[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22197] Some errors in beta0 of freeciv2.5

[anonymous]

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #22197 (project freeciv):

Reposted corrected image 

(file #21020)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: wrong_city_tiles.JPG   Size:81 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22197] Some errors in beta0 of freeciv2.5

[anonymous]

URL:
  

 Summary: Some errors in beta0 of freeciv2.5
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: None
Submitted on: Sun 15 Jun 2014 05:29:21 UTC
Category: client-gtk-3.0
Severity: 3 - Normal
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Release: 2.5.0-beta0-win32-gtk3-3.10.4
 Discussion Lock: Any
Operating System: Microsoft Windows
 Planned Release: 

___

Details:

I downloaded and installed Freeciv-2.5.0-beta0-win32-gtk3-3.10.4-setup.exe

Played 24 turns without a crash.
I started a game using civ2civ3 ruleset. One human ten ai.

Saw the following three minor errors.
1. I received bronze working tech on T1 despite having zero bulbs.
It was not from a hut.
2. Changing the governor from max production to max food does not refresh the
city tiles shown until you close the city dialog. It does show correctly in
city totals. see attached
3. Am seeing a city name label where no city is visible.
see attached



___

File Attachments:


---
Date: Sun 15 Jun 2014 05:29:21 UTC  Name: wrong_city_tiles.JPG  Size: 177kB  
By: None


---
Date: Sun 15 Jun 2014 05:29:21 UTC  Name: scorched_spot.JPG  Size: 137kB   By:
None



___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22196] City dialog does not show present or supported unit icons

[Marko Lindqvist]

URL:
  

 Summary: City dialog does not show present or supported unit
icons
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: cazfi
Submitted on: Sun 15 Jun 2014 03:28:29 AM EEST
Category: client-sdl2
Severity: 3 - Normal
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Release: 
 Discussion Lock: Any
Operating System: None
 Planned Release: 2.6.0

___

Details:

Sdl2-client's city dialog's area where units should be shown is always empty.




___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22151] Update ruleset comments for move fragments

[Jacob Nevins]

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #22151 (project freeciv):

IgTer comment #3 to be fixed in bug #22195.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22195] IgTer help and ruleset comments incorrect

[Jacob Nevins]

Update of bug #22195 (project freeciv):

  Status: In Progress => Ready For Test 

___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: trunk-S2_5-igter-help.patchSize:5 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22194] Update move_points_text() for move_fragments

[Jacob Nevins]

Update of bug #22194 (project freeciv):

  Status: In Progress => Ready For Test 

___

Follow-up Comment #6:

>> it's worth reducing fractional MP to their lowest terms
> I've been thinking that, but it's probably better to the 
> constant divider, so that when one moves 1/6 cost road, unit 
> moves left go: [...]
Well, hm.

On the one hand, not dividing it down shows the 'bones' of the ruleset in help
like "Moving along River costs 3/9 MP". If most of the ruleset is based on 1/3
MP and 1/9 is reserved for some special case, forcing everything to n/9 looks
ugly.

On the other hand, expecting people to do fractional arithmetic to interpret
how many moves they have left might be a bit much.
Really what you wanted when a unit's moving along a road is appropriate steps
for that road; [G]oto will tell you how many tiles you can move.

Well, attached patch reduces unconditionally so you can see what it looks
like.
Perhaps I could another flag to move_points_text() controlling whether
reduction is done, so that unit MP is reported without reduction but other
contexts have it?

(file #21015, file #21016)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: trunk-move-fragments-display.patch Size:6 KB
File name: S2_5-move-fragments-display.patch Size:7 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22194] Update move_points_text() for move_fragments

[Jacob Nevins]

Follow-up Comment #5, bug #22194 (project freeciv):

> My concern was with rulesets that set SINGLE_MOVE to 0,
You're right, this should be an error at ruleset load time (probably also for
igter_cost).

> or having it set to that value during gameplay.
move_fragments can't change during gameplay, fortunately.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22189] Prefer to load units onto less nested transporters

[Jacob Nevins]

Update of bug #22189 (project freeciv):

  Status:None => Ready For Test 
 Assigned to:None => jtn

___

Follow-up Comment #2:

Since I couldn't think of anything more cunning than making a list of
candidate transports and sorting it, I've used movement points as a tiebreaker
-- units prefer to be loaded on the transport with more free MP.

(file #21014)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: trunk-S2_5-prefer-unnested-transports.patch Size:3 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22190] Can load onto carried transporter, but not unload from it

[Jacob Nevins]

Update of bug #22190 (project freeciv):

  Status:None => Ready For Test 
 Assigned to:None => jtn

___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: trunk-S2_5-allow-unload-nested.patch Size:1 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22172] Unit from savegame can have higher veteran level than ruleset supports

[Jacob Nevins]

Update of bug #22172 (project freeciv):

  Status: In Progress => Ready For Test 

___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: trunk-S2_5-S2_4-savegame-too-veteran.patch Size:2 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22165] Veteran help could be improved for Nuclear units

[Jacob Nevins]

Update of bug #22165 (project freeciv):

  Status:None => Ready For Test 
 Assigned to:None => jtn
 Planned Release: => 2.4.3, 2.5.0, 2.6.0

___

Follow-up Comment #1:

> Could add an extra check for UTYF_NUCLEAR in the help.
The attached patches do this.

