Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: March 2000:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [patch]full fog of war
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [patch]full fog of war

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: David Pfitzner <dwp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [patch]full fog of war
From: Jeff Mallatt <jjm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 22:06:58 -0500

At 2000/03/31 20:48 , David Pfitzner wrote:
>Jeff Mallatt wrote:
>
>> At 2000/03/29 18:23 , Thue Janus Kristensen wrote:
>> >I have made the savegames made with unit fog of war incompatible (1.10
>> >savegames will work, of course). Is this ok?
>> >I could make them compatible, but I don't want to clutter the format for
>> >compatibility with 3 weeks worth of CVS savegames.
>
>> Humm.  I noticed that it *is* fairly easy to load a "unit only" fog
>> save-game by simply deleting the "fogofwar=#" line from the file, loading
>> the game, then setting the fogofwar server option to 1 (if that's what you
>> want).  So, since the "unit only" format was never used by a stable
>> version, and since it is easy to recover the games, I think in this case it
>> may be okay to break compatibility.  Any objections?
>
>I agree with the principle, but in this case, if the savegame can
>be "salvaged" by deleting one line, surely it should be easy to
>programmatically do the equivalent??
>
>Notice you can always check which elements are really in the savefile
>using section_file_lookup() (eg, look for something added in full
>or unit-only cases).

True.  You could check for "player0.map_t000": if it exists, it's a "full"
fog save-file.  Otherwise, it's a "unit-only" fog save-file (or not fogged
at all).  This assumes that player zero must exist -- that's true, isn't it?

jjm




[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]