Messages

6991

Recycle Bin / Re: Bug fix for parabolic projectile collisions

« on: September 06, 2016, 01:59:29 pm »

Thanks for the update.
I am also looking at this, but can spend only very little time on it now, so it goes slowly.

I think most of what has been said here is true and these are actual bugs.
The nature of the bugs however requires to proceed very carefully.

The fix you have provided will work in this case, but maybe there are other cases... for example object on level below will have height 21, not 23... which for the user is almost indistinguishable.
So instead of going one voxel up, I would probably leave the collision point as it is... and change the check of validity to accept both the target tile and one tile below as well.
This would not require any change in the "sensitive" methods.

I was also wondering, how these methods came to be... if Warboy wrote them from scratch... or if they were reverse-engineered. I almost believe they were reverse-engineered, because it's the "same" behavior as original. And if that's the case, I think the DEVs will not want to make any change there at all:
Just as examples:
1. same arc shot miss issue is in 1994 original ("best defense" against deep ones is just to stand diagonally to them... I remember as a kid they usually didn't kill my rookie aquanauts in no armor even though they stood right next to me and fired many times) ... which now makes sense.
2. as clownagent pointed out, it's not only new terrain that has this issue, but also some original terrain... which might even mean the original xcom developers "made this bug intentionally" so that it somehow works... but that's pure speculation.

I am now thinking how to check the various terrains (vanilla and terrain pack from hobbes) for these anomalies automatically. I'd like to see some statistics before deciding which "workaround" would be the best.

PS: and yes, in general I also think that bugs should be fixed, even if they cause other new issues... however I don't have access to source code of OXC and if I did bigger changes in OXCE+, I would have problems with merging later... that's why I am hesitant to do big refactorings and sometimes my changes look like "hacks/workarounds"... because they are.

PS2: Also, unrelated, that's why I am hesitant to merge bigger/complicated changes from other people into my branch... like for example FOV improvements from Stian. If it wasn't so damned good, I wouldn't take it purely because I don't understand it enough and wouldn't be able to fix merge conflicts later. Fortunately, Yankes took that change into OXCE as well... so the burden of merging will be on his shoulders 

6992

XPiratez / Re: Translation – Czech 0.99C (81%)

« on: September 06, 2016, 12:32:30 pm »

Isn't it this?

Code: [Select]

  STR_MISSION_WIN: "Victory"
  STR_MISSION_LOSS: "Defeat"


6993

Playthroughs / Re: The Great Eight Challenge

« on: September 06, 2016, 11:12:43 am »

I usually finish the mission below 20 turns, so i will probably lower the alien cheaturn significantly to 7 or maybe 5.
Haven't decided yet.

Full cheating from turn 5 is probably a bit too much... although maybe for Hardmode it is appropriate.

PS: In OXCE+ there is a feature that some units can ignore some percentage of the smoke (i.e. can see through smoke better than others). I guess that would be nice to have in this case. And even crazier, some can see through walls

6994

XPiratez / Re: Bugs & Crash Reports

« on: September 06, 2016, 10:43:03 am »

Can't buy workers, the amount goes to -19 when you try to add some, not sure what causes it.

OXC doesn't support buying items with negative size.
I have fixed that, it will be OK with next EXE update.

E: also, the Contacts: Merchants bootypedia entry seems to reset to unread very often. Not between multiple visits to the bootypedia at one time, but frequently nonetheless.

Can you post your save?
(I think it will be something similar to this: https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,4058.msg66854.html#msg66854 but I'll need your save, otherwise I am looking for a needle in a haystack)

6995

XPiratez / Re: Master of Mint

« on: September 05, 2016, 11:07:03 pm »

Hi Ivan,

could you run the numbers on 0.99C ?

I have invested a crap-ton of money into 3 mint/factory bases and would like to know if I should upgrade to 0.99C or stay with 0.99B...

M.

EDIT: also there seems to be more stuff to do now, count that into the equations:

Code: [Select]

      STR_FORGED_CHIPS_C: Counterfeit Plastic Chips (x100)
      STR_FORGED_CHIPS: Counterfeit Red Chips (x75)
      STR_FORGED_CHIPS_M: Counterfeit Blue Chips (x15)
      STR_FORGED_CHIPS_00: Counterfeit Purple Chips (x10)
      STR_FORGED_CHIPS_01: Counterfeit Silver Chips (x10)
      STR_FORGED_CHIPS_02: Counterfeit Golden Chips (x10)


6996

XPiratez / Re: [MAIN] XPiratez - 0.99C - 3 Sep - Death In Smoke

« on: September 05, 2016, 10:41:46 pm »

I have a question for Dioxine. With all these psi-vision, magic wands and fairy suits, is your game (and i prefer piratez truly a new game) still science fiction, or it is a fantasy now?

I think it doesn't matter that much what exactly it is.
It's a dream come true... didn't you too always dream of making your own game?

6997

Programming / Re: Compatibility .rul(es)

« on: September 05, 2016, 06:15:55 pm »

You think that the backward compatibility is not important? Interesting...

Yes -- in case of OpenXcom -- I think it is absolutely not important.