(file #21010, file #21011)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: trunk-S2_5-nuclear-veteran-combat.patch Size:0 KB
File name: S2_4-nuclear-veteran-combat.patch Size:0 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4784] Set NoCities and UnsafeCoast flags for Inaccessible terrain

[Jacob Nevins]

Update of patch #4784 (project freeciv):

  Status:None => Ready For Test 
 Assigned to:None => jtn
 Planned Release: => 2.5.0, 2.6.0   
 Summary: Set NoCities and UnsafeCoast flags for Inaccessible
terrain? => Set NoCities and UnsafeCoast flags for Inaccessible terrain

___

Follow-up Comment #1:

No-one's objected, so I plan to commit this.

(The France scenario isn't affected by the UnsafeCoast change, since all ocean
adjacent to Inaccessible terrain is Deep Ocean anyway.)

(file #21009)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: trunk-S2_5-inaccessible-more-flags.patch Size:2 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4782] .desktop and .appdata files for alternative modpack installer guis

[Marko Lindqvist]

Update of patch #4782 (project freeciv):

  Status:  Ready For Test => Done   
 Assigned to:None => cazfi  
 Open/Closed:Open => Closed 


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4774] Unit flag to prevent barbarian appearance from huts

[Jacob Nevins]

Follow-up Comment #3, patch #4774 (project freeciv):

> I don't think scripting interface should allow use of 
> non-existing flags (that are most likely typo).
Indeed, it doesn't. That complicates this.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22050] Recursive transport problems

[pepeto]

Update of bug #22050 (project freeciv):

  Status:   Fixed => In Progress
 Open/Closed:  Closed => Open   
 Planned Release: 2.5.0,2.6.0 => 2.4.3,2.5.0,2.6.0  

___

Follow-up Comment #9:

> Re comment #1, what is this check (which is unchanged) for?
> If this ever fails, that's an illegal state, surely regardless
> of cargo, surely? -- the transport has somehow ended up on a
> tile it can't exist on.

I didn't read it as a mistake. However, you are right, this is not a test
related to whether the unit could load. It's only sanity checking. I will
probably make a patch to move this test in more appropriated place.

> Before this fix, had the check been effective, it would have
> completely prevented Helicopters and Carriers from ever being
> on each other, but Helicopters could have carried Dinghies.
> It's as if a complex system of unit classes had been set up to
> exclude this nesting.
> (As it is, the 'forbidden' nesting will be allowed at
> UNIT_LOAD time, but will cause sanity-check grumbling later.)

If I understood correctly, it was allowing (even in sanity-check) Helicopters
loaded onto Carriers and Carriers onto Helicopters.

> If we want to deal sensibly with transport cycles I think we
> should probably do it at ruleset load time (I don't think there
> are any checks on this currently), or just leave it up to the
> ruleset author not to do silly things (I don't think it breaks
> the game engine).

I would say ruleset author shouldn't make silly things... I think that if he
wants the rules you describe, there is not reason to disallow it.

> I think at least some of these fixes should go to S2_4.

I will try to propose a patch for it then.


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message posté via/par Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22195] IgTer help and ruleset comments incorrect

[Jacob Nevins]

URL:
  

 Summary: IgTer help and ruleset comments incorrect
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: jtn
Submitted on: Sat 14 Jun 2014 23:52:15 BST
Category: docs
Severity: 3 - Normal
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: In Progress
 Assigned to: jtn
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Release: 
 Discussion Lock: Any
Operating System: Any
 Planned Release: 2.5.0, 2.6.0

___

Details:

Online help: "* Ignores terrain effects (treats all tiles as roads)."

Ruleset comments are not quite right as noted by cazfi in bug #22151 comment 3
.




___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22194] Update move_points_text() for move_fragments

[Emmet Hikory]

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #22194 (project freeciv):

That's fine: before ruleset load, we shouldn't need to calculate either the
remaining movement left to a unit after performing activities, or a textual
representation of the movement rate.  My concern was with rulesets that set
SINGLE_MOVE to 0, or having it set to that value during gameplay.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4795] Rename automake cariables xxx_CAPITAL to xxx_capital

[Marko Lindqvist]

Follow-up Comment #1, patch #4795 (project freeciv):

New S2_5 version
- Updated against current svn

(file #21008)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: amng-illegalvariables-S2_5-2.patch.bz2 Size:5 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4761] Save ruleset version to savegame

[Marko Lindqvist]

Update of patch #4761 (project freeciv):

  Status:  Ready For Test => Done   
 Assigned to:None => cazfi  
 Open/Closed:Open => Closed 


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4792] Update copyright.sh test

[Marko Lindqvist]

Follow-up Comment #2, patch #4792 (project freeciv):

- And then version of the correct patch that applies to TRUNK

(file #21007)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: CopyrightCheck-2.patch Size:0 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22193] Crosser version: client crash when building a city

[Marko Lindqvist]

Update of bug #22193 (project freeciv):

  Status:None => Duplicate  
 Assigned to:None => cazfi  
 Open/Closed:Open => Closed 


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22194] Update move_points_text() for move_fragments

[Jacob Nevins]

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #22194 (project freeciv):

> SINGLE_MOVE shouldn't be 0
Apparently this can happen in the client prior to ruleset loading (according
to an existing comment).

