| View Issue Details [ Jump to Notes ] | [ Issue History ] [ Print ] | ||||||||
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0003060 | Spring engine | General | public | 2012-04-13 03:20 | 2012-04-22 18:52 | ||||
| Reporter | zerver | ||||||||
| Assigned To | zerver | ||||||||
| Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | always | ||||
| Status | resolved | Resolution | fixed | ||||||
| Product Version | 89.0 | ||||||||
| Target Version | Fixed in Version | 89.0 | |||||||
| Summary | 0003060: Spring.GiveOrderArrayToUnitArray (pairwise) | ||||||||
| Description | Title says it all | ||||||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||||||
| Checked infolog.txt for Errors | |||||||||
| Attached Files |
| ||||||||
 Relationships |
|
 Relationships |
| Notes |
|
|
Google_Frog (reporter) 2012-04-13 06:21 |
What do you mean corresponding to customFormations2? Custom formations does a lot now and the Zero-K version handles custom commans (Jump and Target). An engine implementation of the widget would not be useful, what would be useful is some sort of Spring.GiveOrderListToUnitList that would give a a single order from the list to each unit and do it in such a way to avoid packet limit. If 1000 commands each with 3 parameters causes packet limit but a single command with 4000 parameters does not I could implement this in lua. |
|
zerver (reporter) 2012-04-13 17:03 |
I will replace/complement the "front move" (the one that allows units to be distributed along a straight line) so you can draw a shape instead. If CF2 is more advanced that is very cool, but I think move orders are the only culprit. The new move command should indeed be accessible from Lua. |
|
Google_Frog (reporter) 2012-04-13 17:34 |
That doesn't even do all of what custom formations does for move and it will be visually inconsistent with the rest of the widget. The most useful thing to do would be to implement Spring.GiveParamArrayToUnitArrayPairwise which would give all units a single order each with a distinct parameter matched to each unit in the array. This could be directly used in custom formations for all types of command giving. |
|
zerver (reporter) 2012-04-17 23:58 |
I had no idea, but these already exist: GiveOrderToUnit GiveOrderToUnitMap GiveOrderToUnitArray GiveOrderArrayToUnitMap GiveOrderArrayToUnitArray If I'm not mistaken, the bottom two should solve the problem (although you can only issue a few hundred move orders at a time due to message size restrictions). Customformations2 is just badly written is seems... |
|
zerver (reporter) 2012-04-22 18:52 |
I was wrong, GiveOrderArrayToUnitArray did not support pairwise mode but it does now. You can move approx 150 units per second with CF2 without hitting BW limit. (needs modified CF2) https://github.com/spring/spring/commit/6bcb37e1b623ff06c72231d83e3837e1df83f35f |
| Notes |
| Issue History |
|||
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2012-04-13 03:20 | zerver | New Issue | |
| 2012-04-13 03:20 | zerver | Status | new => assigned |
| 2012-04-13 03:20 | zerver | Assigned To | => zerver |
| 2012-04-13 03:20 | zerver | Summary | Engine need built-in functionality corresponding to CustomFormation2, to avoid packet limit. => Engine needs built-in functionality corresponding to CustomFormation2, to avoid packet limit. |
| 2012-04-13 03:21 | zerver | Summary | Engine needs built-in functionality corresponding to CustomFormation2, to avoid packet limit. => Engine needs built-in functionality corresponding to CustomFormations2, to avoid packet limit. |
| 2012-04-13 06:21 | Google_Frog | Note Added: 0008604 | |
| 2012-04-13 17:03 | zerver | Note Added: 0008607 | |
| 2012-04-13 17:34 | Google_Frog | Note Added: 0008608 | |
| 2012-04-17 23:58 | zerver | Note Added: 0008630 | |
| 2012-04-22 17:39 | zerver | Summary | Engine needs built-in functionality corresponding to CustomFormations2, to avoid packet limit. => Spring.GiveOrderArrayToUnitArray (pairwise) |
| 2012-04-22 18:52 | zerver | Note Added: 0008635 | |
| 2012-04-22 18:52 | zerver | Status | assigned => resolved |
| 2012-04-22 18:52 | zerver | Fixed in Version | => 89.0 |
| 2012-04-22 18:52 | zerver | Resolution | open => fixed |
| Issue History |