Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: January 2004:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#4684) client-side air goto
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#4684) client-side air goto

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: jdorje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#4684) client-side air goto
From: "Gregory Berkolaiko" <Gregory.Berkolaiko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:36:29 -0800
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxx

<URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=4684 >

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Jason Short wrote:

> > My general feeling
> > towards the idea of such patch is of great discomfort.  First, there is
> > this problem of fuel.  Does your patch fix support fuel yet?
> 
> Nope, no fuel support.  This will lead to less optimal paths.  IMO the
> advantages of client-side client goto (you get to see the path) far
> outweigh this.

But then it won't find some paths for a bomber that should be found.  And 
sometimes it won't find any paths, which is bad...

Shall we ask the design board?

> > Second is the speed of "danger PF".  While I never did any testing, I
> > think it will be very slow.  this is fine client-side, but when AI will
> > use air-PF, things are going to get sour.  Do you plan to remove current
> > air path finding altogether?
> 
> I don't plan to make any changes to server goto (unless it's removing the
> ACTIVITY_GOTO activity, which I think should be possible and may be
> desirable).

I see.

> > Third reason is emotional -- I (re)wrote the air PF and don't want to see
> > it go :(
> 
> Huh?  You have a better air PF?  There's no reason it should go anywhere;
> just merge it in when you have time.

I mean the server-side air PF which is already in.  It wasn't my sole 
effort, of course.

G.




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