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22194] Update move_points_text() for move_fragments

[Emmet Hikory]

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #22194 (project freeciv):

SINGLE_MOVE shouldn't be 0 (this leads to issues like infinite attack count). 
Maybe this ought be checked in ruleset sanity?

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22186] Rising sea levels leave specials on ocean tiles

[Emmet Hikory]

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #22186 (project freeciv):

I think this is a client issue: the tiles should still have the specials
registered (so that one has a hint that transforming them back restores the
special), but the specials should only be active if on a matching terrain, and
no sprite shown otherwise (enables tricks like
Oil(Glacier)->Tundra->Oil(Desert)).

Looking at https://github.com/cazfi/freeciv-web.git, I suspect that adding a
filter in tilespec.js:get_tile_specials_sprite() might help (but note that
there isn't an associated filter in tilespec.c:get_resources_sprite()).  I'm
not sure precisely why these aren't displayed in the other clients, but maybe
someone more familiar with the client code could help in more detail.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22193] Crosser version: client crash when building a city

[Marko Lindqvist]

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #22193 (project freeciv):

> I'm bisecting exact revision the problem appeared.

Went as far as finding out that r25008 works and r25011 does not, and looking
commits between remembered pepeto's bug #22185. Patch in that bug worked (at
least against r25011, haven't tested HEAD yet)

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22194] Update move_points_text() for move_fragments

[Marko Lindqvist]

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #22194 (project freeciv):

> Now that SINGLE_MOVE can be non-prime, it's worth reducing
> fractional MP to their lowest terms (2/6 => 1/3).

I've been thinking that, but it's probably better to the constant divider, so
that when one moves 1/6 cost road, unit moves left go:
1 -> 5/6 -> 4/6 -> 3/6 -> 2/6 -> 1/6 -> 0, and not
1 -> 5/6 -> 2/3 -> 1/2 -> 1/3 -> 1/6 -> 0

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22194] Update move_points_text() for move_fragments

[Jacob Nevins]

URL:
  

 Summary: Update move_points_text() for move_fragments
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: jtn
Submitted on: Sat 14 Jun 2014 21:28:31 BST
Category: None
Severity: 3 - Normal
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: In Progress
 Assigned to: jtn
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Release: 
 Discussion Lock: Any
Operating System: Any
 Planned Release: 2.5.0, 2.6.0

___

Details:

move_points_text(), which renders possibly-fractional movements points to
text, needs fixes/improvement:
* It calculates padding once and stores it in a static variable, which isn't
appropriate now that SINGLE_MOVE is mutable (indeed, probably it always gets
it wrong if called while SINGLE_MOVE==0)
* Now that SINGLE_MOVE can be non-prime, it's worth reducing fractional MP to
their lowest terms (2/6 => 1/3).




___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22187] Client allows attempted violation of embarks/disembarks restrictions

[Emmet Hikory]

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #22187 (project freeciv):

The specific example doesn't affect AI pathfinding, but only because the AI
can't deal with that class of transport at all, so won't choose it.  When the
AI learns how to deal with more complex transport choices, it will need to
understand about embarks/debarks, but that's better handled in an overhaul of
the ferry model.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4805] Transferring units between transports on the same tile

[Emmet Hikory]

Follow-up Comment #4, patch #4805 (project freeciv):

When considering limitation of movement between collocated transports on the
same non-native tile, remember that we permit movement between adjacent
transports on non-native tiles with a cost of SINGLE_MOVE: rather than a
blanket restriction, I suspect it makes more sense to charge SINGLE_MOVE
movement: given the right unit, one can still move implausibly far with relay
transports, but not any farther than one can today (actually, slightly less
far, if one transfers on the same tile, rather than the next adjacent).

I don't think it makes sense to consider the case of being in a base/city for
this: it should only depend on the unit nativity.  In the special case of
sea-only transports and land-only cargo, only tiles that have bases or cities
will be native to both, but there's no reason to apply the same rules for e.g.
Paratroopers moving between transport-capable Helicopters on Plains tiles.

In terms of narrative support, consider that two transports with embedded
debarkation ramps may be able to align them to transfer a tank (assuming a
common-plan transport also supporting a pontoon bridge role).  In a more
complex ruleset, consider a helicopter loading a scout vehicle from a
transport: if the transport is intended to be a winch (according to ruleset
dynamics), then it oughtn't matter that the scout vehicle isn't native to the
tile.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21942] Crash when opening city window with gtk3

[Marko Lindqvist]

Follow-up Comment #6, bug #21942 (project freeciv):

As my problem is probably separate from this one, I opened new ticket for it
to keep it clear which problem each bit of gathered information is related to:
bug #22193

Can you provide backtrace from your crashing client?

