the offset was what I was meaning in my 'poor man's' approach
They would likely march in formation if all have the same speed and there is no obstacles nor turns and so on. So basically, I think they'd likely keep some semblance of formation when doing basic movement but it might look a bit wonky more often than not.
157
Feature requests / Re: Formations - how I think they could work
« on: 10 December 2011, 17:25:38 »
In Glest, units are aligned on a grid.
When you select more than one unit and then click on a destination, they each try to actually go to the exact destination tile. Obviously one of them will win this race, and the others will all get as close as they can until their way is blocked. So they end up in a tight bunch.
A 'poor mans' formations that might be relatively straightforward to add to glest is, when selecting more than unit and holding down a new 'formation' key as clicking on the destination, you are telling the units to form the same shape as they currently are in but with that shape centred on the destination. That is, if you have managed to get 4 units in a nice line, then clicking on a destination with the 'formation' key pressed will get them to go to that spot and be in the same line as they started with. As a finesse, when you release the formation key but still have the mouse button down, you might be orientating the destination (it can be nicely highlighted on the map) so you can ensure they are facing the right way.
Of course each unit is still plotting their own path to the destination, and they might not reach their destination at the same time nor maintain the formation as they march.
And if they aren't in some defensive mode they'll break-rank when engaging.
When you select more than one unit and then click on a destination, they each try to actually go to the exact destination tile. Obviously one of them will win this race, and the others will all get as close as they can until their way is blocked. So they end up in a tight bunch.
A 'poor mans' formations that might be relatively straightforward to add to glest is, when selecting more than unit and holding down a new 'formation' key as clicking on the destination, you are telling the units to form the same shape as they currently are in but with that shape centred on the destination. That is, if you have managed to get 4 units in a nice line, then clicking on a destination with the 'formation' key pressed will get them to go to that spot and be in the same line as they started with. As a finesse, when you release the formation key but still have the mouse button down, you might be orientating the destination (it can be nicely highlighted on the map) so you can ensure they are facing the right way.
Of course each unit is still plotting their own path to the destination, and they might not reach their destination at the same time nor maintain the formation as they march.
And if they aren't in some defensive mode they'll break-rank when engaging.
158
Bug reports / Re: Selecting.
« on: 9 December 2011, 19:32:42 »
If you pre-compute (on load) the bounds of each model, and model it as a sphere you can cheaply check if it could possibly intersect the selection ray, and so avoid rendering any models unnecessarily
159
Feature requests / Re: better standalone/total conversion options
« on: 8 December 2011, 20:04:22 »
If you want to distribute your own free-standing program that is based on MG but with other stuff, you can of course do that today. Its even been done, and called a "total conversion".
Of course building for all the various platforms and targets is non-trivial, as is redistributing every time there are updates etc. Someone is right now making MacOS builds of MG but the sci-fi TC will never run on a Mac because nobody will do the non-trivial effort to make it so
The thing that you want with a TC is to have custom skin for main menu, perhaps a splash screen, but mostly to divide your tilesets and maps. In return for this, you have to pay the distribution price.
The way forward I want to see is where a user who has MG installed can easily download mods that don't just augment a techtree, they provide a new one, complete with the tilesets and maps that are specific to that techtree and also the UI theme.
The way I imagine it is that the top level of modding menu is split by techtree, showing those online as well as stored locally. And the user can drill into those techtrees to also see the mods that extend it.
The UI takes its look&feel from the last-selected techtree (even between restarts). The maps and tilesets and scenarios etc have moved into the techtree and are specific to it etc.
By selecting another techtree when creating a game or selecting a scenario etc will change the techtree, and retheme the UI immediately.
That's just how I imagine the UI.
The key thing is to first decide if TCs get distributed - outside MG mod menu so its up to the user to download and install, or inside MG?
Of course building for all the various platforms and targets is non-trivial, as is redistributing every time there are updates etc. Someone is right now making MacOS builds of MG but the sci-fi TC will never run on a Mac because nobody will do the non-trivial effort to make it so
The thing that you want with a TC is to have custom skin for main menu, perhaps a splash screen, but mostly to divide your tilesets and maps. In return for this, you have to pay the distribution price.
