Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: August 2001:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Goto + Sound (Was Diff: Improvement proposal)
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Goto + Sound (Was Diff: Improvement proposal)

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: David Weisgerber <tnt@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Goto + Sound (Was Diff: Improvement proposal)
From: Francois Taiani <francois.taiani@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 19:49:07 +0200

Hi David,

Some more ideas I've just had yesterday while playing: When you make a
goto from one location to another, the sound is only played once. For
instance, when moving a settler on a road, the sound is played when the
settler starts its move, but after that the settler further moves
silently. It would be nice if the sound could be played during the whole
move.

Some comments on that: I don't think the naive solution of playing the
sound the same number of steps a unit moves would work. Without
synchronization of sound-playing / unit-moving, the durations of both
"task" are quite arbitrary. Thus, if the 'plain' one-time sound plays
longer than the unit needs to make a move, the differences would add on
the whole move path, resulting in the whole sound possibly lasting far
longer than the very move. (Ugh :(

During a move with several steps in it, the optimal solution would be to
play the sound each time the unit make a move on the screen, and tighly
synchronizing both actions: The unit should wait for the sound to end
before making a next step, and a new sound "task / process" should not
be launched before the unit ends its moves, if the sound finishes first.

I think a good inspiration for a solution could be the mail sent by
Kenvin <kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on Saturday about directly forking the
sound process in the code.

Francois

David Weisgerber wrote:
> 
> > BTW, I observe some trembling of moving units when I raise the "Smooth
> > unit move steps" in the client local options. I guess that's because not
> > double buffering is made. This would be nice to have.
> 
> That was only one first patch to demonstrate the whole system I did. There
> some more to do so thanks for your advise I will apply it to the next patch.
> 
> > Francois
> >
> > P.S.: David, it seems you add swapped the old and new versions in the
> > diff you sent. That's not big trouble, but apparently you have to put
> > the old file / directory first, and the new one afterward (vgl. diff -r
> > -u packhand.c.old packhand.c).
> 
> I knew I did something wrong... grrr....
> 
> Thanks,
> David
> 
> --


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