> gdb client/freeciv-gtk3

In gdb prompt:

> run

Play until it crashes and returns to gdb prompt. Then:

> backtrace full


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22193] Crosser version: client crash when building a city

[Marko Lindqvist]

URL:
  

 Summary: Crosser version: client crash when building a city
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: cazfi
Submitted on: Sat 14 Jun 2014 10:10:54 PM EEST
Category: client
Severity: 3 - Normal
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Release: TRUNK r25141
 Discussion Lock: Any
Operating System: None
 Planned Release: 

___

Details:

I said in bug #21942:
"In crosser development version based Windows builds from freeciv trunk all
clients crash when city dialog is being opened after new city has been
founded. Have not yet tested with older crosser revision (that is known be
working earlier) or other freeciv branches."

There's no problem with S2_5, only TRUNK.
I'm bisecting exact revision the problem appeared.





___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] Threaded AI status? (was: 2.5 Release Goals)

[Marko Lindqvist]

On 14 June 2014 15:56, Jacob Nevins
<0jacobnk.fc...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
> What should I say about threaded AI in the 2.5 release notes?

 I don't think we'll include it to Windows Installer builds.


 - ML

___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22188] civ2civ3: remove DiplomatDefense flag from Airbase

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #6, bug #22188 (project freeciv):

Attached patch to remove "DiplomatDefense" from Airbases.

(file #21005, file #21006)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: civ2civ3-airbase.patch Size:0 KB
File name: civ2civ3-airbase-S2_5.patchSize:0 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22192] civ2civ3: Marco Polo's Embassy overpowered with many players

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  

 Summary: civ2civ3: Marco Polo's Embassy overpowered with many
players
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: sáb 14 jun 2014 17:38:47 UTC
Category: None
Severity: 3 - Normal
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Release: 
 Discussion Lock: Any
Operating System: None
 Planned Release: 

___

Details:

This patch makes Marco Polo's Embassy obsolete by Democracy.
Else, the effect is too powerful in games with lots of players, specially when
tech leakage is linked to embassies.

Included v2.5 because this issue was reported as important unbalance in
multiplayer games.



___

File Attachments:


---
Date: sáb 14 jun 2014 17:38:47 UTC  Name: civ2civ3-marcopolo.patch  Size: 2kB
  By: bardo


---
Date: sáb 14 jun 2014 17:38:47 UTC  Name: civ2civ3-marcopolo-S2_5.patch 
Size: 3kB   By: bardo



___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22187] Client allows attempted violation of embarks/disembarks restrictions

[Jacob Nevins]

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #22187 (project freeciv):

> In the meanwhile, do you think civ2civ3 should allow all units 
> to disembark from helicopters everywhere?
I don't think there's any need for the ruleset to change. I think this is a
minor UI issue.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22187] Client allows attempted violation of embarks/disembarks restrictions

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #22187 (project freeciv):

In the meanwhile, do you think civ2civ3 should allow all units to disembark
from helicopters everywhere?

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22191] civ2civ3: granary reduces the waste of food by distance

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  

 Summary: civ2civ3: granary reduces the waste of food by
distance
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: sáb 14 jun 2014 17:17:10 UTC
Category: None
Severity: 3 - Normal
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Release: 
 Discussion Lock: Any
Operating System: None
 Planned Release: 

___

Details:

In civ2civ3, there is a rule that cause waste of food by distance to the
palace. The idea is to simulate that it is harder to get huge cities in the
borders of your empire.

The courthouses halved this waste of food, but it was not possible to
eliminate it completely, making it impossible to keep alive cities at certain
distance or farther from the capital (noticeable at huge maps).

This patch allows granary to reduce another 50% the waste of food (to 0%
toghether with the courthouse).
It is also another incentive to keep granaries once the city reaches the max
population.

I include a patch for v2.5 because players from great turn games pointed this
issue as cause of annoyances in big maps.



___

File Attachments:


---
Date: sáb 14 jun 2014 17:17:10 UTC  Name: civ2civ3-granary.patch  Size: 4kB  
By: bardo


---
Date: sáb 14 jun 2014 17:17:10 UTC  Name: civ2civ3-granary-S2_5.patch  Size:
4kB   By: bardo



___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4805] Transferring units between transports on the same tile

[Marko Lindqvist]

Follow-up Comment #3, patch #4805 (project freeciv):

Going a bit OT, but this is the general spacetime distortion in our model.
Units have movement points telling how much they can move a turn (lat's say;
year). Yet units are not moving at the same time, but one at a time. When they
interact, that interaction can clearly happen in the different point of the
unit A's year than unit B's year. Let's say unit A moves all around (spends
almost full year first) and then attacks B which has not moved at all, and B
wins and remains alive. Unit B then moves, making it clear that the attack
against it took place in the beginning of the year.
As such, it's not always clear what things are to be considered bugs and which
are just features of our model. Obviously realism cannot be used as the
guideline here, as none of these things is realistic. So it becomes mainly
gameplay and balance issue - we should disallow major exploits.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4805] Transferring units between transports on the same tile

[Jacob Nevins]

Follow-up Comment #2, patch #4805 (project freeciv):

That's a good point.

I think there are limited cases where it is possible to do what you describe
today, where a unit can unload/reload on native terrain. For instance it's
possible to transport a unit arbitrarily far along your own coastline by
hopping from city to city, taking a fresh transport in each one. Land
transports would have similar issues.

