Messages

76

Feature requests / Re: [patch] Clock indicating time of day

« on: 17 August 2012, 00:11:41 »

Looks great, I agree with that (I assume each clock is a different line, so both clocks enabled would mean two lines... since one text after another would probably look weird and long).

77

Feature requests / Re: [patch] Clock indicating time of day

« on: 16 August 2012, 15:39:17 »

Maybe... but if anything else is added, instead of an in-game clock this is turning into a list of things. If even more is going to be added to it, I'd rather suggest something else: For each entry (game clock, computer clock, elapsed time, etc) use a new line, so it's like a list. Also allow the config to specify what to show exactly, so any of those entries can be enabled or disabled.

The debug screen is already such a list, but that's a debug screen so different purpose. Something like that but with smaller text (and 3-4 lines at most) under the minimap could do it.

78

Feature requests / Re: [patch] Clock indicating time of day

« on: 16 August 2012, 09:25:18 »

Fair enough. I'd rather the ini setting could decide between seeing realtime clock, game clock, or both. Since I'd kinda avoid the realtime one, or do that one separately. But it's ok like this too.

79

Feature requests / Re: [patch] Clock indicating time of day

« on: 15 August 2012, 18:52:53 »

Thanks! Glad people find it useful... hope I'll get around to coding even more useful features in time.

80

Feature requests / [patch] Clock indicating time of day

« on: 15 August 2012, 11:07:30 »

A few days ago I made my first patch for MegaGlest. It adds a feature I always wanted to see in Glest, which is a clock indicating the time of day in-game. I was originally aiming for a graphical representation (like Warcraft 3 has that sun / moon icon at the top of the screen) but since HUD graphics are faction based, I decided to simply use a text clock. It's positioned under the minimap and uses the game's time property with the needed modifications to look like a real clock (not the same as the clock in the Debug screen). My skills in programming are still bad, so please mention if I wrote something badly in the code. Also if you have a better idea for showing daytime than this clock.

Download the SVN patch from here. Text version available here, also located below. Also two screenshots of it in action... look to the upper-left under the mini-map.

Code: [Select]

Index: source/glest_game/game/game.cpp
===================================================================
--- source/glest_game/game/game.cpp (revision 3528)
+++ source/glest_game/game/game.cpp (working copy)
@@ -3735,6 +3735,11 @@
  }
  }
 
+ // clock
+ if(photoModeEnabled == false) {
+ renderer.renderClock();
+    }
+
     //resource info
  if(photoModeEnabled == false) {
  if(this->masterserverMode == false) {
Index: source/glest_game/graphics/renderer.cpp
===================================================================
--- source/glest_game/graphics/renderer.cpp (revision 3528)
+++ source/glest_game/graphics/renderer.cpp (working copy)
@@ -2213,6 +2213,36 @@
  }
 }
 
+void Renderer::renderClock() {
+ if(GlobalStaticFlags::getIsNonGraphicalModeEnabled() == true) {
+ return;
+ }
+
+ const Metrics &metrics = Metrics::getInstance();
+ const World *world = game->getWorld();
+ const Vec4f fontColor = game->getGui()->getDisplay()->getColor();
+
+ int hours = world->getTimeFlow()->getTime();
+ int minutes = (world->getTimeFlow()->getTime() - hours) * 100 * 0.6; // scale 100 to 60
+
+ string str = hours < 10 ? "0" + intToStr(hours) : intToStr(hours); // change 1 to 01 etc
+ str += ":";
+ str += minutes < 10 ? "0" + intToStr(minutes) : intToStr(minutes); // change 1 to 01 etc
+
+ if(renderText3DEnabled == true) {
+ renderTextShadow3D(
+ str, CoreData::getInstance().getDisplayFontSmall3D(),
+ fontColor,
+ 10, metrics.getVirtualH()-160, false);
+ }
+ else {
+ renderTextShadow(
+ str, CoreData::getInstance().getDisplayFontSmall(),
+ fontColor,
+ 10, metrics.getVirtualH()-160, false);
+ }
+}
+
 void Renderer::renderResourceStatus() {
  if(GlobalStaticFlags::getIsNonGraphicalModeEnabled() == true) {
  return;
Index: source/glest_game/graphics/renderer.h
===================================================================
--- source/glest_game/graphics/renderer.h (revision 3528)
+++ source/glest_game/graphics/renderer.h (working copy)
@@ -477,6 +477,7 @@
  void renderConsoleLine(int lineIndex, int xPosition, int yPosition, int lineHeight, Font2D* font, string stringToHightlight, const ConsoleLineInfo *lineInfo);
 
  void renderChatManager(const ChatManager *chatManager);
+ void renderClock();
  void renderResourceStatus();
  void renderSelectionQuad();
  void renderText(const string &text, Font2D *font, float alpha, int x, int y, bool centered= false);

81

General discussion / Re: Glest forks to join forces?

