Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: November 2001:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Reproducable core dump (PR#1051)

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Reproducable core dump (PR#1051)

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Reproducable core dump (PR#1051)
From: jdorje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:10:56 -0800 (PST)

Raimar Falke wrote:

On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 11:16:06AM -0800, jdorje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

My current implementation isn't completely minimalist: it will refuse to fly through unknown tiles but will happily fly through known, fogged tiles assuming no enemy is there. Is this wise? Really, a fogged tile is just as likely to contain an enemy as an unknown tile.

A nice goal may be to have this behavior changeable by function

That would be easy enough to do, but on further reflection I'm not sure that it's necessary.

Fogged tiles and unknown tiles are practically the same - both may or may not contain an enemy unit. So we would pass in a parameter to decide whether we can fly through unseen tiles at all. The problem with this is that restricting a plane to only "seen" tiles probably won't get it very far!

We could come up with more complex logic - for instance, ocean squares are less likely to contain an enemy unit than land squares, so we could refuse to fly through any known/unseen land square but happily fly through a similar ocean square. Under this reasoning, unknown tiles are different from known fogged ones.

I'm really not sure what's best here. If we do allow parameters, what should they be?


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