New mod

[KDR_11k]

Rule 34 on land mines!

that'll be easy!

[Das Bruce]

No fool it's summer... you know that time when it's warm and the suns out for longer... the sun, that big yellow thing in the sky... oh right, Canada.

no shit. goddamn its been hot out east aucks the last few weeks. whats it like in your corner of auckland?

Hot as all hell. I can't wait to escape to the bottom of the world.

[KDR_11k]

Seriously Argh, you've been working on computers too long, your eyesight is failing you.

w00t, I'm in the bonus round, I didn't even take a picture with anything incriminating on my taskbar.

Sooo... You said you'd have it done by now and all you got to show is a picture of this thread?

[tombom]

why do people give caydr so much attention when he never does anything

[Forboding Angel]

Have you noticed it being a problem in Evolution? Notice that evolution has all of 1 path cost.

Which is very bad- major pathing issues arise when a unit's real footprint is different from the footprint in its move type.

Wanna bet?

[Pxtl]

@FA:

iirc, the unit gets confused by chokepoints in the landscape. The footprint of the movetype tells the unit how big a space it can pass through. So, a small unit with a big footprint will ignore small passages that it can get through, and a large unit with a small footprint will try (and fail) to squeeze through passages it can't get through.

[Fanger]

Forb dont go arguing an established point, units with footprints that dont match their moveinfo footprints will have pathing issues, granted the issues are proportional to the size difference, there are issues nontheless.. given this, its best to have a different sized moveclass for each different sized unit.. At most I doubt this would bring Evo into that many more moveclasses, and I seriously doubt that it would have any significant impact on load times, and its assured to simply make the units run smoother..

If your making a mod like caydr here claims he thinks he can think about.. with 1x1-12x12 sizes.. you will defniantely need a move class for each size catagory, because a 12x12 that thinks its a 1x1, will not be able to get out of your base...

[1v0ry_k1ng]

modeled any units yet? pics plx

[Forboding Angel]

Has yet to cause any problems.

Prolly becaise of several things. #1, that pathtype has a maxslope of 30. #2 pathsize is 4x4, #3 units in evolution range from 2x2 to 8x8.

Not once has there ever been a problem.

[Argh]

Um, Forb, no offense, but this was something I tested pretty conclusively at one point, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you.

Using a maxslope of 30 is meaningless- there are slopes both larger and smaller than that in most maps, and while the maxslope will help create larger areas of "good paths", it doesn't cure the main problems, which have to do with dealing with other Units and Features.

For example, have you made it so that your Units can't run trees over? If not... set the Crushstrength down, see what happens, it'll be interesting Moreover, since I haven't played the game, I dunno whether you have blocking Wreckage- yet another big area of suck, where pathfinder problems become a bigger deal. If your units all overrun trees, and there is no wreckage, like NanoBlobs, you avoid this problem... which is why I did so, for efficiency's sake. In PURE, where I chose to allow for OTA-style wreckage, it's been a real issue, and I think I'm going to have to solve it.

A pathsize of 4 for units that are smaller than that is massively, grossly inefficient, btw. Computing paths is fairly costly CPU-wise, and in tests I performed, giving it a too-large size causes borking in various ways, in terms of the efficiency of the paths they choose. If you want to go a one-size-fits-all approach... when I release my map-mod thingy, you might want to go for everything being 1X1, and use smaller-scaled trees generated via procedure- you can make really small maps feel giant, if you have everything the right scale.

At any rate, you're wrong on this point, but you probably haven't seen the biggest ill effects, because you've taken the easiest way out. Nothing wrong with that, but don't confuse easy results with efficiency- in this case, everybody's right- matching sizes with the units is a good idea.

[KDR_11k]

1. Make DTs or equivalent spaced out exactly as far as the moveclass footprint is large
2. Try to send larger units past that
3. lulz

[Forboding Angel]

All units crush trees
There will never be any DT type fortifications
There is also no blocking wreckage in evolution

Argh, I do not need your long winded explaination.

Peet simply said it wasn't possible, which I disagree with because I've done it, and assuming that you have already planned ahead for it, it does not cause a problem.

[Argh]

All units crush trees
There will never be any DT type fortifications
There is also no blocking wreckage in evolution

Ok, so the easy way out. Nothing wrong with that, and I'm going to do things with PURE to restore it, without getting rid of the concept of corpses.

Why not have 1X1 through 4X4 footprints, then, and let your 1X1s path efficiently, though? I don't get it- you gain nothing from using only one movetype, other than the minor speedup the first time someone runs a map.

It's one thing, to keep the number of slope tolerances down... another thing entirely, to force a 2X2 unit to use 4X4 paths...

[KDR_11k]

[Forboding Angel]

I'm not arguing with you argh.

Lack of wreckage is not an easy way out, it is a design decision. Besides if there were wreckage it would all be non blocking.

BLocking wreckage may be a feature, but it is also a gameplay inhibitor. Assuming you have never played evolution, the gameplay is extremely fast paced.

You haven't looked at the other side of the coin. I have nothing to gain by introducing more movetypes either.

@ kdr, it has yet to prevent itself as a real problem. You can baw as much as you want. When and if it ever becomes and issue I will address it.

So eager to argue about absolutely everything... Meh I'm bored, so active discussion give me something to do.

[Das Bruce]

@ kdr, it has yet to prevent itself as a real problem. You can baw as much as you want. When and if it ever becomes and issue I will address it.

It is a real problem, as show by kdr's pic, and the solution is what you have to gain when you say you have nothing to gain by adding more movetypes.

[rattle]

WHERE ARE THE PICS, CAYDR???

[Das Bruce]

I HAS MORE PROGRESS THAN YOU.

[zwzsg]

About the he number of movement classes discussion (But anyway it's not like there's anything else to discuss in this thread), see this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10477

To save you the trouble of reading a tread where I say one thing then totally flipped over to say the exact contrary:

So... Z and Argh with their god-like knowledge (no sarcasm) say we don't need many, Fanger and I all say we need them. Who's right?

I said I was wrong and you could rightfully gloat over me. Then fang came and completly ignored my and KDR post over his (as well as he seem to be completly oblivious of what's written his screen during Spring loadups). I guess I have to repeat.

Having units of different footprint share the same movementclass seemed to work at first glance. But proper testing as show it doesn't:
- The pathfinder use the footprints of the movementclass. When none is specified in the movementclass, then a value of 1x1 is used.
- The collision between units and features or units use the footprints of the FBI.

So, if different sized units share the same movementclass, you will have pathfinding problems. Either big units trying to fit in passages too small for them and getting stuck trying. Or small units not realising they have the place to barely pass in some place.

Applied to Evolution: Your one and only single movement class is 4x4. Most evolution units have either 4x4 or smaller footprint. If the movement class is bigger than the actual footprint, it means the unit will ignore narrow shortcuts it could have taken, however, as long as the narrow shortcut isn't the only way, the player will not notice.

However, there is a unit with a 6x6 footprint (= room it actually takes), and having given it a 4x4 movementclass (=for the pathfinder) make it buggy:

Right-click display image for full res

The pathfinder tell the crusher it can go in the narrow between the laser tower. However, the unit physically doesn't fit. But it attempts to go where the pathfinder tells it to, ignoring the wide open expense to the sides.

[Scikar]

What I don't get is that having 5 movement classes is still a significant improvement over BA and CA (whether or not it's valuable is another question, since even 20+ classes does not really take all that long to path), and would avoid these problems. Keeping the movement classes as low as possible doesn't seem so bad in itself, but I don't see why you have to enforce having only one.