« on: 8 April 2011, 22:45:06 »

Well, someone said the actual merge will begin next month a few weeks ago. It's already 9 April here, so I'm guessing it should have began or is close to starting. I'd like to know if there are any new news

82

Maps, tilesets and scenarios / Re: My first Glest map

« on: 18 March 2011, 16:27:24 »

Thank you for the feedback! I just updated the map (see first post) and fixed most of the issues that were mentioned.

The water road to the left was meant to be walked on, but I misjudged the terrain height. Fixed that now. As for the resources, the current ones didn't seem too far away from the starting point to me, so for now I left them as they are. I did however add some extra stone and gold not far from the starting points. Otherwise, just a bit more detail and tweaks, such as rocks inside the water.

Since the map doesn't use cliffs, that means it should be ok with other Glest versions then. As for the screenshot, I'm glad I came across another thread where people were asked to post them, otherwise I wouldn't have thought about it Used the photo mode feature too for the updated picture.

Other than that, I'm curious if this map is good enough to be considered for official inclusion (for MG, GAE, or the upcoming Glest 4). It looks ok to me, comparing to other maps. Though it's my first one so I could've easily missed something. I tried going for a different and more complex style too. But was curious for an opinion on this as well.

83

General discussion / Re: Glest forks to join forces?

« on: 18 March 2011, 12:19:29 »

i was thinking, should the devs make the game work before adding multiplayer? i think that multiplayer should be on the end of the list.....

Multiplayer already exists in all versions of Glest. So I'd imagine it would need to be removed on purpose during the merge, which I don't think I would personally support.

Of course, other parts need stabilized first, and multiplayer would come later on. Just not sure if multiplayer should be removed during this time, rather than still kept in the menu (to be tested and stuff) even if it would possibly not work much at first. And as long as it wouldn't brake anything either, and the worst that can happen is just a crash.

Anyways, if you want to speed the merge up, help test GAE Git-Master...I should too but I've been busy recently :/ I'll try to do that in my free time next week.

If GAE GIT's cmake setup was better, I gladly would. I tried getting it to compile last night, and cmake asks for dependencies not in the deps package for GAE, and that I can't find anywhere. They're not mentioned on the Windows Compiling wiki of GAE either from what I seen.

I would be happy if someone could make GAE compile just like MG (checkout the GIT / SVN repo, unpack the dependencies in a folder, open the sln file, and all compiles). If anyone can do this, I would appreciate it, and it would be easier to help test it as well.

84

Maps, tilesets and scenarios / My first Glest map

« on: 18 March 2011, 01:52:22 »

I had a chat on IRC a few days back, where someone encouraged me to try making a Glest map of my own. Since I love the simple map editor of Glest, I decided to give it a shot, and made my first Glest level today I aimed for something large, detailed, and of high quality.

This is a MegaGlest level, and was made using the latest MegaGlest SVN (so that might be needed to run it... not sure). Download link here. Here is the screenshot from above:



Let me know what you think please, and if you like. Also correct me on what I did wrong or missed, so I know for future maps.

[EDIT] Just updated the map to v1.1. New download link here. Things I changed:

- The water road to the left is meant to be walkable, but was not. Fixed terrain height so units can walk over it.

- Added a bit more gold and stone around the starting points (a little further from them). The normal ones stay as they are.

- Some rocks / mountains were too much in the middle of the roads, improved that.

- Added more details and objects. Most visible inside water, where I added some rocks so it won't look deserted.

_{Edit by Omega: Removed image of old version. With images that big, only one is needed. Resized image due to that size, but it links to the fullsized original.}

85

General discussion / Re: Glest forks to join forces?

« on: 17 March 2011, 02:12:28 »

GAE has moved to git since then.  Is that the problem?
https://docs.megaglest.org/GAE#Compiling

Oh, didn't know that. I use GIT for other projects, and like it even more than SVN. So sure, I can switch.

Also glad that the new fork will use GIT Just hope it will also use MegaGlest's system of setting up the compiling, and make that as easy (just unpacking the deps and opening the sln file... without having to use cmake and harder stuff like GAE seems to require now).

86

General discussion / Re: Glest forks to join forces?

