On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 13:44:31 +0100 win...@genial.ms wrote: > I might have been not clear enough on which type of half-connections > I meant. You thought I spoke about a normal river-beginning in the middle > of a tile. I was talking about the river ending on the boundary of a tile,
Like the appearance we have when flowing into a great river? > where I doubt if that is looking nice enough and am currently slightly > in favor of forbidding it. I do not have a strong opinion there. Generally though its best to keep the map editor minimal, as it is rare for anyone to work on it:-). > Though it might give an interesting possibility > of going from the river tile to the next for a reduced cost while the reverse > would take normal movement cost (wwc1d?). I doubt Col1 did anything like that. I once tried to write a mod to make caravels more useful by allowing them to travel on medium sized rivers. It did not go well, too much code back then did not handle naval units on land at all. > > IIRC the compatibility code does fix a bug we had in > > old versions of America_large, where some misguided editing had created > > some one tile rivers, and some cases of <river><blank><river>. > > I reactivated the 1 tile river image, because these were invisible in the > editor and could be generated already, and sometimes I'd even get the > replacement image with the red X. Not sure how to start placing a river > without allowing single tile for a moment, and then if its invisible it > could easily be forgotten. Would it then be better to silently delete > single tile rivers (which the compatibility code does not btw) or > allowing them? > <river><blank><river> could also not be fixed by the compatibility code > (assuming <blank> means a whole non-river tile inbetween). No, just a missing segment. > In case > its 2 adjacent river tiles without connection, I would need to recheck > the code, but it may or may not be right to add a connection there > (imagine 2 parallel adjacent rivers getting transformed into an ugly > ladder shape). That could happen, but did not in the broken America_large I was trying to treat. > I know you dont like bumping that number, but I'd think you doing > that large refactoring of the client-server-messaging, where you > mentioned it caused instability, would be enough for a .0 version > to inform users its not just a patch release with some bugfixes. > We are only few people and trying to keep compatibility while > still in 0. major version is nice but can add extra work, so it > should be permissible to shorten the range of supported versions - > sometimes. If its already broken anyway then it should at least > be signaled through the version number. Bumping the number/incompatible saves always annoys the users. However, we have been on 0.11.x at least as long as 0.10.x so my resolve is weakening. I will experiment a little and see how badly my test games break without the compatibility code (they are from 0.10.3 IIRC), and/or whether the migration path by reading in 0.11.x and rewriting keeps them alive. Cheers, Mike Pope
pgpZb79wwQarv.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________ Freecol-developers mailing list Freecol-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freecol-developers
