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.


Messages - marcole

Pages: [1]
1
Programming / Re: Odd »go to last known position«
« on: June 06, 2016, 12:39:20 am »
I haven't checked this previously but isn't it fixed already (commit 3d23d59) ?

2
Programming / Re: Strafing backwards and diagonal strafing bug
« on: June 05, 2016, 11:56:33 pm »
I've been not following the development for some time and have just noticed that Warboy already pushed the bug fixes into the master branch, commit 5337f31.
I'm just a little bit surprised it is not mentioned or credited anywhere or at least commented on here for us to know.

Now I would say there is not much that prevents us to correctly implement backwards movement.
Do you see any other reason not to do so ?

3
Programming / Re: Strafing backwards and diagonal strafing bug
« on: February 29, 2016, 01:30:15 am »
OK, I think I know now what you are talking about.
Tried to revert the movement sprites and it immediately went crazy.

So I looked at the respective code to correct the behaviour.
I'm not sure if the sprites are good enough for this but it still looks better.

I have also found another bug in UnitWalkBState, that shows the first movement sprite incorrectly, facing the walking direction.
It's kinda hard to spot, but it's there, nightly affected.
That's also corrected now.

Please have a look and test it if you like.

4
Programming / Re: Strafing backwards and diagonal strafing bug
« on: February 28, 2016, 10:29:11 pm »
Actually I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying.
I have done nothing special regarding the moonwalking.
Since the sidewards strafing also shows forward movement (there is probably nothing else available) I took it as normal.

Sure, I was thinking about reversing the movement sprites but didn't actually looked at it yet.
And the movement is normal, just the moonwalk is quite obvious.

5
Programming / Strafing backwards and diagonal strafing bug
« on: February 27, 2016, 09:34:49 pm »
Hello again,

I'm right away posting another contribution.
I was looking at the strafing feature (another nice addition ;-) and what it could take to allow backwards movement.
The code is nearly ready so I gave it a try just to find out some strange outcome.

It led me to find a bug in current nightly when strafing diagonally.
The movement preview shows correctly that it will cost 7 TUs (and should cost 3 Energy).
However it actually costs 5 TUs and 5 Energy because the engine has both "strafe" and "run" flags set.
This is incorrect IMHO so I tried to fix this.
The fix also fixed the incorrect behaviour mentioned above when backwards strafing was enabled.
Specifically, the movement around building corner (X +- 1, Y +- 1) was affected, which has the same basic properties as diagonal movement.

I'm attaching both file patches, bug fix and strafe enhancement.
I have done just basic testing, please if you try it, let me know how it works.

Thanks, Marek

6
Programming / Craft interception using meeting point
« on: February 27, 2016, 08:56:38 pm »
Hi everyone,

This is my first post, I'm new here, although I'm far from new to XCom games.
I have spent quite some time in the past playing this game and am very excited about this project.
Finally I have given it more thorough attention and started to look at the code itself.

I have found this very nice feature when interceptors chase the UFOs flying to meeting point, which I always thought was missing and should have been included.
At the same time I have realized that when interceptor has no chance of catching the UFO because of insufficient speed, it reverts to its previous behaviour, which I find unreasonable with this setting enabled.

So I have tried to patch things up and here is the outcome.
It is quite a simple patch I would say that also tries to find the best direction for the interceptor to get as close as possible even if it cannot actually catch the UFO.

I'm not experienced with git but tried my best.
I can post it in the bug tracker if preferred.

What do you think, does this behaviour change make sense ?

Thanks again for your efforts,
Marek

Pages: [1]