« on: 16 March 2011, 21:34:11 »

BTW, I had a question about something I forgot to ask. There was a chat on IRC, and someone said that the merge will only begin next month. Is there a reason to wait 15 days, and preparations that take so long? I'm thinking things could go faster if they begin ASAP... though on the other hand, no one would want things to go bad due to being done in a rush.

If it would help the merge being faster, I run and update MegaGlest from SVN, and can test anything there for stability. I used to have GAE from SVN as well, but it stopped compiling at some point, although I still have and update the repository. So if I can test anything to make things go faster safely, please let me know.

87

General discussion / Re: Glest forks to join forces?

« on: 16 March 2011, 18:00:56 »

The whole problem and reason why nobody plays MG or GAE is because they're not Glest per se.  Glest is an established and known game, and there's no need to go reinventing the wheel by trying to rebuild that.

+1 and fully agreed.

88

General discussion / Re: Glest forks to join forces?

« on: 16 March 2011, 01:47:36 »

Glest Forever (Four-ever)
Glest Revolution
Glest Kingdoms
Glest: Clash of Empires
Epic Glest
Glest Evolved

I don't think you should call it Glest 4.0 or anything 4.0; christen it a new project.  Perhaps even ditch the Glest moniker.

Also, if it will take a year, and it probably will - encourage the content producers (and there are many here) to create a good (at least 10 maps) single player campaign with story line.  Perhaps have it based on some kind of journey (faction A must fight faction B, but travel through the lands of factions C, D, and E first) so you can make use of some of the many cool mods which you should surely cherry pick for this epic game.

I wouldn't suggest this myself. Mostly because, I believe that continuing the original Glest instead of going as a separate fork is in all ways best. If there's a discontinued original project, why not continue that if possible? And keep its popularity, name, and everything it is and has too, making the project stronger and keeping its user base in one place instead of 2-3 (especially since Glest has few servers and available online players). If it's a different project, it will be split with the discontinued Glest 3 to some point. Whereas Glest 4 would be an update to the original series, and everyone would just update and focus around the same project, helping it grow bigger and stay together. Just the way I see things.

The only way I'd personally agree with the new merge staying a fork from original Glest, is if it's way too different to still match what Glest is (eg: a different artistic direction, rather than a new improved version). The megapack can qualify as that to a good point (based on human races in real life, whereas magitech was based around a world where magic and tech societies fight each other). But hopefully, this change can still make sense on the original Glest title.

Other than that, there would indeed be other concerns apart from the name too. Although the decided name would matter for setting up the repository, website and all. Just hoping this merge won't take way too long otherwise. And although I'm hardly a coder when it comes to C++ (and even more hardly an artist for models textures or sounds), let me know if I can do anything to help as well.

89

Mods / Re: Elf Faction 0.9 Released

« on: 16 March 2011, 00:19:05 »

Thank you for posting. Going to download and try it again as well

[EDIT] Looks and works all well in Megaglest SVN! One little thing though. That package does not include the resources (Grace and Tree), so I'm posting them separately from an older archive. They are needed to run the Elf faction. http://www.mediafire.com/?ev9h6u2erzcjab9

90

Mods / Re: Elf Faction 0.9 Released

« on: 15 March 2011, 21:04:00 »

Thanks! I'll wait then. As for the AI, it would prolly need to be re-worked either way, to function properly with the features in MegaGlest and GAE (as the new merge of the two forks will likely use a bit from both). I'm guessing the AI shouldn't be hardest thing to eventually fix, though that's one thing I'm not so good with myself.

91

General discussion / Re: Glest forks to join forces?

« on: 15 March 2011, 16:04:01 »

Oh... that is a lot Still, if we can imagine and treat alpha / beta releases the same way as normal releases, some can consider it all begins when the first version is posted. If you look at Minecraft for instance, it's so popular that you forget it's still in Beta stage as you play it, or that it has some bugs left. I also work on an Open Source game that had only one alpha release, and has been going on for an year now. Yet I don't feel like I'm waiting for something to happen, and feel for it like for a final project.

That said, I am wondering how unstable the merge between MG and GAE will actually be. Last time I tried them, both ran mostly bug free, except for minor issues I could notice. I never seen any true bugs in GAE, and the only one I seen in MG a few days ago was music going insane after exiting the options menu. I even played MG online, and apart from the normal lag, there were no issues there that I could notice, and it went smoothly. I'm even running MG from the SVN repository now, and not the stable releases.

