[OLD] Old OXCE discussion thread

[Yankes]

Right my bad, I forget that I add limit on this in damage function, probably this will need small refactor to not coping multiple times `health * 4`.

For now commit for cherry-pick: https://github.com/Yankes/OpenXcom/commit/f0495bf10e03cf37096254dfacc01eae1a8eac63

[Meridian]

I that "maxStun = 0;" correct?

https://github.com/Yankes/OpenXcom/commit/f0495bf10e03cf37096254dfacc01eae1a8eac63#diff-a19679ce5a8ec8fcb81157507368cd4eR3962

[Yankes]

I that "maxStun = 0;" correct?

https://github.com/Yankes/OpenXcom/commit/f0495bf10e03cf37096254dfacc01eae1a8eac63#diff-a19679ce5a8ec8fcb81157507368cd4eR3962

Fast fix aren't fixes, yup I overwrite correct value by this, it should be in `else`.

[Meridian]

bugreport: "skillApplied" on items is not considered

https://github.com/Yankes/OpenXcom/blob/stash/workInProgress/src/Mod/RuleItem.cpp#L444

Code: [Select]

if (node["skillApplied"].as<int>(false))
should be

Code: [Select]

if (node["skillApplied"].as<bool>(false))


[Yankes]

yup

[Mechasaurian]

3.0:
Backported game machanic changes from Meridian OXCE+.

Well, that's pretty darn confusing.

Does that mean all of the OXCE+ mechanics? Some of them? If not all, which ones? Does this not muddy the waters between OXCE and OXCE+, making the distinction less apparent?

Mind clarifying for me?

[Meridian]

Well, that's pretty darn confusing.

Does that mean all of the OXCE+ mechanics? Some of them? If not all, which ones? Does this not muddy the waters between OXCE and OXCE+, making the distinction less apparent?

Mind clarifying for me?

It means "some".

There is no clarification possible, because there is no masterplan. Whatever Yankes liked, he took into OXCE.

If you need to know exactly what it is... there is no easier way than to read the whole commit history in git.

[Yankes]

It means "some".

There is no clarification possible, because there is no masterplan. Whatever Yankes liked, he took into OXCE.

If you need to know exactly what it is... there is no easier way than to read the whole commit history in git.

yup,

@Mechasaurian problem is I have bit different goals than Meridian, I prefer extensions that do not change UI if possible.
Meridian add lot of QoL changes and UI improvements.

Looking at current state of affairs you could consider my OXCE as "lite" version of OXCE+

[Meridian]

Bugreport: units on fire render bug when aiming, see screenshot

https://github.com/Yankes/OpenXcom/blob/stash/workInProgress/src/Battlescape/UnitSprite.cpp#L222
https://github.com/Yankes/OpenXcom/blob/stash/workInProgress/src/Battlescape/UnitSprite.cpp#L272

Might also apply to bubbles which were moved there recently too... I didn't test the bubbles yet

[Yankes]

Right, this is because original version move sprites around (bigger temporal surface for aiming), to not rewriting all code I added this hack (`_x -= 16`) probably correct long term solution will be remove this hack and aiming adjustment from vanilla code.

[ohartenstein23]

Hi Yankes, ever since you wrote the code for picking ammo slots by action type, I felt it was missing a configuration option for arcing shot or not by action type, so I wrote a commit to add the option to set arcing: true by shot type.  Could you review this and consider including it in OXCE?  Thanks!

Also, I found a discrepancy between OXCE and OXC regarding AI unit melee charges - here you use getSpecialWeapon(BT_MELEE), while in the same place OXC uses getMeleeWeapon(), which is closer to getUtilityWeapon(BT_MELEE) in OXCE.  As a result, AI units that are charging fail to attack at the end of walking up to a player unit unless they have a meleeWeapon on their unit definition, even though they decided to charge since they have a melee item instead.

[Yankes]

For your commit, I think better would be if you use something like `(_action.weapon->getActionConf(_action.type) && _action.weapon->getActionConf(_action.type)->arcing)`, it will be more future proof.

For diffrence in in AI, you are correct, in `AIModule::think` the `getUtilityWeapon` is use, this mean OXCE is inconsistent. Correct fix is use `getUtilityWeapon`.

[ohartenstein23]

Would you like me to amend the commit for the arcing shot configuration and send a new link?

Do you want a commit for the melee attack fix?

[Yankes]

Yes for both, btw in `awardExperience` we have too arcing test, probably would be good add this new functionality there too.

[ohartenstein23]

Here's the commit for the changes to arcing shots, I updated the check in ProjectileFlyBState and in AIModule (might be OXCE+ only), but I can't include this check in TileEngine::awardExperience, as the action type is not passed to the function.

Here's the fix for AI melee attacks at the end of a charge.