A default behaviour where units transferring between transports outside of a
base/city lose movement points similar to moving between adjacent transports
would be better than nothing, but I suspect it really needs fine ruleset
control to fix this properly.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22189] Prefer to load units onto less nested transporters

[Marko Lindqvist]

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #22189 (project freeciv):

> I propose that transporter_for_unit() ranks candidate
> transports by nesting depth, and a transport with the least
> nesting depth is chosen.

That's the most logical solution. In theory (I don't propose really doing it)
we could even in the lack of complete loading UI to make Load and Unload to
work one nesting level at the time. When you first Load diplomat, it enters
Ferry. When it has already entered the ship, and you Load again, it enters Bus
inside the Ferry or Helicopter on the deck.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22050] Recursive transport problems

[Jacob Nevins]

Follow-up Comment #8, bug #22050 (project freeciv):

Trying to write release notes for this patch, here's my restatement of its
effects for my own benefit:
* Bug fixes:
** There was no load-time enforcement of max transport depth.
** There was no load-time enforcement of unit type rules, in rulesets with
cycles in the can_unit_transport() relation (which doesn't include any of our
supplied ones).
*** These would be allowed, but cause sanity check failures later.
** Interpretation of max depth was inconsistent. If you had set up
T(T(T(T(T(C) you would get grumbled at by some sanity checks (but not
others). Now this is consistently allowed (but T(T(T(T(T(T(C)) is not).
* Rule changes:
** You can now load onto a transport that is already inside another
transport.
*** (Consequences: bug #22190, bug #22189)
** In rulesets with cycles in the transport relation, the enforced invariant
has been weakened.
*** Previously: No unit may contain a unit which could transport it.
("contain" = directly or indirectly)
*** Now: No unit may contain a unit of its own type.
* Performance improvements.



Re comment #1, what is this check (which is unchanged) for?


   /* Transporter must be native to the tile it is on (or it itself is
* transported). */
   if (!can_unit_exist_at_tile(ptrans, unit_tile(ptrans))
   && !unit_transported(ptrans)) {
 return FALSE;
   }


If this ever fails, that's an illegal state, surely regardless of cargo,
surely? -- the transport has somehow ended up on a tile it can't exist on.



More on the change in invariant that unit_transport_check() was supposed to
enforce:

Consider a (silly) ruleset with:
* Sea class: Carrier and Dinghy unit types
** Carrier has cargo class Heli
* Heli class: Helicopter unit type
** Helicopter has cargo class Sea (in a cargo net, let's say)

In this ruleset, there's a potential cycle Carrier->Helicopter->Carrier.

Before this fix, had the check been effective, it would have completely
prevented Helicopters and Carriers from ever being on each other, but
Helicopters could have carried Dinghies. It's as if a complex system of unit
classes had been set up to exclude this nesting.
(As it is, the 'forbidden' nesting will be allowed at UNIT_LOAD time, but will
cause sanity-check grumbling later.)

After this fix, you can have Carrier-carrying-Helicopter and
Helicopter-carrying-Carrier(!), but you're not then allowed to set up
Carrier->Helicopter->Carrier or similar. This is a weaker check.

I don't think this is a great loss, however. If we want to deal sensibly with
transport cycles I think we should probably do it at ruleset load time (I
don't think there are any checks on this currently), or just leave it up to
the ruleset author not to do silly things (I don't think it breaks the game
engine).



> I don't plan to commit to stable S2_4, as it makes rule 
> changes.
I think at least some of these fixes should go to S2_4.

I think the only controversial rule change is the ability to load onto nested
transporters. I think the other rule change is OK because the old rule was
poorly enforced anyway.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22190] Can load onto carried transporter, but not unload from it

[Jacob Nevins]

URL:
  

 Summary: Can load onto carried transporter, but not unload
from it
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: jtn
Submitted on: Sat 14 Jun 2014 17:27:03 BST
Category: None
Severity: 3 - Normal
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Release: 
 Discussion Lock: Any
Operating System: Any
 Planned Release: 2.5.0, 2.6.0

___

Details:

As of bug #22050, it's possible to load onto a unit that's inside another.
However, I think it's not currently possible to reverse this:
can_unit_unload() refuses to unload from a carried transporter.




___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22189] Prefer to load units onto less nested transporters

[Jacob Nevins]

URL:
  

 Summary: Prefer to load units onto less nested transporters
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: jtn
Submitted on: Sat 14 Jun 2014 17:18:04 BST
Category: None
Severity: 3 - Normal
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Release: 
 Discussion Lock: Any
Operating System: Any
 Planned Release: 2.5.0, 2.6.0

___

Details:

Now that it's possible to load onto transporters which are themselves
transported (since bug #22050), since there is no UI to choose which transport
is used (bug #13943 and friends), in some rulesets units may now randomly get
loaded onto nested transports or not.

Consider a ruleset with units:
* Ferry: class Sea, transports Land and Small Land
* Bus: class Land, transports Small Land
* Spy: class Small Land

If a Spy is given a load order on a tile with a Ferry carrying a Bus, I thin
it's random which of the Ferry or Bus she'll end up on. This could be
annoying, especially as it can't be undone.

Obviously proper UI would be great, but in its absence (and in other cases
where no target is specified) I think the default choice of transport should
be made vaguely predictable.

