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

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

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Jeff Mallatt <jjm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Pfitzner <dwp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [patch]full fog of war
From: Thue Janus Kristensen <thue@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 12:14:37 +0200

On Sat, 01 Apr 2000, Jeff Mallatt wrote:
> 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

Yes. that would work


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