Post 1.84 beta history - Page 10

Baron Munchausen · #91 December 22nd, 2003, 12:44 AM

I don't think the difficulty is in parsing the list of allowed targets. I think the difficulty is in how combat code handles the target selection restrictions. If he wrote it a certain way and has to completely re-write it to allow comma seperated lists instead of fixed choices he runs the risk of introducing bugs. He might not want to run that risk at this late date.

geoschmo · #92 December 22nd, 2003, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
I don't think the difficulty is in parsing the list of allowed targets. I think the difficulty is in how combat code handles the target selection restrictions. If he wrote it a certain way and has to completely re-write it to allow comma seperated lists instead of fixed choices he runs the risk of introducing bugs. He might not want to run that risk at this late date.

That's what I was trying to say, but couldn't explain it that well.

Fyron · #93 December 22nd, 2003, 05:02 AM

Ok... the vehicle type field has none of those issues.

Fyron · #94 December 22nd, 2003, 05:10 AM

Say... do the latest betas have a different scale for population modifiers than the old one? Aaron said he was going to implement a 1% increment system, for a smoother curve. Just wondering if he put it in yet.

If not, please remind him on the beta forum.

geoschmo · #95 December 22nd, 2003, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Ok... the vehicle type field has none of those issues.

No, it probably does. But that's kind of the point. The code needed to use a comma delineated list for the vehicle type field in the compenhancments file is not the same part of the code needed for the targetting and vehicle type field in the components file. So it's probably not a simple matter of reusing exsisting code. At least you can't know it is without seeing the code, which none of us can.

Don't get me wrong. The point I was trying to make was not that it wasn't a change worth making, just that you can't say it's a "minor" change neccesarily. You have no idea how complicated of a change it might be.

Geoschmo

geoschmo · #96 December 22nd, 2003, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Say... do the latest betas have a different scale for population modifiers than the old one? Aaron said he was going to implement a 1% increment system, for a smoother curve. Just wondering if he put it in yet. If not, please remind him on the beta forum.

He has not.

As far as I know he doesn't read the beta forums looking for bug reports and requests. He Posts there when he has a new patch, and we discuss things amongst ourselves. Requests posted there aren't likely to get any better response then your emails.

Geoschmo

Fyron · #97 December 22nd, 2003, 05:45 AM

Quote:

You have no idea how complicated of a change it might be.

Yes I do Geo. Just because you keep saying that doesn't make it true.

Fyron · #98 December 22nd, 2003, 05:46 AM

Quote:

He has not.

As far as I know he doesn't read the beta forums looking for bug reports and requests. He Posts there when he has a new patch, and we discuss things amongst ourselves. Requests posted there aren't likely to get any better response then your emails.

Well I don't want to keep bugging him about it.

Suicide Junkie · #99 December 22nd, 2003, 06:01 AM

I've just done something about it...

Would you forum goers mind playtesting this for me before I send it off to Aaron, its getting late over here.
http://imagemodserver.mine.nu/Miscel...k_settings.txt

Fyron · #**100** December 22nd, 2003, 06:05 AM

I made a file like that months ago... I sent it to Aaron, and that is what I was wondering whether he had put it in or not.

It is right here.

[ December 22, 2003, 04:08: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]