I propose that transporter_for_unit() ranks candidate transports by nesting
depth, and a transport with the least nesting depth is chosen. This will
restore the previous experience in these cases.




___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22188] civ2civ3: remove DiplomatDefense flag from Airbase

[Marko Lindqvist]

Follow-up Comment #5, bug #22188 (project freeciv):

> DiplomatDefense - Diplomats inside base will get bonus to
> diplomatic defense.

Yes, that needs clarification. It relies on reader to know definition of word
"inside" in the bases/roads/extras lingo - only native units are "inside",
other can be on the same tile at best.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] Threaded AI status? (was: 2.5 Release Goals)

[Marko Lindqvist]

On 14 June 2014 15:56, Jacob Nevins
<0jacobnk.fc...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Marko Lindqvist writes:
>> Usable threaded AI

 This should be read as: "one can create AI players that use
'threaded' AI, and the game should work". What it does not mean is
that
it's really threaded AI. Between S2_4 and S2_5 the major development
concerning AI modules was that default AI is no longer hardcoded to be
usable as part of classic AI only. Now other AI modules can also use
it (it allocates memory allocations in the context of correct AI
module), and threaded AI takes advantage of that to be something that
actually runs, but still almost completely in the main thread.
 The only thing running in the separate thread is that cities evaluate
needs to improve their tiles, and can then "order" workers for these
tasks - free workers will then do that in main thread. That's the only
functional difference between classic AI and threaded AI - in classic
AI workers are completely self-driven. (The implementation of
autosettlers is such that they first check for orders from cities and
then fallback to deciding themselves. Classic AI cities never give
orders, and threaded AI workers can end up deciding themselves if
cities have no orders in place)

>> r20457 / patch #3000
>> r20529 / patch #3033
>   [...]
>
> What should I say about threaded AI in the 2.5 release notes?
>
> Is it something we can now wholeheartedly recommend that server
> operators and single players can use, or is it believed-working-
> but-experimental, or is what's in 2.5 just an intermediate step to a
> long-term goal and not yet ready for play?

 Experimental intermediate step, I guess. No "real" game has been run
even with that implementation - we started one, but had to switch AIs
to classic mid-game for reasons since fixed. We'll retry in next game,
but that will not even begin in many months.

>  claims the release target for
> threaded AI is "3.0 and beyond", which supports the last interpretation.
>
> If it's usable, I'm a bit surprised at the lack of pain. I'd have
> thought the AI needs access to all sorts of data structures and that by
> now I'd have been impacted by locking being needed in the bits of the
> codebase that I frequent. I know we've now got some basic facilities
> like MUTEXED_LIST_ITERATE but I was expecting stuff to be sprinkled all
> over the code, new coding guidelines, etc.

 It's probably more pain than you're aware of, and that's why it's
going forward so slowly - it's hard to find any part that can be
improved in this regard without rewriting most of the freeciv code at
once.

> Has it had autogame testing?

 Yes, one of my regularly run autogames has threaded ais created.



 - ML

___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22188] civ2civ3: remove DiplomatDefense flag from Airbase

[anonymous]

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #22188 (project freeciv):

If this is true - "This has no effect, since it applies only to units native
to that base"

Then you need to change the file
http://freeciv.wikia.com/wiki/Editing_rulesets

because it states about airbases - 

DiplomatDefense - Diplomats inside base will get bonus to diplomatic defense. 

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4805] Transferring units between transports on the same tile

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, patch #4805 (project freeciv):

Something that I liked from freeciv compared to other civs is that it was not
possible to use chains of transports in order to move units indefinitely in
one single turn.

If you allow transferring units between transports on the same tile, I'm
afraid it could be possible to load a unit in one transport, move it until it
reaches another transport, transfer the unit without wasting movement points,
and then continue moving in the new transport.
If you exploit it, for example, you can place 10 triremes 3 tiles away from
each other, and use them to move one land unit 30 tiles in one single turn.

I'd suggest to make it possible to avoid this kind of unlimited movement, for
example by reducing the movement points every time a unit is transfered from
one transport to another.


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22188] civ2civ3: remove DiplomatDefense flag from Airbase

[Jacob Nevins]

Update of bug #22188 (project freeciv):

 Assigned to:None => bdanee 

___

Follow-up Comment #3:

> I'll do the patch for this one too, if you agree.
Go ahead; this will avoid conflicts.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22188] civ2civ3: remove DiplomatDefense flag from Airbase

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #22188 (project freeciv):

I'm going to submit some minor patches for civ2civ3 issues pointed in the
forums.
I'll do the patch for this one too, if you agree.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21942] Crash when opening city window with gtk3

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #5, bug #21942 (project freeciv):

Let me know if there is something I can do to help find the cause.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22180] Server crashes after first turn in a new game.

[Dennis Hall]

Follow-up Comment #22, bug #22180 (project freeciv):

Hattusilis was a human player that I picked from the Hittite nation.  Is
freeciv config information stored anywhere other than in ~/.freeciv?  

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22188] civ2civ3: remove DiplomatDefense flag from Airbase

[Jacob Nevins]

Update of bug #22188 (project freeciv):

 Summary:  Remove DiplomatDef => civ2civ3: remove
DiplomatDefense flag from Airbase

___

Follow-up Comment #1:

The civ2civ3 ruleset's Airbase has the DiplomatDefense flag set.