The way forward I want to see is where a user who has MG installed can easily download mods that don't just augment a techtree, they provide a new one, complete with the tilesets and maps that are specific to that techtree and also the UI theme.
The way I imagine it is that the top level of modding menu is split by techtree, showing those online as well as stored locally. And the user can drill into those techtrees to also see the mods that extend it.
The UI takes its look&feel from the last-selected techtree (even between restarts). The maps and tilesets and scenarios etc have moved into the techtree and are specific to it etc.
By selecting another techtree when creating a game or selecting a scenario etc will change the techtree, and retheme the UI immediately.
That's just how I imagine the UI.
The key thing is to first decide if TCs get distributed - outside MG mod menu so its up to the user to download and install, or inside MG?
160
Feature requests / Re: better standalone/total conversion options
« on: 7 December 2011, 20:27:35 »I prefer the solution where total conversions are selected from the main menuThe total conversions need to be selected before launch as they affect menu models and buttons
MG starts in the same "total conversion" as it was last exited with, but you can change to another total conversion at any time from the mod menu, where you can also download and update them.
The moment you have multiple exes floating around and you want users to be run them and so on, you have an update and distribution nightmare.
MG has a very good bit of working code for doing distribution and updates from within MG, and this should be used, even for total conversions; that's my strong conviction.
161
Feature requests / Re: better standalone/total conversion options
« on: 7 December 2011, 18:51:19 »
I prefer the solution where total conversions are selected from the main menu, so they can be downloaded from inside MG and do not need people to download or run anything. It can also turn into a way of bringing attention to total conversions and such.
Seeing as how installing MG/GAE/Glest is a major source of people asking for help, hoping people getting it working once is optimistic. Expecting them to successfully install any number of them is fanciful.
Seeing as how installing MG/GAE/Glest is a major source of people asking for help, hoping people getting it working once is optimistic. Expecting them to successfully install any number of them is fanciful.
162
MegaGlest / Re: Mobile platform support? (was: Can I haz iPad?)
« on: 7 December 2011, 13:47:18 »
Everywhere I look OpenGLES is *replacing* OpenGL. OpenGLES is substantially more modern than the small subset of OpenGL that MG currently uses.
The GPUs in mobile devices are typically non-shoddy and often faster than my laptop on which I comfortably play glest.
There's no lack of power on the PC and no limitations in its OpenGLES support from a glest perspective.
The big problem for mobile as I see it is the HCI problems with touch. That's where most of the porting effort would go.
Of course, this conversation was resurrected by discussion about Google Chrome's NACL. That is a way of distributing applications to desktops predominately, although later there may well be chromium tablets about.
The GPUs in mobile devices are typically non-shoddy and often faster than my laptop on which I comfortably play glest.
There's no lack of power on the PC and no limitations in its OpenGLES support from a glest perspective.
The big problem for mobile as I see it is the HCI problems with touch. That's where most of the porting effort would go.
Of course, this conversation was resurrected by discussion about Google Chrome's NACL. That is a way of distributing applications to desktops predominately, although later there may well be chromium tablets about.
163
Off topic / Re: inspiring fantasy art
« on: 7 December 2011, 11:18:13 »
This image reminds me strongly of Anno 2070 screenshots:
164
MegaGlest / Re: How we will run in ipad megaglest on?
« on: 6 December 2011, 09:19:01 »While it could be cool, the development would likely be harder, as developers would need more experience, without decreasing the previously required experience. And I'd imagine the performance trade off would suck, chrome is fast, but it's really heavy on my RAM.
This is not true. This is not how computer programming works. A programmer would not think this way.
Its also not how chrome nacl works performance-wise.
I am not volunteering to do the port, however.
165
Bug reports / Re: Selecting.
« on: 5 December 2011, 21:36:19 »
GL_SELECT has a really bad performance reputation but I don't know how current that is. It certainly used to be true that it was hardware-accelerated yet degraded by Nvidia and ATI to make a price point between consumer products and pro products.
The thing is, if you hold the mouse down, are you picking every frame? And if so, do you need to?
The thing is, if you hold the mouse down, are you picking every frame? And if so, do you need to?
166
Bug reports / Re: Selecting.
« on: 5 December 2011, 20:45:06 »
Its because we're using colour picking perhaps? Surely we're not doing that every frame when the mouse is pressed? And if we are and need to, it can still be tightened up by rendering just the current pick to see if it still intersects, and so on?
167
MegaGlest / Re: How we will run in ipad megaglest on?
« on: 5 December 2011, 17:10:16 »
Just to note that a version of Chrome NaCL is now available (in beta but working) that does full-screen opengles 2 and local storage.
It would be possible to port Glest to be distributed by and run in the chrome browser.
It would be possible to port Glest to be distributed by and run in the chrome browser.
168
Off topic / Re: inspiring fantasy art
« on: 2 December 2011, 14:04:42 »
Think you're spot-on Hagekura.
Here's a real-life jet-powered train:
It still holds the US rail speed record at 183.85 miles per hour
Here's a real-life jet-powered train:
It still holds the US rail speed record at 183.85 miles per hour
169
Feature requests / Re: better standalone/total conversion options
« on: 1 December 2011, 06:44:39 »
My glest_mod_pack.py script tried to use the following structure to know what goes where:
https://github.com/williame/GlestTools/blob/master/glest_mod_pack.py
https://github.com/williame/GlestTools/blob/master/glest_mod_pack.py
Quote
The name is made of elements separated by periods.
The name of a mod containing a tech-tree is the first name, e.g. Military
The version of the mod then follows e.g. Military.1.2
If this is an extension and does not contain a tech-tree, then
the name of the extension follows e.g. Military.1.2.CyberStorm
These extensions also need version numbers e.g. Military.1.2.CyberStorm.0.3
Extensions can themselves be extended...
171
Feature requests / Re: Automatic moving units from one place to another
« on: 29 November 2011, 15:34:15 »
I used patrol extensively when I was playing AoE2, and I really missed it when first playing glest.
I also disliked immensely that units assume the position of a vanquished enemy. I spent a lot of time looking for my units behind trees where they had intercepted some scout.
Of course the flip-side is that sending an early scout at a tangent past an enemy base is a good way to get the defenders away from it before attacking in an early game.
I also disliked immensely that units assume the position of a vanquished enemy. I spent a lot of time looking for my units behind trees where they had intercepted some scout.
Of course the flip-side is that sending an early scout at a tangent past an enemy base is a good way to get the defenders away from it before attacking in an early game.
172
Mods / Re: The Great Ming (Chinese) Faction
« on: 27 November 2011, 07:45:25 »
What's so wrong with just two factions? The Japanese faction is so attentively done, it seems a bad fit to pump out a large number of inattentive factions for the sake of it?
Quality over quantity every time!
Quality over quantity every time!
173
Feature requests / Re: Automatic moving units from one place to another
« on: 25 November 2011, 21:14:12 »
I remember asking for this in MG a very long time ago.
As I recall, even suggesting stopping your units occupying the position of a dead enemy or following the enemy was frowned upon by titi, so I'm not holding my breath for all these macro-management settings.
I would *love* to be wrong
As I recall, even suggesting stopping your units occupying the position of a dead enemy or following the enemy was frowned upon by titi, so I'm not holding my breath for all these macro-management settings.
I would *love* to be wrong
174
Feature requests / Re: Automatic moving units from one place to another
« on: 25 November 2011, 17:39:31 »
More "patrol" as in AoE?
175
Forum discussion / Re: Glest Board Changes
« on: 25 November 2011, 06:35:06 »
How about sanatising their signatures but leaving the posts?
I presume we have a robots.txt that stops search engines ever applying any weight to links in the forum posts, right?
I ask because I can't find that. In general, nofollow should be in the forum template at least, and its shocking me that it isn't.
I presume we have a robots.txt that stops search engines ever applying any weight to links in the forum posts, right?
I ask because I can't find that. In general, nofollow should be in the forum template at least, and its shocking me that it isn't.