Warzone 2100 Forums

lav_coyote25 wrote: actually - when i made the first saved game it did the same identical thing and every save after that... 4 in all.


;D

and if there was a problem with the map - from experience with this particular map... it wouldnt even start if it wasnt good.

* Yup... I would have to agree with you on that last.

* I just wasn't sure if Giel triggered his .mdmp from within a Save Game...

* If he did (then you can say it's not a local cause with assurance)... plus I would think there is something to look at related to the Save Game routine itself.... perhaps an asynch... just a wild guess.

Cheers, /V\I/R\G/I\L/

Rman Virgil wrote: is that disinformation triggered from playing a Save Game or within an initial launch

Unfortunately that information (which would help a _lot_ in tracking down the cause) can't be found in the dumpfile.

Rman Virgil wrote: Lav's last experience noted it was triggered from within a Save Game - which would prompt - "Can a Save Game be corrupted upon saveing ?"

It's unlikely to become corrupted during saving. It's possible for Warzone to crash before it finished saving though. That would result in a truncated, and effectively invalid, savegame.

Rman Virgil wrote: I just wasn't sure if Giel triggered his .mdmp from within a Save Game...

Actually that dump was extracted from lav_coyote25's last mdmp in this topic.

Rman Virgil wrote: If he did (then you can say it's not a local cause with assurance)... plus I would think there is something to look at related to the Save Game routine itself.... perhaps an asynch... just a wild guess.

There's a lot needing to be looked at for the savegame related code. However asynchronous problems can't occur with single player (campaign or skirmish) games, simply because we don't use multiple threads, nor do we use a network connection in that case. Plenty of other problems can occur though.

* Giel: I see. Thank you for clarifying all that.

* Actually I was thinking of Skirmish Game States - like you have 8 players all in different states relative to each other & all that info becomes part of the Save Game..... course all on the same CPU ticks..... is their a formal word to describe that info matrix  (as "synch" is used only for MP & multiple threads) ?

Cheers, /V\I/R\G/I\L/

Rman Virgil wrote: is their a formal word to describe that info matrix (as "synch" is used only for MP & multiple threads) ?

Well synchronous execution will take place in the exact order as the programmer defined it. Asynchronous execution on the other hand will allow for some parts of code (the programmer can choose how which parts) to execute in parallel.

And as for what you're trying to describe with a different "game state" per player/AI I'm not quite sure what you mean.

Giel wrote: Well synchronous execution will take place in the exact order as the programmer defined it. Asynchronous execution on the other hand will allow for some parts of code (the programmer can choose how which parts) to execute in parallel.

And as for what you're trying to describe with a different "game state" per player/AI I'm not quite sure what you mean.

* Actually you answered my question.

* "Parallel" was what I blanked on.

* As far as the other - I was trying to visualize a multiple player game state on one cpu vs multiple players / multiple cpus.

* Thanks, RV 

lav_coyote25 wrote: ok - here!  all the information you will require to check it out.  and to top things off - i found the 32 bit map maker is saving in capital letters for the 1st letter of the file name...ie: Map.wz    if the capital latters are not changed to lower case - this also causes a crash or a non start.... 

here is the map / and some pics of the same in the editor.

* On an earlier ver. of WZ I generate a C++ runtime error....... you have something that map calls for that I don't have - a tile set, perhaps ?

- RV  ???

**************************EDIT:

* My bad. When I extraacted from the .rar i inadvertantly created a sub-directory which is what caused the C++ Runtime error.

* Got it loaded fine now and am running throuh the gauntlet.  ;D

* Will report back later.

Rman Virgil wrote:

* My bad. When I extraacted from the .rar i inadvertantly created a sub-directory which is what caused the C++ Runtime error.

* Got it loaded fine now and am running throuh the gauntlet.  ;D

* Will report back later.

* First: on an earlier ver of the GPL I tried to crash following your description and it wouldn't.

* Second: Player 0 has a substantive advantage over Players 2 & 3 in base terrain and immediate oil reasources.

* Third: There's this interesting occurance......




* The seemingly identical baked-mud tertile is both passable AND cliff-face !!!!!! How you do that ?  ???

* In "Citadel Elite" we played with something akin by making a borg-only pathway on the citadel base and everything else not traversable useing mud instead of cliff-face textures.... interesting concept if you don't get carried away.

* Lastly...... I like very much the multitude of natural-looking, choke-point opportunities......makes for engrossing play-planning.  ;D

Cheers, RV 

all those mud tiles - they all look very similar... all i did was make one = to sand and one = to cliff face...  and the corner bits and pieces are all = sand... so as to give places for hardpoints.


as for the resources - in the close to final all players will have to search out and find... some may have a bit more... but can you/they keep it?

ok... got another of those annoying mdmps....  went to exit after a good long skirmish.... and crash. 

got a bit of a good pic prior to the exit though...

having both passable and impassable terrain look the same or very similar can be difficult for a user -- they may try to send units up a hill that appears to be passable, and 2 minutes later notice that those units are driving through the enemy base to get there.

* Lav, let me say up front that I totally respect that you are shareing a map that is still under development. I believe its a brave & generous act and whatever input I offer is from a position that acknowledges that wholeheartedly.

* When I mentioned the advantages of player 0 over players 2 & 3 (especially) I should have been more specific.

* Player 0 has a very generous cluster of oil resources in his base quad corner which he only has to defend from 2 land vectors because the other 2 sides are the map boundry. Whereas the other players have to defend their base oil from  a full 360 of vectors.

* An other thing I noticed was that Player 3's base terrain was very cramped relative to the other 3 players noticibly more spacious base terrain...... IMO a disadvantage for a human player & for the ai a prediposition to boxing themselves in.

* Now I must also acknowledge that working with asymetric terrain is especially challenging to a map-maker's ability to achieve a geographic balance amongst all players..... (a level-playing field to start with rewards only the more skilled tactician in the end).

* If I understand your goal correctly you are endeavoring to balance disadvantagous geographic asymetries with positive oil resource offsets....  that's ambitious, creative, complex and not easy by a long shot. IMHO, only a master mapper would attempt such a goal.

* I salute your effort.

Cheers, /V\I/R\G/I\L/