This has no effect, since it applies only to units native to that base, and
there are no diplomatic Air, Helicopter, or Missile units. It causes noise in
the online help for Airbase:


* Native to Missile, Helicopter, and Air units.
  * Diplomatic units get a 25% defence bonus in diplomatic fights.


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22188] Remove DiplomatDef

[Jacob Nevins]

URL:
  

 Summary: Remove DiplomatDef
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: jtn
Submitted on: Sat 14 Jun 2014 14:05:25 BST
Category: rulesets
Severity: 3 - Normal
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Release: 
 Discussion Lock: Any
Operating System: Any
 Planned Release: 2.5.0, 2.6.0

___

Details:






___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] Threaded AI status? (was: 2.5 Release Goals)

[Jacob Nevins]

Marko Lindqvist writes:
> Usable threaded AI
> r20457 / patch #3000
> r20529 / patch #3033
  [...]

What should I say about threaded AI in the 2.5 release notes?

Is it something we can now wholeheartedly recommend that server
operators and single players can use, or is it believed-working-
but-experimental, or is what's in 2.5 just an intermediate step to a
long-term goal and not yet ready for play?

 claims the release target for
threaded AI is "3.0 and beyond", which supports the last interpretation.

If it's usable, I'm a bit surprised at the lack of pain. I'd have
thought the AI needs access to all sorts of data structures and that by
now I'd have been impacted by locking being needed in the bits of the
codebase that I frequent. I know we've now got some basic facilities
like MUTEXED_LIST_ITERATE but I was expecting stuff to be sprinkled all
over the code, new coding guidelines, etc.

Has it had autogame testing?

(I know all AIs currently run in the same thread, per patch #3309.)

___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] AI vs restricted embarks/disembarks?

[Jacob Nevins]

Does the AI need teaching about the new restrictions on
loading/unloading added by ?

If the AI wants to ferry certain units from A to B, it potentially has
to find a suitable rendezvous point C and drop-off point D which are in
cities/bases, and have the cargo proceed on its own from D to B. But I
haven't noticed any new logic going into 2.5 for this.

Does the AI have any handling of air transports at all, or can it only
use sea transports? If so, I guess this is just another thing to add to
the to-do list for non-sea transport support and not urgent; we just
need to make sure it doesn't do anything stupid in rulesets with air
transports (which now includes civ2civ3), possibly by just ignoring
them. (Maybe this is the case already.)

I'm a bit worried that in 2.5 civ2civ3, the AI might end up with
Helicopters clogged up with Riflemen which it managed to load by luck,
and doesn't know how to unload. But I haven't tested it.

Haven't raised a ticket yet because I don't know if there's an actual
problem. If someone who knows the AI can confirm there's a problem but
is too busy to raise a ticket, I can do so.

___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22187] Client allows attempted violation of embarks/disembarks restrictions

[Jacob Nevins]

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #22187 (project freeciv):

I guess pf_tools.c:normal_move_unit() and friends need to be taught about the
possibility of units' transport status restricting their ability to move;
currently I think they only check tile nativity, not transport status
explicitly.

> client goto and direction keys do not know ...
Actually it's normal for direction keys not to check this sort of thing.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22187] Client allows attempted violation of embarks/disembarks restrictions

[Jacob Nevins]

URL:
  

 Summary: Client allows attempted violation of
embarks/disembarks restrictions
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: jtn
Submitted on: Sat 14 Jun 2014 12:57:30 BST
Category: None
Severity: 3 - Normal
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Release: 
 Discussion Lock: Any
Operating System: None
 Planned Release: 2.5.0, 2.6.0

___

Details:

In civ2civ3, with Riflemen on a Helicopter (who can't unload except in a
city/airbase), client goto and direction keys do not know about the
restriction, so will allow attempted moves which the server will reject with
"Riflemen cannot disembark outside of a city or a native base for
Helicopter."

(Maybe this affects AI pathfinding too?)




___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22187] Client allows attempted violation of embarks/disembarks restrictions

[Jacob Nevins]

Update of bug #22187 (project freeciv):

 Release: => S2_5 r25141


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #13943] Allow unit to choose which transport to load onto

[Jacob Nevins]

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #13943 (project freeciv):

See patch #4805 for discussion of the related issue of moving units between
transports on the same tile (the UI for which will look very similar, I
think).

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4804] Unify UNIT_MOVE and UNIT_LOAD packets, allowing transfer onto specific transport on adjacent tile

[Jacob Nevins]

Follow-up Comment #1, patch #4804 (project freeciv):

(Same comments as patch #4805 about ruleset control of transfer legality)

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4804] Unify UNIT_MOVE and UNIT_LOAD packets, allowing transfer onto specific transport on adjacent tile

[Jacob Nevins]

Update of patch #4804 (project freeciv):

  Depends on: => patch #4805


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4805] Transferring units between transports on the same tile

[Jacob Nevins]

URL:
  

 Summary: Transferring units between transports on the same
tile
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: jtn
Submitted on: Sat 14 Jun 2014 12:38:08 BST
Category: None
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Privacy: Public
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
 Planned Release: 

___

Details:

Currently we have the situation that you can move transported units between
ships on adjacent tiles (using the UNIT_MOVE packet), but not between ships on
the same tile (with the UNIT_LOAD packet).