Btw. there are literally dozens of breaking changes since 1.0.. you would make DEVs spend days if not weeks on functionality nobody (except of you) is using anymore.

Do you know about that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_compatibility

Quoting from your Wiki article:

Benefits and cost

The associated benefits of backward compatibility are: the appeal to an existing user base through an inexpensive upgrade path; and the network effect, which is particularly important, because it increases the value of goods and services proportionally to the size of the user base. The associated costs of backward compatibility are: a higher bill of materials if hardware is required to support the legacy systems; increased complexity of the product which may lead to longer time to market, technological hindrances, and slowing innovation; and increased expectations from the users in term of compatibility.

The benefits to the user base (i.e. 1 user = you) are clearly much lower than the associated costs

But jokes aside... this is a purely religious topic for you I guess.
There is no way we are going to convince you otherwise.
Just know that if this was "absolutism", the DEVs wouldn't do it as they clearly don't see the need for it.
If this was "democracy", you would be heavily overvoted by the majority who doesn't think it is necessary.
Either way, I see no way how your request can be done...
... other than you create your own fork and do the changes yourself.

6998

XPiratez / Re: Follow5 patch

« on: September 05, 2016, 12:10:34 pm »

Btw. how did you fork my repo?

When I started I was trying to fork Yankes' repo, but it was not possible (to my knowledge)... I had to fork SupSuper's repo and merge Yankes' stuff manually.

EDIT: wow, they actually implemented forks of forks now... FINALLY... btw. my fork is the most forked (after Sup's of course) 

6999

Playthroughs / Re: I'm starting a new LP

« on: September 05, 2016, 11:37:01 am »

A trip to the loony bin? Sorry didn't quite catch that.

Loony bin = an insane asylum or the psychiatric ward of a hospital for the mentally ill.

7000

OXCE Wishlists / Re: Solar's wishlist

« on: September 04, 2016, 05:43:25 pm »

Doable.
And if you don't need them in addition to Mind control and Panic... but instead of them (i.e. redefine what these two do, per weapon), I wouldn't have to touch the AI.

Mind control could be replaced by: psi strike, blind
Panic could be replaced by: psi stun, disturbance

The rest doesn't need to be available to AI I guess?
"Use" (on psi weapon, added by Yankes) can be replaced by: inspire, suggestion
"Use" (on motion scanner item type) can be replaced by: psi scan

PS: btw. please think also about if these ideas add anything (new) to the game... I won't be implementing any more features like the Alien Containment types, which are there just for decoration

7001

OXCE Wishlists / Re: Solar's wishlist

« on: September 04, 2016, 04:50:21 pm »

Anyway, back on topic: I am considering adding more psionic powers to the Great Duumvirate of Panic and Mind Control. I mean powers that actually require new code and cannot be hacked with damageAlter and such. Do you people think it makes sense? And Meridian, does it clash with the "no AI modding" principle?

Well, you didn't tell us much.
I'd need a bit more info about what should this new thing be to tell anything reasonable.

7002

Suggestions / Re: Active Alien Geoscape AI - has anyone ever taken a stab at this?

« on: September 04, 2016, 03:36:11 pm »

To include to my branch (Meridian could have different criteria for his branch) I would like that overall default behavior will stay same (same time for dogfight and geoscape is detail that can be changed).

No, my criteria are basically the same.
I want that OXCE+ can be used with vanilla ruleset and have the same mechanics.
Most (if not all) of my features are:
1. either optional, i.e. activated by mods
2. or QoL improvement without any effect to game mechanics

The only exceptions I can think of are:
a/ the default experience training for throwing accuracy... but I plan to make this optional in the future too
b/ arcing shot miss fix... which was removed for now, but will be re-introduced sooner or later
c/ turned off crazy CGA flashing epileptic 1 frame effect on explosions... I hope nobody wants that shit back!
d/ going to Mars is possible only with 100% fuel
e/ alt, shift and ctrl cannot be used as hotkeys

PS: @Yankes: I hope that your new lighting changes in OXCE 3.3 will be optional too, and won't affect performance negatively

7003

Playthroughs / Re: The Great Eight Challenge

« on: September 04, 2016, 03:22:28 pm »

Smoke becomes obsolete once the AI get to know your position. Especially the position of the entire Squad.
So its only a protection very early.

Hmm, so fights in your mod regularly take over 20 turns?
In that case, you're right, but I'm not sure I like that either... just out of curiosity, how long is an average mission in your mod?

7004

Playthroughs / Re: The Great Eight Challenge

« on: September 04, 2016, 03:13:11 pm »

If you use smoke grenades effectively and in huge numbers, you can basically reduce your looses.

Doesn't it sound almost like "If you use smoke grenades effectively and in huge numbers turn off the AI, you can basically reduce your losses." ?

I know it works, but do you really enjoy it... ?

7005

Recycle Bin / Re: Bug fix for parabolic projectile collisions

« on: September 04, 2016, 02:26:38 pm »

All 3 of you (karadoc, clownagent and yankes) are probably right... but let's investigate more before jumping to conclusions.