So my personal feeling is that both are rather stable, although the merge between them might be a different story. Judging by that, unless the merge itself will have many new issues and instabilities, I'd imagine it to a stable point in about 6 months. But of course, I don't know as well as the admins or devs, and that's just my own feeling and 2 cents.

92

Mods / Re: Elf Faction 0.9 Released

« on: 15 March 2011, 14:56:55 »

I can get it if you guys want...

I would appreciate that, yes. It's very close to being ready (at least was last time I tested it) and such good work would be a shame to get lost. I still believe it's one of the highest quality faction Glest currently has. And that it has high (and well earned) chances of being officially included in the new Glest merge, by what I'd imagine and estimate.

As for the sources, I hope they are available as well. The mod could work without them, though I do believe they would help a lot, if they are available.

93

General discussion / Re: Glest forks to join forces?

« on: 15 March 2011, 14:51:37 »

We're hoping to call the merge Glest 4.0

OMG that sounds so good! I truly hope that will happen

94

General discussion / Re: Glest forks to join forces?

« on: 14 March 2011, 20:32:13 »

Personally, I still really hope that GAE or MG (or the merge between them) will also be used to continue and revive the original Glest, and make Glest 4.0 happen. I believe that would be a really great thing Don't know if it will really happen, though.

95

General discussion / Re: Glest forks to join forces?

« on: 14 March 2011, 01:10:34 »

I like the ones in MG more than the ones in GAE, and they're less buggy here

Hmm, what's the difference? And how are the GAE ones buggy?

Selectable resources in GAE flickered when dragging a selection box around them, last time I checked. Whereas the ones in MG must be clicked on to select them. I also like the ones in MG more because their selection ring is blue rather than green, which I find better to separate them from units from the first 'impulse' if you click too quickly around

96

Mods / Re: Elf Faction 0.9 Released

« on: 14 March 2011, 00:16:10 »

I was talking about this a few days ago and remembered. Last time I worked on this faction, we were waiting for gAMeboy to release an update, fixing some model frames that were hurting performance. It's sad if he gave up on it, and won't be updating any more. The faction is really good, and I hope someone else can. Not much is left to do, and IMO the faction was very close to being ready last time I looked into it.

I'm trying to find the last version I had, but some of my Glest stuff mysteriously disappeared. Might take a while until I can dig around a recent working version, if I will at all. It would be sad to lose good work on such a good faction.

97

General discussion / Re: Glest forks to join forces?

« on: 12 March 2011, 02:44:42 »

I think clickable resources are not in 3.4.0, but they are in SVN HEAD (development version...).

That's correct, just tried that earlier. I like the ones in MG more than the ones in GAE, and they're less buggy here

98

General discussion / Re: Glest forks to join forces?

« on: 11 March 2011, 18:01:56 »

MG already has selectable resources.

Also If you want only tech and magic use them only, I like to play tech vs Egypt, and having tech and magic in two tech-trees will take too much space.

Oh, that's good. I remember trying to click resources last night, and it didn't work. Probably missed something then. But I know it was doable in GAE as well.

As for using only Tech and Magic, sure. I just find it easier if they're a separate tech tree personally. One reason is that, factions are selected at random by default, so this can make it slightly harder to organize. Another is that, if you want to connect to a server that uses only the classic factions, it's easier to find such if they're the separate magitech tree.

But it's true this causes a new problem. You can't have a game with both magitech units and megapack units at the same time if they're separate. Unless magitech would be duplicated in both trees, which would be rather unnecessary. So this would prolly need more thought if anything.

99

General discussion / Re: Glest forks to join forces?

« on: 11 March 2011, 13:14:05 »

This is some good news! I was hoping for a continue of original Glest off GAE, but this is awesome as well. I'm very curious to see how it will all go

Also glad to hear that the Megapack factions will stay separate (or an installer without them will be available). I don't like them as much personally, and it's good to have them separate for such preferences too, if I'm correct.

I hope all of the features from GAE will be kept (MG as well). Such as the selectable colors for factions at game creation menu, movable HUD panels, selectable resources, and so on.

Also, will the Megapack stay on the same faction tree as magitech? It seems to be that way in MegaGlest. IMO, I think it would be good if magitech and megapack were two separate faction trees, so they would both be separate game types and styles, and each server / player could choose them easily and separate them.

100

General discussion / Re: Any more hope for GAE to Glest 4.0?

« on: 10 March 2011, 23:37:20 »

Gah. So many months, and still no news about this. Is there really nothing that can be done, and no way to reach the site owner? Or any new ideas even? I still believe in this merge very much, and keep hoping for it.