I think this can be fixed without network protocol changes -- change
could_unit_load(). Possibly we'd want to unify some of the move and load
logic, since unit_move() is currently in effect doubling up as a load/transfer
packet. (It's probably worth thinking about patch #4804 while doing this.)

This lets transfers be done atomically; without it, you'd have to allow
unloaded units in non-native terrain.

This will need some UI. I think this will be the same as needed for bug #13943
(selective load).

For narrative reasons it would obviously be ideal if ruleset authors could
specify when transfers in non-native terrain were allowed (moving tanks
between transports in open sea is implausible). But that's fiddly to specify
and I'd like to keep that the subject of another ticket; for now it should at
least respect embarks/disembarks.




___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4804] Unify UNIT_MOVE and UNIT_LOAD packets, allowing transfer onto specific transport on adjacent tile

[Jacob Nevins]

URL:
  

 Summary: Unify UNIT_MOVE and UNIT_LOAD packets, allowing
transfer onto specific transport on adjacent tile
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: jtn
Submitted on: Sat 14 Jun 2014 12:37:24 BST
Category: None
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Privacy: Public
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
 Planned Release: 

___

Details:

If you move a unit to an adjacent non-native tile containing more than one
transport, you don't get to choose which transport it loads onto; unit_move()
picks one for you.

To fix this I think we should unify UNIT_MOVE and UNIT_LOAD packets into a
single UNIT_MOVE packet:


PACKET_UNIT_MOVE = 66;cs, dsend
  UNIT unit_id;
  TILE tile;
  UNIT transporter_id;
end


tile can now legally be the unit's current tile (which will be used in
conjunction with 'transporter_id' for a normal 'load').

transporter_id can be a specific transport, or 0 indicating "at server's
discretion" -- server will pick a transport iff necessary, as unit_move() does
now.

I wonder if we should unify UNIT_UNLOAD into this too. That would require
another value for transporter_id (or separate boolean) meaning explicitly 'no
transport'. It would also lose the ID of the transporter we're unloading from
in the current UNIT_UNLOAD packet -- I think that's only used for sanity
checking client state, is it very important?
Not sure that unifying UNIT_UNLOAD gains us much, though.

Would also need a corresponding change to the 'orders' packet format.

Not sure what the UI for cross-tile targeted transfers looks like. Since I
think this change has no benefit without the UI, I guess we need to work this
out first.




___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4803] Probable incorrrect use of single equal sign in if statement

[Marko Lindqvist]

Follow-up Comment #2, patch #4803 (project freeciv):

In general, using assignment within "if":
- Value of the assignment operation is the same as the value assigned ("var =
val" has same value as "val")
- For readability (and to avoid compiler warning) one should use braces when
value of the assignment operation is used "(var = val)" instead of just "var =
val"; compare "var2 = var1 = val" vs "var2 = (var1 = val)" )

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4803] Probable incorrrect use of single equal sign in if statement

[Marko Lindqvist]

Follow-up Comment #1, patch #4803 (project freeciv):

I've not yet checked the code in question carefully, but note that at least
use of double braces "((" "))" around it indicates that assignment (single
"=") is there on purpose. With the limited context that is in the patch file
it also makes sense:
If strrchr() finds '/' in 'filepath', 'filename' points to character next to
that. If strrchr() does not find '/', but NULL gets assigned to 'filename'
(the "else" -branch) 'filename' then gets to point to beginning of the
'filepath'. It doesn't matter which value 'filename' had before entering that
block.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20960] Server crash - while processing spy sabotage info from client

[Jacob Nevins]

Update of bug #20960 (project freeciv):

  Status:None => Duplicate  
 Open/Closed:Open => Closed 
 Planned Release:   2.6.0 =>

___

Follow-up Comment #2:

Closing on the assumption that this is a duplicate of bug #21558.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21558] Server crash in improvement_name_translation() called from diplomat_sabotage()

[Jacob Nevins]

Follow-up Comment #9, bug #21558 (project freeciv):

See also bug #20960.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21942] Crash when opening city window with gtk3

[Marko Lindqvist]

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #21942 (project freeciv):

Maybe related: In crosser development version based Windows builds from
freeciv trunk all clients crash when city dialog is being opened. Have not yet
tested with older crosser revision (that is known be working earlier) or other
freeciv branches.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22186] Rising sea levels leave specials on ocean tiles

[Andreas Rosdal]

URL:
  

 Summary: Rising sea levels leave specials on ocean tiles
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: andreasr
Submitted on: Sat 14 Jun 2014 07:39:54 AM UTC
Category: None
Severity: 3 - Normal
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Release: 
 Discussion Lock: Any
Operating System: None
 Planned Release: 

___

Details:

In late Freeciv games where the sea level has risen a lot, specials can be
seen on many ocean tiles. For example, wheat, buffalo and fruits are seen on
ocean tiles in the attached screenshot.



___

File Attachments:


---
Date: Sat 14 Jun 2014 07:39:54 AM UTC  Name: freeciv-specials-in-water.jpg 
Size: 1022kB   By: andreasr



___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev