Continuing the Discussion from the Tag Requests thread, I brought up the issue how how to handle Multi-maps and Mapscripts, and in general generating the new maps.

This thread is to discuss a plan for how to handle this issue.

As I read it the documentation for the multi map mod says that you define the map script for each of the maps and that they are generated at the start.

We would need to allow the posibility of different map scripts for each map.

Well in one of the mods they have many maps separated by back space and you could have like Earth, Mars, Venus, Moon, etc. Upon picking your game you had to choose that.

So I am guessing if we do these we will have to have a combo for each map combo. I vote for C2C_PW2f being one of the first to be converted into a new multi-map variant choice.

EDIT: It was Future Mod (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=313196) that had that. Here is a picture of their "Solar System" type of map script where It has like Earth, Moon, Mars, Venus and Titan. The maps are toroidal and are rotated 90 degrees.

EDIT2: Here is a better map

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=215083&d=1243045316
Venus City

:bump:

Since MrAzure cannot seem to use the search button.

Just out of curiosity, is someone currently working on the multimaps? I think if we manage to release even a basic version of this, waves of new players will come to C2C, as well as new modders to help us even more :cool: That's what I think, anyways.

Just out of curiosity, is someone currently working on the multimaps? I think if we manage to release even a basic version of this, waves of new players will come to C2C, as well as new modders to help us even more :cool: That's what I think, anyways.

Koshling has stated his intent to have a basic Multi-Map and Viewport system ingame before V24, so hopefully we'll have it in at the end of June.

That's good! Setting goals is what gets things done! Good luck Koshling!

As of next week I will be starting in Ernest on multi map work. I just want to make everyone aware of my plans, and what will be left that will need doing by others afterwards:

I will be starting by exclusively working on Lytning's mod until the common features we need are all working there I will then port it over to the C2C DLL

This will provide the basic capabilities at an API level, exposed to Python, and understood by the game engine. After that the following will all need doing, which I don't have the appropriate skills for (at least alone):

Map scripts will need adjusting to cope with multi maps (someone who understands map scripts needed)
UI will need adding to access the multiple maps, and/or viewports. This will likely involve a fair amount of Python code and probably a new advisor-like screen to control map viewing from (need someone with decent Python experience)
It is likely that I'll be adding extra tags to things like terrains and features to say what map type they can be used on - therefore update of the terrain and feature XML will likely be needed (DH I assume)


It will likely be about 3 weeks before I have the DLL port done, and obviously the other stuff cannot start until then, and the capability won't surface into the game until it's all done. I can't really provide estimates of the stuff I've said I'll need others to do, or help with, but my guess is another few weeks, so earliest it can be available as an actually usable game feature is probably about 6-7 weeks time.

That's great news. As for help, I don't want to volunteer people but I know AIAndy is skilled enough to help with new tags, Ori knows events and Civ Fuehrer has worked with UI stuff before. You should try to contact them to try to help. As for map scripting, I am not sure who has experience with that (DH maybe?).

But with all things in C2C if you just ask people will come to help. That is one of the best things about the CFC community, there are many very talented people here and all it takes to get things made is to ask. Especially when it comes to such a huge feature like multi-maps. I am sure the entire Civ4 community could benefit from having working multi-maps, not just C2C.

That's great news. As for help, I don't want to volunteer people but I know AIAndy is skilled enough to help with new tags, Ori knows events and Civ Fuehrer has worked with UI stuff before. You should try to contact them to try to help. As for map scripting, I am not sure who has experience with that (DH maybe?).

But with all things in C2C if you just ask people will come to help. That is one of the best things about the CFC community, there are many very talented people here and all it takes to get things made is to ask. Especially when it comes to such a huge feature like multi-maps. I am sure the entire Civ4 community could benefit from having working multi-maps, not just C2C.

AIAndy redid the C2C mapscripts when the new terrain was added IIRC, so he would know how those work. I am really looking forward to this, and think this will be a great project for the summer, finally getting the multi-maps and Galactic Era working! Good luck Koshling on this!:goodjob:

I'm absolutely fascinated to see how this will work out in practice and how it codes in the dll. I'm not familiar with mapscripting at all myself but yeah, I was going to mention AIAndy was the one with the skills there that have been applied here previously. He did a great job with the scripting updates for the new terrain features and such.

@Koshling: I was just wondering if you are planning to do Viewports now along with the Multi-Maps, or if that is going to be another project. I am very much looking forward to either or both of these features, and thank you once again for all of your work on C2C. :goodjob:

@Koshling: I was just wondering if you are planning to do Viewports now along with the Multi-Maps, or if that is going to be another project. I am very much looking forward to either or both of these features, and thank you once again for all of your work on C2C. :goodjob:

As it happens, the division of labour Lytning and I agreed (at least for now), is that he is continuing to work on baseline multimap functionality, and I am working on viewport functionality. All work is happening on the parallel map mod, and will be ported to C2C when it is at least basically functional at some level (it will probably lack any UI, but the necessary Python APIs will be exposed for UI to be added, which is not really either my or Lytning's area of expertese, so that will likely fall to AIAndy and others after the port).

Current status is:

Baseline multimaps work graphically, but not yet in terms of turn mechanics (see below)
Viewports are functional at a very basic level, but I'm still working through glitches and gotchas


The key thing that needs doing before it's 'usefully functional', at least for C2C purposes, is the turn synchronization model across maps needs to be implemented (that is to say that a turn end, ends the turn on all maps, AIs process their stuff on all maps each turn, players with units that need orders on multiple maps get auto-map-switched to cycle through the ones they need to attend to, and so on).

Lytning is also rews, such as civ-wide limits on things like unit types applying globally rather than in each map individually [technically this involves making the map id essentially a third coordinate in the coordinate system, rather than a second dimension to entity ids].

Minimaps are proving a bit of a bugbear for the viewport system (the minimap size must match the map size, but what I hadn't realised is that orking some stuff that's already done a bit, now that we've had time to think it through a bit more. This rework should smooth the path to multiplayer support and other issuethe map in the military advisor screen IS a minimap, generated by the game engine (not the DLL or the Python), which causes problems because Python sees the entire map, but the game engine sees viewports). Tentatively this seems resolvable due to the single-threaded non-reentrant nature of the game (while an advisor screen is up the game engine doesn't try to deal with the regular map, so it's looking like I can context switch the map under its feet while it's in Python-land and fool it into doing the right thing)

As it happens, the division of labour Lytning and I agreed (at least for now), is that he is continuing to work on baseline multimap functionality, and I am working on viewport functionality. All work is happening on the parallel map mod, and will be ported to C2C when it is at least basically functional at some level (it will probably lack any UI, but the necessary Python APIs will be exposed for UI to be added, which is not really either my or Lytning's area of expertese, so that will likely fall to AIAndy and others after the port).

Current status is:

Baseline multimaps work graphically, but not yet in terms of turn mechanics (see below)
Viewports are functional at a very basic level, but I'm still working through glitches and gotchas


The key thing that needs doing before it's 'usefully functional', at least for C2C purposes, is the turn synchronization model across maps needs to be implemented (that is to say that a turn end, ends the turn on all maps, AIs process their stuff on all maps each turn, players with units that need orders on multiple maps get auto-map-switched to cycle through the ones they need to attend to, and so on).

Lytning is also rews, such as civ-wide limits on things like unit types applying globally rather than in each map individually [technically this involves making the map id essentially a third coordinate in the coordinate system, rather than a second dimension to entity ids].

Minimaps are proving a bit of a bugbear for the viewport system (the minimap size must match the map size, but what I hadn't realised is that orking some stuff that's already done a bit, now that we've had time to think it through a bit more. This rework should smooth the path to multiplayer support and other issuethe map in the military advisor screen IS a minimap, generated by the game engine (not the DLL or the Python), which causes problems because Python sees the entire map, but the game engine sees viewports). Tentatively this seems resolvable due to the single-threaded non-reentrant nature of the game (while an advisor screen is up the game engine doesn't try to deal with the regular map, so it's looking like I can context switch the map under its feet while it's in Python-land and fool it into doing the right thing)

So, if I'm understanding all of this technical stuff correctly, the status of this whole project is;


The basic Multi-Map function is working properly in terms of the core Game Engine graphical stuff.
The main issue on the Multi-Maps front is how the turns are ended.
AIAndy and/or DH will need to make a new GUI for the Multi-Map functionality before this can work properly.
We will not be able to manually change between the maps during our turns. (I hope I'm wrong on this one.)
The Viewports are running into snags with the mini-maps because for some odd reason the core game engine sees the military advisor as a minimap.
You intend to get around this annoying 'feature' by tricking the game engine into thinking that the military advisor is not open when it is.


This seems like a whole lot of progress, I'm excited. Do you have any ETA on when we can see the C2C-port of this whole thing? I think that that is when SO wants to start the freeze once we have multi-map implementation.

So, if I'm understanding all of this technical stuff correctly, the status of this whole project is;


We will not be able to manually change between the maps during our turns. (I hope I'm wrong on this one.)


You're over-reading between the lines - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I'm just saying that the game will need to auto switch you before it automatically goes into the 'press enter to end turn' state, if you still have unmoved units that need orders on other maps. This is just a usability thing. I also expect:

You can force end turn by explicitly pressing the end-turn button, which will just end the turn without moving any units you haven't bothered to give orders to (as it does now), whatever map they are on
You can switch between maps at will (subject to us having a UI for that of course!)

Similarly for viewports within a map.
This seems like a whole lot of progress, I'm excited. Do you have any ETA on when we can see the C2C-port of this whole thing? I think that that is when SO wants to start the freeze once we have multi-map implementation.
Well, independently of Lytning's progress on the turn model stuff, the viewport part (which leverages the working multimap garphical switching code) will be portable over once I get enough of it working. Next week hopefully would be a good goal. This will include a port of the baseline multimap code (viewports use aspects of it fairly intimately), but will not be enough for multimaps themselves to be enabled until Lytning finishes (and I then port) the turn model stuff. It WILL be enough for viewports to operate however, at least at a demo-only sort of level since we won't have decent UI for viewport creation, selection, etc. at that point.

@Koshling

Last week you sent the core team a progress report on your multi-maps. Which was mostly bad news. Do you have a more positive outlook on it now, or are you worried it might not work out in the end? Do you have plan B if things don't work out the way you want it?

@Koshling

Last week you sent the core team a progress report on your multi-maps. Which was mostly bad news. Do you have a more positive outlook on it now, or are you worried it might not work out in the end? Do you have plan B if things don't work out the way you want it?

I'm more positive now, though there are still quite few issues to work through.

I'm more positive now, though there are still quite few issues to work through.

What pitfalls are there with the Multi-Maps and such, besides the aforementioned issues with turn ending and the Military advisor being poorly set up?

What pitfalls are there with the Multi-Maps and such, besides the aforementioned issues with turn ending and the Military advisor being poorly set up?

A great deal would need to change. The military advisor would also need multiple semi- mini maps just for starters.

A great deal would need to change. The military advisor would also need multiple semi- mini maps just for starters.

It's not possible ( I'm fairly certain of this now) for the minimap embedded in python pages (which is what the map in the military advisor is) to display more than the currently selected map. Obviously we can list only units on that map, or (probably better) list those plus the number you have in total of each type in brackets or something. Also we can add controls to select the map the advisor screen is viewing. What we cannot do is have it display multiple minima's for different underlying maps at once.

By biggest outstanding concern is just performance (time to switch maps). Viewports should mitigate this, since your only actually switching viewports, which can be kept down to a reasonable size, independent of map size, but the switch time will likely still be enough that well very ,uch want to minimize the amount of map switching you need to do each turn.

But, there aren't any critical nonfixable issues that would prevent Multi-Maps from being added, correct?

But, there aren't any critical nonfixable issues that would prevent Multi-Maps from being added, correct?

Too soon to be absolutely certain, but to a reasonable level of confidence it doesn't look like it.

@Koshling: You said that LyTning is working on the core Multi-Map implementation and that the main issue outstanding is how end-turns are handled. My question is, how will the Viewports handle end-turns when you are exploring in the Prehistoric Era and have the 'auto-end turns' option on? I can't see that being an issue in the Modern era, but in earlier eras that may run into snags.

@Koshling: You said that LyTning is working on the core Multi-Map implementation and that the main issue outstanding is how end-turns are handled. My question is, how will the Viewports handle end-turns when you are exploring in the Prehistoric Era and have the 'auto-end turns' option on? I can't see that being an issue in the Modern era, but in earlier eras that may run into snags.

No, I think it's non-issue. It won't auto-end unless you have no actiosn to take ANYWHERE on the current map (whether in the current viewport or not).

No, I think it's non-issue. It won't auto-end unless you have no actiosn to take ANYWHERE on the current map (whether in the current viewport or not).

But, if you have a scout set to explore in another viewport, will it move without switching viewports?

But, if you have a scout set to explore in another viewport, will it move without switching viewports?

Yes, anything automated will move without requiring a viewport switch (same for map switch if you have a map that is entirely automated). At least that's the intention.

Yes, anything automated will move without requiring a viewport switch (same for map switch if you have a map that is entirely automated). At least that's the intention.

I wonder how the Original Zelda did a so called top and below map, WAY back in the late 90's then? That was the main reason i stated playing (PC/Playstion/Nintendo) stuff in the first place, because of the 2 map situation, but haven't seen alot of them besides the Heroes series before?? But i haven't played any new games since 2006 other than Civ or even bought another game.

I wonder how the Original Zelda did a so called top and below map, WAY back in the late 90's then? That was the main reason i stated playing (PC/Playstion/Nintendo) stuff in the first place, because of the 2 map situation, but haven't seen alot of them besides the Heroes series before?? But i haven't played any new games since 2006 other than Civ or even bought another game.With an engine designed for it, and with far less objects stored than even the smallest Civ IV map.

I wonder how the Original Zelda did a so called top and below map, WAY back in the late 90's then? That was the main reason i stated playing (PC/Playstion/Nintendo) stuff in the first place, because of the 2 map situation, but haven't seen alot of them besides the Heroes series before?? But i haven't played any new games since 2006 other than Civ or even bought another game.
We abuse the Civ4 graphics engine in ways it was never meant to be used. That is why we get the limitations.

@Anyone with enough technical knowledge to help:

I'm currently stumped on an issue I never even saw coming, which while not a complete stopper is extremely irritating. If anyone has suggestions I'd welcome them.

Background:

I have viewports essentially functionally working but have no UI to control them. My intention was that I'd use a screen like the military advior which would display the entire underlying map, and allow you to set the viewport position by interacting with that (ideally it would display outlines of the viewports and so on, but that's a detail). For now I'm trying to just modify the military advisor slightly to achieve a crude version of this that simply re-centres the viewport wherever you click on the minimap displayed in the advisor screen.

The following aspects (which I had expected to be the hard part) all work:


Forcing the advisor minmap to display the entire map regardless of your military unit disposition
Scaling the entire map into a pseudo viewport that the minimap sees as the 'map' (because the 'map' size must be constant to the game engine and that includes all minimap instances)
Switching effective viewport on entry to, and exit from the advisor screen (so that the advisor screen sees the scaled 'full' map)


The one issue I simply cannot find a solution to is figuring out where the user has clicked on the minimap! The military advisor Python gets an event OnMinimapClicked, which it responds to by simply closing. This event has no arguments and does not tell you anything about where on the minimap was clicked (just that it was). Without the multimap work, basic BTS treats such a click by centering the main map on the point you clicked. Since there is a map switch (well strictly a viewport switch but it amounts to the same thing) on advisor exit, this behaviour doesn't occur (the switch obliterates all map context and recreates it). Here are the things I've tried:

Retrive the 'lookAt plot' on exit from the advisior (before any map switching) using gDLL->getInterfaceIFace()->getLookAtPlot(), and calling gDLL->getInterfaceIFace()->LookAt() with the appropriately transformed coordinates after the map switch. This isn't a total failure but the results are highly erratic - basically the correlation between where you click and what a call to getLookatPlot() returns shortly afterwards is best described no more strongly than 'positive'! 2 times out of 3 you get somewhere near the llocation you actually clicked, the remaining times seem to be a total lottery - I cannot identify any pattern either.
Looking for mouse events in interactions with the minimap (you don't get any)
Trying to find some way to query the mouse location when the event fires (I can't find a way to do this) [I can probably get the absolute mouse location from Windows, as well as the top left of the current Window, but I'm not sure how reliably I could map that to a minimap location given the rendering of the Python screens and how that reacts to things like resolution]
On the assumption that the default BtS behaviour effectively calls lookAt(), entirely internally to the game engine (i.e. - interaction between the minimap and the main map happens directly all inside the engine), I hacked the vTable for the class instance (presumably a singleton) of CvDLLInterfaceIFaceBase you get from gDLL->getInterfaceIFace(). This works (in the sense that my patch gets called ok when the DLL makes calls through this instance), but is not called by whatever the engine itself does (so I guess it goes directly to a concrete class or something)

Right now I'm out of ideas. Longer term I can see a solution that involves publishing a shared memory (or other IPC-based) representation of the map(s) and their viewports, and using helper app to implement the map switching and viewport switching UI. That should actually work quite well and be very flexible, but it's rather more work than I had in mind!

I can continue to test with no decent UI for the viewports, and just have key combos (ctrl-shift-cursor arrow or something) to slide the viewport in a desired direction. That kind of works for basic demo purposes, but it won't realistically be a useable UI I don't think.

Open to any suggestions...

Ok, I've resolved the minimap clicking thing. It's pretty kludgy, but it works ;)

@Koshling:

I like what I'm seeing so far on the workings of the new Viewport system. I have a few questions about it though. The first one is, what is the net RAM gain from this. I would assume it is quite substantial, but I'd like to know for sure.

Also, you said that you have been working on the Viewports side of things, and LyTning has been working on the actual Multi-Maps. How will the mechanics of the Multiple Maps in C2C work. Specifically, how will


Movement of units between different maps (not viewports)
Transmission of yields/commerces and trade
AI understanding of working with multiple maps


work in practice, assuming those have been hashed out between you and Lytning? I like to understand how things work on a technical level, even if not all of it makes sense to me.;)

@Koshling:

I like what I'm seeing so far on the workings of the new Viewport system. I have a few questions about it though. The first one is, what is the net RAM gain from this. I would assume it is quite substantial, but I'd like to know for sure.
Unknown at this point, as it's not something I've even considered measuring (will need a mature game, which I cannot load since all the work is currently in the parallel maps mod which has no body of saves to use). However, I would expect significant (100s MBytes) savings for games with maps that are significantly larger than the viewport size you choose (which I'll probably default to around 75 X 75 or so)
Also, you said that you have been working on the Viewports side of things, and LyTning has been working on the actual Multi-Maps. How will the mechanics of the Multiple Maps in C2C work. Specifically, how will


Movement of units between different maps (not viewports)
Transmission of yields/commerces and trade
AI understanding of working with multiple maps


work in practice, assuming those have been hashed out between you and Lytning? I like to understand how things work on a technical level, even if not all of it makes sense to me.;)

The groundwork will provide APIs to allow units to be moved between maps. It's up to the mod that uses it to decide how to employ that. One example might be a 'wormhole terminus' building you can build in a city maybe. Since the APIs will all be exposed to Python it would then be possible to add a unit action ('go through wormhole' or whatever) to move it to another map.

The model for commerce/yield is likely to have two options, which comes down to how turn ends are handled on different maps:

1) Turn ends are synchronized (i.e. - all maps have time running at the same rate, so on each turn every map processes any necessary movement etc.). In this case (which I think is what we'll want for C2C) then player-level stuff is pooled across maps. Just think of the map id as being a third spatial plot coordinate (so instead of a unit or city being at (x,y) it's at (x,y,M) wheer M is a map id). As now, where something is doesn't impact whether its net commerce output flows to the player or not, and so that won't change. As for resource availability, that depends how we want to define trade route connectivity between maps, which hasn' been decided (or even thought about really)

2) Maps have independent turn sequences, so 10 turns (say) could go by on one map, while a single one ellapses on another. This is a much more problematic model for player-level pooled things (like total gold etc.). Because of that it's possible that there will only be limitted support for this model. Lytning needs something like this for his 'tactical maps' which basically provide localized battle-level simulations or tactical encounters. Most likely time will be totally frozen at the global level while actions occur on this map (however many turn they take there), so during play on that map you'll have no income at all (and probably no ability to spend gold for consistency).

The AI will understand the maps essentially as independent entities (much like widely separated continents). Until we decide how the multiple maps are to be used (including the mechanics of moving between them and so on) there's not much more it can do. When we do decide on those mechanics then AI work will certainloy be required to drive its decision making in terms of those mechanics

@Koshling:

A couple more questions. First, would it be possible to define a time it takes for something to get between two maps? For instance, it would probably take six months using modern technology to send a person from Earth to Mars, and that is several turns by the Modern Era. Could it be possible to, once you have given the unit an order to go between maps, put that unit in a 'storage' map, which just holds them out of sight of everything else, for a specified number of turns, so to simulate the time issues involved in early space travel? Or, is there some other more elagent solution that I don't see.

Second, will old saves generated and played with pre-viewport C2C be compatable with the viewports? I'd assume so, as from what I understand it is mostly a graphical issue, but I thought I'd ask. Also, is the definition for Viewport size going to be a BUG option or a globaldefine? (BUG is my vote, assuming it's possible)

Ok, I've resolved the minimap clicking thing. It's pretty kludgy, but it works ;)

How about asking either God-Emperor or Cybah or Sephi or any of the other C++ people about this??

@Koshling:

A couple more questions. First, would it be possible to define a time it takes for something to get between two maps? For instance, it would probably take six months using modern technology to send a person from Earth to Mars, and that is several turns by the Modern Era. Could it be possible to, once you have given the unit an order to go between maps, put that unit in a 'storage' map, which just holds them out of sight of everything else, for a specified number of turns, so to simulate the time issues involved in early space travel? Or, is there some other more elagent solution that I don't see.


I thought it would go like this ...

Earth Map -> Solar System Map -> Mars Map

Thus the time it takes to get to Mars is determined by how long it takes to travel from Earth to Mars on the Solar System Map.

I thought it would go like this ...

Earth Map -> Solar System Map -> Mars Map

Thus the time it takes to get to Mars is determined by how long it takes to travel from Earth to Mars on the Solar System Map.

Oh, that's another option.

With multiple maps when leaving Earth where would the end up. Would they all go to the same spot. If so wouldn't that create battles?
Also when going into a planet would everybody land in the same spot?That would also create a bunch of problems

Time for a status update:

I've almost got viewports where I want them! I am hopeful that tomorrow I will complete the viewport work, and tidy it up enough for anyone sufficiently interested to download the parallel maps latest version from that SVN (I'll post details when I think it's demo-ready) to see how it works. Next week should then be port-to-C2C week, at which point we should have reasonably functional viewport support as the first step to multimaps, with (I hope) immediate memory scalability benefits.

Once that is done we'll need the multimap turn-model work completing, which I'll help Lytning with once I'm done with the viewport stuff if necessary.

@AIAndy/Anyone techy:

It's a horrible hack in some ways. The things that really should be clean just aren't due to what I believe is bad caching behaviour and bad assumptions about where timeslices occur (outside the DLL) in the main game engine. The major nasty manifestation of this in the code is the need to delay various things by messaging timeslice. I'm basically using a simple state machine which processes its current state on each call to CvGame::Update() with various APIs setting start states from UI actions. The main occurance of this is when swapping into and out of the military advisor, which used to be a synchronous Python call from the handler for the button press, but has now become a more complex deferred action sequence, that invokes the Python for the advisor from within the state machine processing.

I've also had to do some inobvious, empirically determined things with some graphics entities that seem to not clean up properly even through the destroy-and-recreate cycle of a map switch (there seems to be some deeper hidden level of caching screwing thing up in the game engine which I've had to fool)

Once I've cleaned the code up I'll make sure it's well commented!

FYI - version with working viewports up on the parallel maps SVN, if anyone wants to take a look. See http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11595369&postcount=59

C2C port next week.

FYI - version with working viewports up on the parallel maps SVN, if anyone wants to take a look. See http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11595369&postcount=59

C2C port next week.

OK i looked at some of the python, you are using CvEventManager.py, but doesn't that have to be converted to a BUG type before going into C2C, no offense, but i tried using CvEventManager on other stuff and it doesn't work in C2C, am i just confused or like usual, not knowing what the "heck" i am talking about, again??

StrategyOnly is correct. You can't use CvEventManager in C2C because it uses BUG based modular python which basically ignores (iirc) any file of that name. Anything that you want in a python event handler needs to be in its own module. There are many ways of achieving that.

StrategyOnly is correct. You can't use CvEventManager in C2C because it uses BUG based modular python which basically ignores (iirc) any file of that name. Anything that you want in a python event handler needs to be in its own module. There are many ways of achieving that.

I don't use it in the viewports. Lytning uses it in the multimap switching. Since I'm only porting the multimap groundwork (which doesn't need this) and the viewports currently that aspect won't be in the port anyway. It's only use is so that the <MapInfo> can specify an event that triggers auto-transition to another map (Lytning has it set up so that end-turn transitions to a second map for demo purposes atm). In practise in C2C we'll be auto-transitioning WITHIN turns when you have units to move, and by explicit UI (which is TBD obviously, via the existing API (which is what this Python calls), so we won't need it anyway.

I don't use it in the viewports. Lytning uses it in the multimap switching. Since I'm only porting the multimap groundwork (which doesn't need this) and the viewports currently that aspect won't be in the port anyway. It's only use is so that the <MapInfo> can specify an event that triggers auto-transition to another map (Lytning has it set up so that end-turn transitions to a second map for demo purposes atm). In practise in C2C we'll be auto-transitioning WITHIN turns when you have units to move, and by explicit UI (which is TBD obviously, via the existing API (which is what this Python calls), so we won't need it anyway.

Its too bad it cant work in C2C, if it did, i would have around 25-35 more things i could do with C2C, that would enhance it tremendously.

Its too bad it cant work in C2C, if it did, i would have around 25-35 more things i could do with C2C, that would enhance it tremendously.
The conversion from CvEventManager to the BUG equivalent is simple and very mechanic.

Well Koshling, I want to congratulate you for making me load a mod other than C2C for the first time in ten months! Great work, I can't wait until this gets ported to C2C.

I have one issue though. In the modcomp, the viewport size is detetermined by a new Globaldefines file. Could that please be made a BUG option in C2C? That way it is much easier for the individual user to adjust to their preference.

Well Koshling, I want to congratulate you for making me load a mod other than C2C for the first time in ten months! Great work, I can't wait until this gets ported to C2C.

I have one issue though. In the modcomp, the viewport size is detetermined by a new Globaldefines file. Could that please be made a BUG option in C2C? That way it is much easier for the individual user to adjust to their preference.

Yes, though changing it will require a reload for the change to take effect. How long did the transitions take for you?

Yes, though changing it will require a reload for the change to take effect. How long did the transitions take for you?

~3 seconds using the standard Viewport size. Changing it to a 40 by 40 reduced the time to about 2 seconds.

~3 seconds using the standard Viewport size. Changing it to a 40 by 40 reduced the time to about 2 seconds.

..and that sems acceptable right? Transitions shouldn't need to be too common hopefully anyway (small number per turn in a moderatly advanced game maybe).

Incidentally, the adoption of viewports removes the restriction on all maps having to be the same size. The rule now is that viewport size cannot change (within a session), but there is now no need to pad the size of things like lunar maps and so on.

but there is now no need to pad the size of things like lunar maps and so on.

What does "pad the size" mean?

What does "pad the size" mean?

Before viewports all maps in a multimap setup had to eb the same size, so a map lunar) for example would have to be a big as the earth. With viewports that restraint goes away.

Before viewports all maps in a multimap setup had to eb the same size, so a map lunar) for example would have to be a big as the earth. With viewports that restraint goes away.

ahhh, nice touch then, makes way more sense that way, way to go guys. . . . :goodjob:

..and that sems acceptable right? Transitions shouldn't need to be too common hopefully anyway (small number per turn in a moderatly advanced game maybe).

Incidentally, the adoption of viewports removes the restriction on all maps having to be the same size. The rule now is that viewport size cannot change (within a session), but there is now no need to pad the size of things like lunar maps and so on.

I posted a bug (at least I think it's a bug) on the Parallel Maps thread.

The conversion from CvEventManager to the BUG equivalent is simple and very mechanic.

That is what I keep telling people but the just ignore me and say it is too hard:lol:

@Koshling:

Sorry to keep bothering you, but do you have an ETA on the conversion of the Viewports to C2C?

@Koshling:

Sorry to keep bothering you, but do you have an ETA on the conversion of the Viewports to C2C?

This week

This week

Great! I can't wait to see how much this improves my machine's memory situation, currently it can almost run out of RAM on a giant map. (my system only has 3 gigs, so things can be touch and go)

This week
:bowdown:

That is excellent news.

Preliminary result of viewport usage in terms of Civ memory usage. Please note that this is one data point from the port to C2C, and I'm still debugging so the code is not yet finalized. However...

....I loaded an industrial age GEM game I happened to have lying around, and after game load the memory usage without viewports enabled was 1.4G. With viewports enabled (using a 50 X 50 viewport) it's 900M. Since the base before any map laoding is around 600M this means the map-related contribution dropped from around 800M to about 300M. Furthermore it should be fairly stable at that sort of level for ANY map size.

Preliminary result of viewport usage in terms of Civ memory usage. Please note that this is one data point from the port to C2C, and I'm still debugging so the code is not yet finalized. However...

....I loaded an industrial age GEM game I happened to have lying around, and after game load the memory usage without viewports enabled was 1.4G. With viewports enabled (using a 50 X 50 viewport) it's 900M. Since the base before any map laoding is around 600M this means the map-related contribution dropped from around 800M to about 300M. Furthermore it should be fairly stable at that sort of level for ANY map size.

Nice! :hatsoff:How does the non-graphics memory usage scale though? Is it by map size, number of cities, or a combination of the two?

Nice! :hatsoff:How does the non-graphics memory usage scale though? Is it by map size, number of cities, or a combination of the two?

Num units, num cities, an element of map size. However the scaling constant is a lot lower than the graphics element so there's much more headroom.

Preliminary result of viewport usage in terms of Civ memory usage. Please note that this is one data point from the port to C2C, and I'm still debugging so the code is not yet finalized. However...

....I loaded an industrial age GEM game I happened to have lying around, and after game load the memory usage without viewports enabled was 1.4G. With viewports enabled (using a 50 X 50 viewport) it's 900M. Since the base before any map laoding is around 600M this means the map-related contribution dropped from around 800M to about 300M. Furthermore it should be fairly stable at that sort of level for ANY map size.

in'! Can't wait til this is in so I can start playing with larger maps.

Can the viewport size be varied by circumstance? What I mean is, 60x60 or whatever is good for giving orders to units, depending on how far you want to move them, but when I'm watching AI moves/attacks on my units, or giving cities build orders, it seems to me that something around 7x7 to 11x11 would be enough to show me what I need to see while saving some time drawing.

Can the viewport size be varied by circumstance? What I mean is, 60x60 or whatever is good for giving orders to units, depending on how far you want to move them, but when I'm watching AI moves/attacks on my units, or giving cities build orders, it seems to me that something around 7x7 to 11x11 would be enough to show me what I need to see while saving some time drawing.

No. So far we have found no way to tell the game engine that the map size (as far as it is concerned, since it thinks the viewport IS the map) is changing within a game, so the constraint is that viewport size is fixed within any one load.

Hmm. Is there a way you could lie to the game engine during AI turns about what it should be drawing outside the immediate neighborhood of the action? For example, if you momentarily convinced it that such beyond view territory was still hidden by the initial fog of war, might that cut down on the times involved?

Hmm. Is there a way you could lie to the game engine during AI turns about what it should be drawing outside the immediate neighborhood of the action? For example, if you momentarily convinced it that such beyond view territory was still hidden by the initial fog of war, might that cut down on the times involved?

That's what the existing option to use dynamic entities does. It works well in the early game by in the late game, when everything is revealed, it doesn't help much.

I'm running (significantly) late for a number of reasons:

Work has been busy this week, so I've had less C2C time
C2C is a significantly more complex environment than the basic BtS of the parallel maps mod, and interactions with other changes are making the port harder than expected
Now I'm back in C2C, I have access to a large library of matrure game saves as extended tests, which I didn't have in the parallel maps mod. Those extended tests are showing up further issues that need fixing

I'll need another week.

I think you should release V24 without it, since it would be default disabled anyway, and it'll be available on the SVN in a week or so for those that want to enable it and try it.

I'm running (significantly) late for a number of reasons:

Work has been busy this week, so I've had less C2C time
C2C is a significantly more complex environment than the basic BtS of the parallel maps mod, and interactions with other changes are making the port harder than expected
Now I'm back in C2C, I have access to a large library of matrure game saves as extended tests, which I didn't have in the parallel maps mod. Those extended tests are showing up further issues that need fixing

I'll need another week.

I think you should release V24 without it, since it would be default disabled anyway, and it'll be available on the SVN in a week or so for those that want to enable it and try it.

That's OK, we all know how much work you do for C2C. The very fact that this is even possible is amazing, so I'm OK with the wait.

I'm running (significantly) late for a number of reasons:

Work has been busy this week, so I've had less C2C time
C2C is a significantly more complex environment than the basic BtS of the parallel maps mod, and interactions with other changes are making the port harder than expected
Now I'm back in C2C, I have access to a large library of matrure game saves as extended tests, which I didn't have in the parallel maps mod. Those extended tests are showing up further issues that need fixing

I'll need another week.

I think you should release V24 without it, since it would be default disabled anyway, and it'll be available on the SVN in a week or so for those that want to enable it and try it.

OK thx for letting us all know what is going on, this realy really helps out, and again many many thx.:goodjob:;)

I say we wait for v24. I have a lot coming in soon too and I'm racing to try to get it done in time (but done right too...)

I say we wait for v24. I have a lot coming in soon too and I'm racing to try to get it done in time (but done right too...)

No offense, but then wont that mean it needs ALOT of testing to be done, if so, maybe some now, some later after v24, just upload some of it as non-working stuff, so you dont lose it, then after v24 change it to a working copy that way "we'll" have alot of time to test stuff out, hows that sounds, good/bad?

Its YOUR choice either way, its YOUR stuff!!

I take no offense. I do expect some playtesting to reveal issues needing some adjustments. If you are wanting to get v24 moving, then I have no objection to its release and will simply strive to make sure that v25 has a polished version of what I'm modding here. Its not as if it matters much to the SVN version anyhow, so yeah, it could be good to just use the v25 development run to smooth everything out on my projects here.

@Koshling:

How much work will it be to port the actual Multi-Map stuff to C2C once LyTning has it polished? I know that it will require a good bit of interface and terrain work, but would it be feasible to see multiple maps during the pre-V25 development? How is LyTning's work on that front going?

@Koshling:

How much work will it be to port the actual Multi-Map stuff to C2C once LyTning has it polished? I know that it will require a good bit of interface and terrain work, but would it be feasible to see multiple maps during the pre-V25 development? How is LyTning's work on that front going?

Easy I think. The hard part is the graphics stuff and that all happens in the viewports. The rest, although complex, is entirely within the DLL and therefore within our control. The problem with the graphics stuff is that you continually have to second-guess what the engine is doing since we don't have access to its source to see. For example the problem I am currently stuck on is that after loading a mature game (and not every game, but happens quite a lot) the game engine calls asking for details of a plot, passing NULL for the plot pointer. Now it must have gotten that pointer from us origianlly in response to SOME request asking for a plot (presumably on outside of the viewport which is why we return NULL), but trying to pin down why is proving very hard - its not any call it makes any place close to the point at which it makes the fatal call with the NULL pointer. Since it isn't theoretically even aware of plots outside of the viewport the issue is tarkign dow how it got hold of it. Up to that point it has made just over 2 million calls to the DLL, so (given its not one made temporarily locally) it's a bit of needle in haystack problem. Anyway, trying to manipulate the engine is always like this, since we have zero idea of its inner workings, and therefore building up a model to predict/explain what it will do is not easy.

Thought i would :bump: this since alot are asking about it lately?

Thought i would :bump: this since alot are asking about it lately?

I have not heard from Lytning for a month or so, and there has been no activity on the Parallel maps SVN since I did the viewport work, so I don't think Lytning has had time to do any work on this yet.

I have not heard from Lytning for a month or so, and there has been no activity on the Parallel maps SVN since I did the viewport work, so I don't think Lytning has had time to do any work on this yet.

Didn't MrAzure's friends say that they were developing Multi-Maps independently? Are they even still around, or did that whole thing all fizzle out. At any rate, I have also noticed much enthusiasm over Multi-Maps, but I don't think that we should release them until we have some more AI and performance improvements.

Didn't MrAzure's friends say that they were developing Multi-Maps independently? Are they even still around, or did that whole thing all fizzle out. At any rate, I have also noticed much enthusiasm over Multi-Maps, but I don't think that we should release them until we have some more AI and performance improvements.

They did say that. They also said they would be releasing it the day after V25 went live, so I guess we'll know soon enough.

Now that we have Viewports in and mostly working and it appears that MrAzure's team will not be making their own version, I wanted to ask when we will start making our version. Aside from the issues with floating improvements and missing unit flags, the Viewports feature is mostly complete. I personally think that we should wait until AIAndy gets back from vacation, as he will be the one that will most likely be making the UI. This would mean waiting until after V26 is released.

@Koshling

What needs to be done in the DLL to enable the actual multi-maps? As LyTning got back to you about his progress on that matter? Does getting started on it in V26 sound achievable?

Now that we have Viewports in and mostly working and it appears that MrAzure's team will not be making their own version, I wanted to ask when we will start making our version. Aside from the issues with floating improvements and missing unit flags, the Viewports feature is mostly complete. I personally think that we should wait until AIAndy gets back from vacation, as he will be the one that will most likely be making the UI. This would mean waiting until after V26 is released.

@Koshling

What needs to be done in the DLL to enable the actual multi-maps? As LyTning got back to you about his progress on that matter? Does getting started on it in V26 sound achievable?

Quite a lot (as much again at least as viewports was). I have heard nothing from Lytning.

I also (personally) intend to be bogged down in AI for the next month or two, so I prefer not to be the primary mover in this (apart from where it intersects wtith viewports, so the (map) graphical side I'm happy to keep updated).

:bump:

In regards to your question in the viewports thread, unit and city position is referenced with X and Y coordinates all over the place. Pretty much any code part that accesses those coordinates will need a review in regards to that one of the units might actually be on another map.

In regards to your question in the viewports thread, unit and city position is referenced with X and Y coordinates all over the place. Pretty much any code part that accesses those coordinates will need a review in regards to that one of the units might actually be on another map.

OK, that doesn't sound fun. I somehow suspect it will be more complicated than adding an "int iZ" argument to every plot related function.

In regards to your question in the viewports thread, unit and city position is referenced with X and Y coordinates all over the place. Pretty much any code part that accesses those coordinates will need a review in regards to that one of the units might actually be on another map.

Nah. Jut change the iterators to make only a current map visible to most code (the iterators wouldn't iterate through units on other maps), then iterate through maps at a higher level to context-set. That way mot code can operate as now, and only code that has to be explicitly aware of inter-map movement need change. Won't work everywhere, but would for most of the AI for example.

Nah. Jut change the iterators to make only a current map visible to most code (the iterators wouldn't iterate through units on other maps), then iterate through maps at a higher level to context-set. That way mot code can operate as now, and only code that has to be explicitly aware of inter-map movement need change. Won't work everywhere, but would for most of the AI for example.
Hmm, yes, that will probably end up considerably less painful.
So all old methods refer to the coordinates on the current map except for a new set of methods that also take the map ID.

I am really going to have to learn what this infernal term 'iterator' means...

Can't multi-maps wait until other, more basic issues (such as nomadic start), get implemented?

Can't multi-maps wait until other, more basic issues (such as nomadic start), get implemented?

I am with you on this one:)

I am with you on this one:)

i strongly agree with this one.we have to expand and balance things on this map and later go to other maps

Can't multi-maps wait until other, more basic issues (such as nomadic start), get implemented?

What's normadic start?

We did a poll as to what should be taking priority focus for the team overall and Multi-maps won out over nomadic start (search the forum for the thread on that 12padams...).

I have it in mind to really work on Nomadic Start someday soon but I've got a lot to get through first. Its one of my favorite ideas and we haven't, as a team, been able to get enough consensus on how it should play out to really develop it further. Besides that, we all have so much we're working on ourselves at the moment.

Multi-Maps would be a huge hurdle to have overcome once we have it so I'm all for seeing it getting implemented. Still, I'm patient as I'm not a good enough programmer to think I can even assist much in that project.

Can't multi-maps wait until other, more basic issues (such as nomadic start), get implemented?

The Long Freeze is supposed to be for addressing basic balance issues with the current game through the Transhuman Era as well as for stability purposes. That was one of the main reasons I advocated for this time, was so that we would have a rock solid base for Multi-Maps before year's end.

Nomadic Start is rather controversial among the team, especially considering the resources that would be necessary to implement it. I personally would vote for setting up the Galactic Era after the long Freeze.

I personally would vote for setting up the Galactic Era after the long Freeze.

I feel the same way.

I feel the same way.

Also, one of us should PM Civ Fuehrer and see if he's still interested in helping us with that after the freeze.

When will the Freeze start, anyway? When v27 is released?

The freeze is on now which is why we are not adding new stuff just fixing bugs and playing games to find the bugs.

When will the Freeze start, anyway? When v27 is released?

Judging by the recently extremely frequent bug fix updates on the svn I thought it had already started...

Judging by the recently extremely frequent bug fix updates on the svn I thought it had already started...

Yes, the freeze started today technically, although it has been on for a week in fact. I'll probably release V27 the first weekend in November assuming the major bugs have all been addressed.

@Koshling:

I was wondering, given what we already have in the DLL and the Parallel Maps codebase (however incomplete) that is still extant, what specifically would be necessary to add the ability to support Multiple Maps? I know that the iterators would need to be adjusted and that map object classes would need to be added, but what else am I missing, and how long would that take theoretically? I hate to be a constant nag about this, but I would really like to be able to see multi-maps by year's end. That new feature alone will I suspect double our user base and popularity, due both to the novelty and to the new vistas it opens up for modding Civ 4.

@Koshling:

I was wondering, given what we already have in the DLL and the Parallel Maps codebase (however incomplete) that is still extant, what specifically would be necessary to add the ability to support Multiple Maps? I know that the iterators would need to be adjusted and that map object classes would need to be added, but what else am I missing, and how long would that take theoretically? I hate to be a constant nag about this, but I would really like to be able to see multi-maps by year's end. That new feature alone will I suspect double our user base and popularity, due both to the novelty and to the new vistas it opens up for modding Civ 4.

The map object is already there. What is needed is to add the extra coordinate (map Id) to units and cities, fix the iterators, and provide some way to actually access different maps in UI terms. As and when travel between maps becomes possible that will presumably need new AI also.

Btw - I had an idea for a totally different way to do multi maps (and viewports) in terms of the underlying mechanism, which (if I can make it work) may well have far less graphical artifact issues, and also allow viewports or maps to be of different sizes. I have not done the necessary experiments yet though to see if it's possible.

Btw - I had an idea for a totally different way to do multi maps (and viewports) in terms of the underlying mechanism, which (if I can make it work) may well have far less graphical artifact issues, and also allow viewports or maps to be of different sizes. I have not done the necessary experiments yet though to see if it's possible.

That sounds interesting, how would it work?

I was just looking at the future techs, drawling over the not yet implemented features. I saw the Luna exploration tech and was wondering exactly what that unlocks... I saw the description said a "Luna rover" which is capable of exploring the moon and then planetary exploration unlocks planetary/mars rovers but how do these get to those certain planets? What happens if you use a rocket to bring a Luna rover to mars?

Oh and I'm guessing no colonization yet at that point. You'd just have the ability to explore those nearby planets. I'm very interested in seeing how it all works. Then boom, Luna colonization tech and you have the ability to build cities on the moon. This mod is just gunna be so awesome and I really hope multimaps comes soon so these future units can be worked on and we can see them in the game.

Koshling... I know you have a lot on your plate right now but I personally believe working on multimaps is a priority. Yes, it will be hard to do but once it's done, it's done! You won't have that terrible thought of "damn, I've got to work on multimaps soon" ever again unless a bug is found. Once you finish multimaps then everything in the future eras can be properly worked on. The other developers will be able to make the space/Luna/planets units, buildins and improvements while you work on improving the ai or whatever else you want to work on.

I'm wishing you all the best of luck koshling with this big challenge of coding multimaps but it will be worth it. It opens up so much and without it working on future stuff is currently not exciting since it won't be seen properly running in the game until multimaps is completed. I'm sorry to bug you but a lot of projects I find die soon after I find them and I don't want this one to die before multimaps is implememnted otherwise you may as well kiss the title of caveman2cosmos goodbye.

Lol, I'm not meaning for this message to come out angrily or anything, I just want to emphasis the importance of multimaps over ai, better multiplayer and other stuff currently. The faster its implemented the faster everyone can get to work on the future/the cosmos side of this mod. Good luck and thanks for being a great dev ;)

That sounds interesting, how would it work?

I was hoping to fool the game engine into thinking it was loading a totally different save game, without actually doing the elements of the load that change the underlying data, which should force it to redisplay from scratch.

I was hoping to fool the game engine into thinking it was loading a totally different save game, without actually doing the elements of the load that change the underlying data, which should force it to redisplay from scratch.

But you tried it and it didn't work? Or have you not tried it yet?

@12padams:

Nothing Multi-Maps related (except for Viewports) is in yet, but I'd like to see it in soon.

But you tried it and it didn't work? Or have you not tried it yet?

@12padams:

Nothing Multi-Maps related (except for Viewports) is in yet, but I'd like to see it in soon.

I played around a little, but I couldn't find a good way to initiate a pseudo-load from the points we'd need to, so I think we'll probably have to stick with the current approach.

I played around a little, but I couldn't find a good way to initiate a pseudo-load from the points we'd need to, so I think we'll probably have to stick with the current approach.

Well, that's disappointing, but still, it's awesome we can even do this in the first place! Do you think you can get the basics in (the iterators, extra coordinates, and on-the-fly map generation) before V28?

Also, why would you need a new AI for Multi-Maps (aside from any unique mechanics we add to it)? Couldn't you just not change the AI iterators, so the AI goes through and manages everything on an end turn?

Well, that's disappointing, but still, it's awesome we can even do this in the first place! Do you think you can get the basics in (the iterators, extra coordinates, and on-the-fly map generation) before V28?

Also, why would you need a new AI for Multi-Maps (aside from any unique mechanics we add to it)? Couldn't you just not change the AI iterators, so the AI goes through and manages everything on an end turn?

You just need new AI to control decisions about how you move BETWEEN maps (or spread between or whatever the mechanic(s) is/are). For dealing WITHIN a map the current AI will do just fine.

Not sure on schedule. I haven't felt like doing any modding this week at all, so partly it boils down to when my motivation comes back (I've been playing more and am currently in the late industrial era in my test game). I think the biggest piece of work that will be needed is for someone (not me) to figure out what the mechanics and UI will be to move between/open up/spread to maps other than the starting one will be. I suspect the UI part will be by far the largest remaining piece of work.

You just need new AI to control decisions about how you move BETWEEN maps (or spread between or whatever the mechanic(s) is/are). For dealing WITHIN a map the current AI will do just fine.

Not sure on schedule. I haven't felt like doing any modding this week at all, so partly it boils down to when my motivation comes back (I've been playing more and am currently in the late industrial era in my test game). I think the biggest piece of work that will be needed is for someone (not me) to figure out what the mechanics and UI will be to move between/open up/spread to maps other than the starting one will be. I suspect the UI part will be by far the largest remaining piece of work.

Could it not be something similar to the Build Lists menu that AIAndy added in August? ie, you add another button in that area, which when clicked brings up a screen that lists maps you can go to, you click on a map on that list, and you go to that map. Quick and dirty I know, but I don't think that it would be a long project for someone who knows Python.

Could it not be something similar to the Build Lists menu that AIAndy added in August? ie, you add another button in that area, which when clicked brings up a screen that lists maps you can go to, you click on a map on that list, and you go to that map. Quick and dirty I know, but I don't think that it would be a long project for someone who knows Python.

No idea. The APIs to call to switch maps are already there, so whoever is going to do this can start on it any time.

Could it not be something similar to the Build Lists menu that AIAndy added in August? ie, you add another button in that area, which when clicked brings up a screen that lists maps you can go to, you click on a map on that list, and you go to that map. Quick and dirty I know, but I don't think that it would be a long project for someone who knows Python.
You might first want to think about how the actual transfer is going to be mechanic wise, not UI wise.
There is a serious issue if all starting from earth end up in the same plot on the solar map.

You might first want to think about how the actual transfer is going to be mechanic wise, not UI wise.
There is a serious issue if all starting from earth end up in the same plot on the solar map.

I've thought about this and have a possible solution. Take a 7 by 7 grid of tiles with the center being the planet. A unit moved off of a planet to the Solar System map is put in a random unoccupied plot in the first ring, or if all of those are full, a random plot in the second ring, and then if all of those are also full, into a random plot in the third ring. This gives a potential of 48 different entry points, which should be enough for almost all situations. If there is no way to put a unit in an unoccupied plot in that area, or if you already have a stack in the area, then it can go into your existing stack. If there is absolutely no way to exit the planet into an unoccupied or friendly tile, then combat can occur if you are at war with the offender.

I've thought about this and have a possible solution. Take a 7 by 7 grid of tiles with the center being the planet. A unit moved off of a planet to the Solar System map is put in a random unoccupied plot in the first ring, or if all of those are full, a random plot in the second ring, and then if all of those are also full, into a random plot in the third ring. This gives a potential of 48 different entry points, which should be enough for almost all situations. If there is no way to put a unit in an unoccupied plot in that area, or if you already have a stack in the area, then it can go into your existing stack. If there is absolutely no way to exit the planet into an unoccupied or friendly tile, then combat can occur if you are at war with the offender.

That's not a bad idea. Since I was thinking something similar and find there's a number of possible options on how to resolve this issue, I agree that this is one of the best to move forward with.

I suppose that to get TO the Earth map, you'd simply move onto the Planet's tile and then be given the popup option of what grid x and y to come in at, listing off the owning player, cities that may exist there (by name), and perhaps a button to pull up a second sub-window popup that displays the units on that plot (must be closed before making any landing selection.)

However, there was some consideration of making an orbital map around Earth too and I'm getting the impression that's not likely to be employed... Without it, how are we going to handle the Moon? Would we be launching directly between Earth and Moon maps? When we enter the Earth space do we FIRST need to answer a popup question as to which map we're headed for? Are we planning on doing anything with orbital weaponry?

I suppose that to get TO the Earth map, you'd simply move onto the Planet's tile and then be given the popup option of what grid x and y to come in at, listing off the owning player, cities that may exist there (by name), and perhaps a button to pull up a second sub-window popup that displays the units on that plot (must be closed before making any landing selection.)



About going down back to earth: Could this be made tech/unit dependent and get a little random factor. Like you come back from your first trip to the moon, you simply see earth in orbital view ( zoomed out to max in reuglar map) , and click on a tile where you want to land. Then the game rolls a few dice so to speak and you land somehwere within 6 tiles of that point. And a chance that an improvement ( or buildings if you hit a city) get destroyed. Later as you get better spacecraft this radius decreases until you can realy select a specific city and land there without doing any harm.
This could simulate an early Apollo or Sojuz capsule landing somewhere within a huge area ( potentially hitting soemthign if you ever chose a populated one) , whereas a space shuttle can land on an airstrip, and quite sofly.
One could however also take damage to the unit into account: A Space shuttle landing in a forest will get damaged. One landing on an arifield ( city with airport, fort...anything that counts as airbase) won´t. Apart from atmospheric reentry that is.

I've got to be honest... I would like multi maps (just the beginnings, solar system view, moon and mars) to be implemented by v28 even if the ai had no idea about it by that point and just continued to stay on earth while human players could blast off into space. If this is implemented then work can be done on making and testing future units, buildings and terrains in their proper environments.

Is anyone with me on this one? Would they like to see multi maps ASAP even if it wasn't initially optimized to work well with the ai.

Well we have been waiting for the multi-maps for awhile now. I have already stated I would prefer them sooner than later. But I also understand that ground breaking features also take time to make. In short keep up the great work and I can't wait to see it in action!

Well we have been waiting for the multi-maps for awhile now. I have already stated I would prefer them sooner than later. But I also understand that ground breaking features also take time to make. In short keep up the great work and I can't wait to see it in action!

Some one needs to add the mechanics to unlock and spread to mutlimaps. The APIs to switch maps are already there (and have been since viewports were first added), so, although some more coding is needed to make them operate fully, the code is already present to have multi maps and to switch between them. It would be much easier to work on the other coding aspects that are needed once a version (crude or otherwise) to do the UI/mechanics for the spreading to a second map is done, as a test bed.

I have no idea who is planning to take that UI/mechanics part on - it will all or mostly be Python I think.

Some one needs to add the mechanics to unlock and spread to mutlimaps. The APIs to switch maps are already there (and have been since viewports were first added), so, although some more coding is needed to make them operate fully, the code is already present to have multi maps and to switch between them. It would be much easier to work on the other coding aspects that are needed once a version (crude or otherwise) to do the UI/mechanics for the spreading to a second map is done, as a test bed.

I have no idea who is planning to take that UI/mechanics part on - it will all or mostly be Python I think.

Are you saying that from a dev standpoint having a crude interface would help? Because, I'd bet that if we tried to implement an interface now without support for more coordinates we'd end up with crashes.

At any rate, I don't know any python, so I can't really be much help here. :( DH maybe could take a crack at it?

About going down back to earth: Could this be made tech/unit dependent and get a little random factor. Like you come back from your first trip to the moon, you simply see earth in orbital view ( zoomed out to max in reuglar map) , and click on a tile where you want to land. Then the game rolls a few dice so to speak and you land somehwere within 6 tiles of that point. And a chance that an improvement ( or buildings if you hit a city) get destroyed. Later as you get better spacecraft this radius decreases until you can realy select a specific city and land there without doing any harm.
This could simulate an early Apollo or Sojuz capsule landing somewhere within a huge area ( potentially hitting soemthign if you ever chose a populated one) , whereas a space shuttle can land on an airstrip, and quite sofly.
One could however also take damage to the unit into account: A Space shuttle landing in a forest will get damaged. One landing on an arifield ( city with airport, fort...anything that counts as airbase) won´t. Apart from atmospheric reentry that is.
Some interesting thoughts. Note: Something like a rebase mission or something like an airdrop mission that took you to the other map is actually not all that bad a way to go about it in general. Hmmm...


I am currently trying to learn some python so it MAY be something I can eventually work on but my ability to do it anytime soon is probably pretty minimal.

Are you saying that from a dev standpoint having a crude interface would help? Because, I'd bet that if we tried to implement an interface now without support for more coordinates we'd end up with crashes.

At any rate, I don't know any python, so I can't really be much help here. :( DH maybe could take a crack at it?

All I'm saying is that we need to lay out the mechanisms by which you get access to new maps, and switch to them. Even without adding underlying coordinates that's a necessary step, and it makes the business of testing the operation of multiple coordinates easier if you have a way to switch maps to test it. Obviously it wouldn't be useful in a live game yet, but it's part of what needs doing, and can as easily be done first, with some testing benefits of providing a vehicle to test the other part later. I don't have the necessary UI or python skills really, and I have no idea what the intention is of how it manifests in terms of game UI. Someone needs to pick this up if multi maps are going anywhere.

The moment your Multi-Maps start working - a new ERA should be announced.
The Era of the Only Mod There Is. :lol:

Are you saying that from a dev standpoint having a crude interface would help? Because, I'd bet that if we tried to implement an interface now without support for more coordinates we'd end up with crashes.

At any rate, I don't know any python, so I can't really be much help here. :( DH maybe could take a crack at it?

Some interesting thoughts. Note: Something like a rebase mission or something like an airdrop mission that took you to the other map is actually not all that bad a way to go about it in general. Hmmm...


I am currently trying to learn some python so it MAY be something I can eventually work on but my ability to do it anytime soon is probably pretty minimal.

All I'm saying is that we need to lay out the mechanisms by which you get access to new maps, and switch to them. Even without adding underlying coordinates that's a necessary step, and it makes the business of testing the operation of multiple coordinates easier if you have a way to switch maps to test it. Obviously it wouldn't be useful in a live game yet, but it's part of what needs doing, and can as easily be done first, with some testing benefits of providing a vehicle to test the other part later. I don't have the necessary UI or python skills really, and I have no idea what the intention is of how it manifests in terms of game UI. Someone needs to pick this up if multi maps are going anywhere.

@DH,

sounds like everyone is relying on you, unless there is another person(s) :please::please: that can do python here . . .SO

nevermind

You know what we need? deadline goals for each major release in regards to multimaps otherwise it's going to be pushed off more and more...

V28 - Lift Off: The ability to build and load early spaceship units to leave the earth's atmosphere and fly around slowly (due to lack of fuel to reach far planets other than the moon) an orbital/solar system view being able to see but not nessisary enter other planets. Maybe the ability to create orbiting space stations could also be added at this stage...

V29 - Man on the Moon: The ability for your spaceship to fly over the "moon tile" (which should be constantly rotating around the earth) then click the button "enter planet" to land on the moon. Here early moon exploration should be added so you have have units checking out all the features of the moon revealing possible resources or some type of moon goody huts... If possible add settling cities on the moon and terraforming as well ;)

V30 - The red planet: Make more powerful ships with more fuel able to explore, colonize and terraform mars. Also work of helping the ai understand what's going on with multimaps if they don't have a clue about it yet.

V31 - Solar system: Work on other planets in our solar system, better ships (faster and more fuel) including gas planets with possible advanced technologies able to compress the gas into a liquid or solid or have cities floating in the mist...

V32 - Milkyway: The ability to explore other solar systems and a view to allow you to colonize planets as a whole rather than landing on them and managing indiviual cities.

V33 and beyond... Other galaxy's, aliens, dimensions ect until/if koshlings other project becomes better than this one.

@12padams

I would be careful putting exact dates on things. Remember we do this for fun. Having deadlines just make it more like "work" and less like a hobby. Its much better to encourage and motivate someone to get something done than it is to nag and demand it get done by a specific date.

@12padams

I would be careful putting exact dates on things. Remember we do this for fun. Having deadlines just make it more like "work" and less like a hobby. Its much better to encourage and motivate someone to get something done than it is to nag and demand it get done by a specific date.

Yeah, as Hydro said, but then its the modders prerogative if HE/she wants to put up a Projected list like you have, but again its totally up to each modder(s), separately . . SO

Well if modding is only done for fun and working on multimaps isn't fun then multimaps will never be done! Lol ;)

I heard hydro is working on multimaps... Does he have a development plan of some kind?

I heard hydro is working on multimaps... Does he have a development plan of some kind?

Where did you hear this? I don't work on the multi-maps. They are beyond my skill level. I mean I helped design the terrain for them with DH and will help design units that will be on the ls612, but the multi-maps themselves I cannot help with. Don't get me wrong I can help with a lot of things but multi-maps are not one of them.

Bumping this because the topic has been brought up.

:bump:

Bumping this because the topic has been brought up.

:bump:

Will these ever be released, now that Koshling is moving to his new project? Hopefully there's some way to get him to hold off on that for a short time until multi-maps can be properly integrated, and then allow him to continue on his own project (which the rest of the development team here can ultimately migrate to). Once the preconditions are in place the project will take off like never before.

Will these ever be released, now that Koshling is moving to his new project? Hopefully there's some way to get him to hold off on that for a short time until multi-maps can be properly integrated, and then allow him to continue on his own project (which the rest of the development team here can ultimately migrate to). Once the preconditions are in place the project will take off like never before.

Thats all up to him, i "Thought" thats what he WAS going to do (at least thats what he said), but even now i am wondering:dunno:

Thats all up to him, i "Thought" thats what he WAS going to do (at least thats what he said), but even now i am wondering:dunno:

I think you should PM him about it before his project gets too far off the ground, I'm not trying to kill his ideas but, as another person on this forum (and the Archery tech) said:

"If you chase two rabbits, you will lose them both."

So let's kill the rabbit of multimaps first and then Koshling can move on to his own project. It would be a shame to see both C2C and AXXXXE die.

Personally I wish he would finish the multi-maps here and THEN work on his new project.

Personally I wish he would finish the multi-maps here and THEN work on his new project.

Seriously who doesn't think that? Apart from koshling... His new project is his reasoning for not working on multimaps. Why should he waste time on struggling to get multimaps to work with this mod when he can code from scratch a much better, unlimited caveman2cosmos game? Well... It will give the caveman2cosmos community something to spend time with and expand on keeping us happy and together while we wait a few years to be amazed by koshlings new caveman2cosmos.

Still... I really wish multimaps could be released on this mod before Christmas. Although the work wouldn't be over once multimaps is finished because he would then need to write a guide for those who wish to code with multimaps. After that the other modders could work on the galactic era making this mod the best civ game ever!

Koshling, you agree right?

Well, guys, as he stated, what he's up against is outside his realm of expertise at this point, requiring some python coder to step up and work with him to complete the project. So far, nobody has stood up to offer this assistance so what's he supposed to do?

Well, guys, as he stated, what he's up against is outside his realm of expertise at this point, requiring some python coder to step up and work with him to complete the project. So far, nobody has stood up to offer this assistance so what's he supposed to do?

Get himself from the future to help him make the multi-maps and as a result learn how its done so in the future he can go back and teach himself. :cool:

Well, guys, as he stated, what he's up against is outside his realm of expertise at this point, requiring some python coder to step up and work with him to complete the project. So far, nobody has stood up to offer this assistance so what's he supposed to do?

He's supposed to go to the link below and ask whatever questions he needs to ask there:
http://forums.devshed.com/python-programming-11/

He's supposed to go to the link below and ask whatever questions he needs to ask there:
http://forums.devshed.com/python-programming-11/

Well... any of us could do that. I don't see why we're placing the entire burden of completing multi-maps on Koshling's shoulders. He's set up a tremendous amount of basis for it as it is now and merely awaits someone with the preexisting expertise to work with him. For how bad we all want this I'm surprised nobody is working with him to finalize the design. If I wasn't in the middle of a huge project myself I would LEARN the necessary python to help him out but I'm seeing a number of us who are screaming a lot louder than I about how badly we need him to finish it that aren't doing anything but voicing themselves.

Just because you understand one programming language inside and out doesn't mean it so easily translates to mastering another, even if Python IS similar to C++ in many ways. So if he simply feels doing so would be a burdensome pain in the arse, perhaps someone who really wants this to get completed soon could step up and learn the necessary py structure to aid in finalizing things? I'm sure it wouldn't take any longer to do so than it would for him to sort it all out himself. And why should we be purely relying on him to finish this setup in the first place?

I know AIAndy's got the skills to handle this end, but imo, solving OOS errors is a far higher priority than ANY new mod details, even multi-maps. And sadly, he's the only one who seems to understand the problems there enough to solve them. And yet we pull HIM in a hundred directions at once too. Furthermore, I patiently understand he's been fairly busy with RL as well.

All's I guess I'm saying here is we need to be patient. I don't see the 'new project' as being any kind of impediment to completing multi-maps as Koshling himself has stated that he's taken it as far as he will beyond aiding in coupling with a Py programmer's efforts to finish off the job. So at this point, its not him we're waiting on unless you feel since he's gone as far as he has he's somehow committed himself to completing it for us all without any of our further assistance? The degree of demanding expectations in such a stance would be something I'd think anyone who's giving their donated time and expertise would find a bit miffling.

@Thunderbrd

Is there anyone on the team that knows how to do the stuff that Koshling can do? I honestly don't know since anything beyond XML modding is gibberish to me. If he is the only one that can then I think its understandable that "we" would want him to finish it. Since such a feature would benefit not only C2C but all Civ 4 mods. I hate to put him on the spot but a lot of other factors now depend upon multi-maps.

However if for whatever reason multi-maps never materialize there is a plan B. As I mentioned before with the Future Mod and having more than one map on the same map with it separated by impassible squares. We would have to make custom map scripts but it is within our collective skill level. Paired with the currently functional viewports it would work. However its not nearly as elegant as multi-maps. And all maps would be HUGE just to have a decent size Earth map.

As i have stated before, if "we" need python help really badly, Pls post a NEW thread in the SDK/Python Help area, and i know there will be quite a few people that will be willing to help out, heck thats how i made the Civics Screen, and at least had a semi-working copy of "The Mercenary Mod" working.

So as I understand it now... Multimaps is dead, this new project is a replacement for caveman2cosmos that will be much better and unlimited yet won't be playable for 2 years. The only way multimaps will continue is if another person helps koshling complete the project.

You see I can't go over to the forums and ask for help with multimaps because I don't know what to ask. I don't know what koshling can't figure out... Only he knows! So only koshling can go on those forums and say "how do I achieve x with python". Has he tried to do this as of yet?

@Thunderbrd

Is there anyone on the team that knows how to do the stuff that Koshling can do? I honestly don't know since anything beyond XML modding is gibberish to me. If he is the only one that can then I think its understandable that "we" would want him to finish it. Since such a feature would benefit not only C2C but all Civ 4 mods. I hate to put him on the spot but a lot of other factors now depend upon multi-maps.

However if for whatever reason multi-maps never materialize there is a plan B. As I mentioned before with the Future Mod and having more than one map on the same map with it separated by impassible squares. We would have to make custom map scripts but it is within our collective skill level. Paired with the currently functional viewports it would work. However its not nearly as elegant as multi-maps. And all maps would be HUGE just to have a decent size Earth map.
Hmm...

I went through the last page of this thread and it seems we're stuck on something but Koshling seems to have lost us all as to what exactly we're stuck on.

He states we have the API (whatever that is) to switch between maps but we need the UI (user interface) to be developed. I'm not entirely sure what he's asking us here.

I actually am not entirely convinced, after reading back through, that we need python at all (except perhaps for a button that allows us to simply swap to a new map screen from the one we're currently on but I think he's trying to say, with the API comment, that we can already do this basically.)

I think what he's saying we need is to define how and when the new map would be unlocked and how units would move between it, not just in ideas but in code.

For the first question, I suppose I've always assumed we'd be unlocking (generating and maintaining its potential for use) the new maps whenever tech appropriate.

For the second, I think we can do that via the dll with popups. Popups are something I REALLY want to understand, though they are more fully explained on how to use them via python in the forums here. Seems though others on the site understand the use of them from the dll alone (including AIAndy) we don't have an effective tutorial to explain every step (which is what I'd need to really begin to understand how to go about it.)

Missions can be designed to take units from one map to another, each with their own unique filters as to when or why they can be enacted. These missions could be much like air drops or rebase missions except that in the process we get a popup to select the plot on the other map we are moving to, including the potential to enter battle at that plot (according to various qualifications to do so of course.)

I CAN do all that, provided I can understand the following:
1) How to pull a popup at all
2) How to get back the appropriate info from the popup
3) How to refer to plots on another map (I'm really not sure how this has been setup)

What I can't do, or can't foresee myself figuring out, would be the GENERATION routines of the new maps, calling them to be generated and then storing those maps.

We do have these skillsets on the team, or at least the ability to develop them, but we need to be patient for them to get the clearance to focus on this project.

So alls I'm really saying here to the previous comments is that when we pour on a ton of pressure coming at it from a rather selfish approach without putting in the effort to try to contribute to this complex project directly, we're only pushing away those who'd want to help by being demanding. Patience and trust is all I'm urging. The project isn't dead. It won't die until its completed. Same with many other projects on the C2C books.

The 'start from scratch' project is something that will take a very long time to develop and at the moment is more about beginning to dream big for the long term, but I don't think any of us (with the possible exception of one frustrated Koshling ;) ) are looking to slow our efforts here in the C2C MOD. At the moment its in a very basic planning phase while what we have here is rather developed and with quite a few ambitious goals remaining. I don't expect those goals won't be reached.

I am unhappy that everyone here is saying that the new project means that multi-maps is dead. Koshling said in the project thread at post #31

I don't plan on leaving. I'd just reduce my effort to focused bug fixes (and multimap support as necessary)

I understand his complaints about the civ 4 engine, and why it would not be fun working with viewports and multi-maps. But if we turn this into a blame fest about "who killed multi-maps" that will be very unproductive. Personally I'd stay around here, in addition to working on the new engine, to make Galactic Era content. The big thing in C2C I could see losing from this is the AI.

As you may have noticed, I am continuing to fix viewport issues (two sets of big fixes this week), because multi maps makes everything a viewport, and be UAE we cannot scale the existing c2c implementation without them. This will continue.

The Python part of the multimap problem as I see it (correct me if I am wrong) is that Python is used to display the maps.

So the display needs to change for the differing maps and a method to switch between the maps is needed. Almost all the Python for displaying the game screens is done in CvMainInterface.py which is complex. It uses short cuts and objects in a way you would use in the last millennium on machines with limited hardware and graphics cards. I really hate working with it. I keep thinking I should get a friend over with gallons of iced coffee and redo the whole thing over a weekend. The latter wont happen because all my friends still play civ 2or 3 because the graphics are better in them.

The Python part of the multimap problem as I see it (correct me if I am wrong) is that Python is used to display the maps.

So the display needs to change for the differing maps and a method to switch between the maps is needed. Almost all the Python for displaying the game screens is done in CvMainInterface.py which is complex. It uses short cuts and objects in a way you would use in the last millennium on machines with limited hardware and graphics cards. I really hate working with it. I keep thinking I should get a friend over with gallons of iced coffee and redo the whole thing over a weekend. The latter wont happen because all my friends still play civ 2or 3 because the graphics are better in them.

As suggested earlier, someone with administrative power in this project should reach out to Python modders in the SDK/Python subforum of Civ IV C&C.

I so hope this mega project won't burst like a bubble.
It would be extremely unhappy news for many people, me very much included.
Multi-maps is one way to enhance the Civ4 gameplay beyond everlasting.
And making C2C chances to become an official add-on really real.
I'd honestly want that to happen some day in 2013...
You all put so much into it, so it must be rewarded - and I wouldn't think of anythin less than being recognized by the officials. :D

@C2C Team

So what is the status for "multimaps"? What is holding them up and can they still be done? Any estimate on which version we will first see them in?

Just delayed as a matter of priorities I believe.

Is anyone even working or even thinking of doing this?

Yeah, once I've got my lists cleared up. It really is that low a priority for me cuz I don't believe I've ever made it so far into a game, nor do I believe most players do, that it would matter yet.

Yeah, once I've got my lists cleared up. It really is that low a priority for me cuz I don't believe I've ever made it so far into a game, nor do I believe most players do, that it would matter yet.

The problem with that sort of thinking is that if you wait until most players get that far and then put in multi maps we, the modders, wont have had a chance to make sure all the bits we have done so far work.:D

Yeah, once I've got my lists cleared up. It really is that low a priority for me cuz I don't believe I've ever made it so far into a game, nor do I believe most players do, that it would matter yet.

Well in the poll we took, Multimaps was the top in the poll. Whether or not anyone gets there should not matter. Mutimaps should be top priority. So much stuff is waiting on it to be implemented so we can move on.

Not to mention multi-maps could be used in other ways besides the galactic era. However without it implemented we cannot explore that possibility.

If there ever was a goal for the near future of C2C multimaps would be it.

EDIT: According to the original Parallel map posts it was back in April 2012.

[BTS] Parallel Maps
forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=458248 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=458248)

Then the last post was posted in July 2012. Now I realize between April and July we were waiting on LyTning94 to do something. However now that it is "our" hands I would have though that we would have something by now.

Lets not have another year pass by with no multimaps. Caveman 2 Cosmos is just not right without the "Cosmos".

Well in the poll we took, Multimaps was the top in the poll. Whether or not anyone gets there should not matter. Mutimaps should be top priority. So much stuff is waiting on it to be implemented so we can move on.

Not to mention multi-maps could be used in other ways besides the galactic era. However without it implemented we cannot explore that possibility.

If there ever was a goal for the near future of C2C multimaps would be it.

EDIT: According to the original Parallel map posts it was back in April 2012.

[BTS] Parallel Maps
forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=458248 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=458248)

Then the last post was posted in July 2012. Now I realize between April and July we were waiting on LyTning94 to do something. However now that it is "our" hands I would have though that we would have something by now.

Lets not have another year pass by with no multimaps. Caveman 2 Cosmos is just not right without the "Cosmos".

I don't know about you, but I do this as a hobby, not a job. While it is interesting input what people regard as top priority, it's secondary (to me) to doing what is interesting (and in the case of viewports/multimaps, not fantastically frustrating). It was having to work on viewports that drove me away from modding entirely for several months late last year, and I don't plan to get rail-roaded into that area again any more than I can possibly avoid. I have agreed to act as a consultant for the necessary changes for ls612 and/or TB, and if there are especially awkward bits to be done I guess I'll be persuaded, but for me this is definitely going to be done on a well-defined-piece-of-work-on-request basis.

for me this is definitely going to be done on a well-defined-piece-of-work-on-request basis.

ahahaa:lol::p nice ;)

I don't know about you, but I do this as a hobby, not a job. While it is interesting input what people regard as top priority, it's secondary (to me) to doing what is interesting (and in the case of viewports/multimaps, not fantastically frustrating). It was having to work on viewports that drove me away from modding entirely for several months late last year, and I don't plan to get rail-roaded into that area again any more than I can possibly avoid. I have agreed to act as a consultant for the necessary changes for ls612 and/or TB, and if there are especially awkward bits to be done I guess I'll be persuaded, but for me this is definitely going to be done on a well-defined-piece-of-work-on-request basis.

I agree with this. I have my priorities, and getting bogged down in Multi-Maps is not one of them for now. I did PM you and AIAndy about what I though were the hard/easier parts of it, but I fully understand if this does not happen for a while longer. We all do this for fun, not as a job, and so I personally work on stuff that I enjoy and try and push the mod in a way that I feel is more fun.

I don't know about you, but I do this as a hobby, not a job. While it is interesting input what people regard as top priority, it's secondary (to me) to doing what is interesting (and in the case of viewports/multimaps, not fantastically frustrating). It was having to work on viewports that drove me away from modding entirely for several months late last year, and I don't plan to get rail-roaded into that area again any more than I can possibly avoid. I have agreed to act as a consultant for the necessary changes for ls612 and/or TB, and if there are especially awkward bits to be done I guess I'll be persuaded, but for me this is definitely going to be done on a well-defined-piece-of-work-on-request basis.

Sorry if I came off as bitcy or demanding, but multimaps are what I have been looking forward to for a long time and have been preparing for with the units, terrains, techs, etc. I have tried to get as much as I can do done without actually having multimaps. Including even getting others like DH and ls612 to make the terrain and units for it.

As for volunteer stuff I totally get it. However I have worked on stuff for others that was not fun but had to be done. I know other on the team have as well. You have done amazing work too, and I cannot thank you enough. However multimaps are like a whole other level. So much is hinging upon if they get done.

Plan B is to do like future mod has and making map scrips that have many maps on one map. I want to hold out for multimaps. But not if they never come. People have complained that there is no major project we are focused on. Well multimaps should be it.

And I don't even mean a polished version either. Just something to get maps generated and units moved from one map to the other. I am just afraid that the longer we wait, the less likely it will happen. Or even worse people on the team will disappear after awhile.

I hope you understand that I really do appreciate what you and the rest of the team do. I cannot even imagine how hard you guys work compared to my simple xml modding, graphics making and overall planning. I feel very privileged to even be part of this mod. And if I had the skills to I would be helping with multimaps too.

In sense I feel as helpless as I did when asking Afforess to make buildings for me in RoM/AND. And its really hard to request anything without looking like a greedy beggar. Especially on a project where everyone is doing this for fun.

If there is anything I can do to help please let me know.

My issue is that I'm bogged down and overloaded with projects I'd like to push to completion as it is. Once begun, diverting paths is potentially wasteful and disastrous to the overall effort in the first place. I want a more clear mind without being in the middle of other projects before stepping into something of this kind of complexity and magnitude.

But I find one thing leads to another. And that probably means equally as much that in due time, multimaps will fall squarely into the plan as the next hurdle to overcome before more can be completed. With patience, all projects will be completed eventually.

I'm following a self learning program here too and multi-maps is probably just a touch beyond where I'm comfortable in my knowledge and application. From what has been posted by Koshling, it didn't seem quite as much a trial as I had thought it might be given that I'm gradually achieving some comfortability with popup selection lists and unit missions in the first place. But there are still some areas there that would take some going out of the way to learn specifically and doing so would REALLY mess up the juggling act I'm involved in now in trying to reach the goals I've already set for myself. Had I expected I'd do any work on multi-maps at all from the beginning I might've started off heading that way in the first place but I went in other directions at first, thinking I'd never be able to offer anything to that project. Now... its an eventual inevitability.

I can understand how you and others may feel on the matter too. But surely you still have a lot planned that does not require this mechanism to be in place yet though?

@Thunderbrd

I am really amazed on how far you have come with your modding skills. My hats off to you. :hatsoff:

As for the multimaps. I just don't want them to get buried and forgotten and/or abandoned. If that means 4 months or more that's fine. As long as someone eventually makes them.

I can understand how you and others may feel on the matter too. But surely you still have a lot planned that does not require this mechanism to be in place yet though?

Oh of couse I am set for years even if multimaps are never made. But like Koshling said about wanting to do the fun stuff. Well the stuff I want to do once implemented is the fun stuff.

And technically I could start adding other stuff ahead of time. But I have been told by ls612 and SO to wait until multimaps are in place before putting that stuff in. Which is a catch 22. If we don't add that stuff multimaps wil not have anything, but if we do add them then the game will be slowed down with unusable content due to no multimaps.

Well, that makes sense. Unfortunately I can't help with an answer to get around that catch 22 situation yet.

Perhaps, if your finding yourself at a juncture where you're not sure what to work on 'next', it would be good for you to post a list of the goals you have in mind for yourself and we can all take a look at them and consider how they could be timed into development to best harmonize into the current design strategies we are each striving for independently? Not to say I think we should 'tell you what to do' by any means... just that it may be helpful to get feedback from the team on the various projects you have on your list. I'm trying to do this more myself.

@Thunderbrd

I am really amazed on how far you have come with your modding skills. My hats off to you. :hatsoff:

As for the multimaps. I just don't want them to get buried and forgotten and/or abandoned. If that means 4 months or more that's fine. As long as someone eventually makes them.



Oh of couse I am set for years even if multimaps are never made. But like Koshling said about wanting to do the fun stuff. Well the stuff I want to do once implemented is the fun stuff.

And technically I could start adding other stuff ahead of time. But I have been told by ls612 and SO to wait until multimaps are in place before putting that stuff in. Which is a catch 22. If we don't add that stuff multimaps wil not have anything, but if we do add them then the game will be slowed down with unusable content due to no multimaps.

AIAndy made a good point in the other thread, until we have a reliable way of getting to the Transhuman and Galactic Eras those eras will remain mostly unplayable and little to no Multi-Maps progress will be made. Part of this I suspect is due to how long turns take in the later game, which will be helped by aggressive multi-threading, but part of it is also that things change so often that is hard to keep up a game for 4 months (even for a dev like me). So I'd have to agree adding content there for now is not the best priority, the first priority should be making it easier to get to later eras (and have the AI be still competitive then). That has been a real problem for C2C for a very long time, and I'd like to look at that first before moving to TH and Galactic Era stuff.

Alternately a concerted effort at getting the start in X era working and then balanced may be a way to go also. That means we need to look at all buildings and decide two thingsat which tech do buildings become free to new cities. This would replace the python code we currently have for the advanced settlers. A good thing in my view.

what buildings are free at an era start. This would include National and pseudo national wonders like myths.

IIRC there is a minor bug in the free at tech to new cities which does not check for vicinity and other prereq requirements but that wont get addressed until we get some free at tech buildings out there.

We have a thread for this here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=478221).

Well, that makes sense. Unfortunately I can't help with an answer to get around that catch 22 situation yet.

Perhaps, if your finding yourself at a juncture where you're not sure what to work on 'next', it would be good for you to post a list of the goals you have in mind for yourself and we can all take a look at them and consider how they could be timed into development to best harmonize into the current design strategies we are each striving for independently? Not to say I think we should 'tell you what to do' by any means... just that it may be helpful to get feedback from the team on the various projects you have on your list. I'm trying to do this more myself.

Well as you guys do your projects I do chnage my task order to harmonize with any project that is being worked on. For instance if you went and worked on the disease stuff I would then focus my efforts on that. Or when people need icon/buttons I help out that way. But I think we all do this to some extent. I mean we are a team after all. Working together helps the project as a whole. Infact I recall you helping me out when I needed help with the metal ore stuff. Which was done because DH requested that I finally redo the metal resources.

AIAndy made a good point in the other thread, until we have a reliable way of getting to the Transhuman and Galactic Eras those eras will remain mostly unplayable and little to no Multi-Maps progress will be made. Part of this I suspect is due to how long turns take in the later game, which will be helped by aggressive multi-threading, but part of it is also that things change so often that is hard to keep up a game for 4 months (even for a dev like me). So I'd have to agree adding content there for now is not the best priority, the first priority should be making it easier to get to later eras (and have the AI be still competitive then). That has been a real problem for C2C for a very long time, and I'd like to look at that first before moving to TH and Galactic Era stuff.

What do you mean "reliable" because I have been to the Galactic Era (http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=314240&d=1329715918) before. It took a LONG time on snail but I got there. And with the viewports I can get there without having to resort to small maps.

What do you mean "reliable" because I have been to the Galactic Era (http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=314240&d=1329715918) before. It took a LONG time on snail but I got there. And with the viewports I can get there without having to resort to small maps.

Well, that was a very long time ago. I've yet to see anyone show me a save that is in the modern or later era on a modern version of C2C. And with larger maps turn times by then would be awful. And at any rate if one person out of the 5000 or so who play C2C gets to the TH era that isn't really 'reliable'.

I've yet to see anyone show me a save that is in the modern or later era on a modern version of C2C.

I could. I am in modern in my current game currently researching Guided Weapons and I nearly always play until the Galactic Era (though it could be more fun). And I have pointed out some errors in the bug thread the last months including saves. I even pointed out a number of times that I couldn´t finish a game as the income increased so crazily (probably because of a bug) that the game couldn´t cope with it. That was in Galactic Age.

That's a point too. More int conversions will be necessary to fully support the later eras...

I could. I am in modern in my current game currently researching Guided Weapons and I nearly always play until the Galactic Era (though it could be more fun). And I have pointed out some errors in the bug thread the last months including saves. I even pointed out a number of times that I couldn´t finish a game as the income increased so crazily (probably because of a bug) that the game couldn´t cope with it. That was in Galactic Age.

Please post that save (with the misbehaving gold) if you still have it, that sounds like something that might be addressable during the Freeze.

We also have to take in account that off world colonies and future units will have UBER maintenance costs.

EDIT: In fact it might be useful to put in some place holder buildings. Ones that would eventually go in on other planets but could be done just as Earth based buildings for now such as ....

Lunar Colony [National Wonder] -> Various Lunar Buildings

It would at least allow us to test some late game economics and buildings before the multimaps are put in place. And once they are we can just adjust the building requirements and/or remove any place holders.

I could. I am in modern in my current game currently researching Guided Weapons and I nearly always play until the Galactic Era (though it could be more fun). And I have pointed out some errors in the bug thread the last months including saves. I even pointed out a number of times that I couldn´t finish a game as the income increased so crazily (probably because of a bug) that the game couldn´t cope with it. That was in Galactic Age.

Please post that save (with the misbehaving gold) if you still have it, that sounds like something that might be addressable during the Freeze.

I found those old saves (here in the forum) and tried to load them with the current SVN but that failed, I had a CTD even before C2C was fully loaded. I guess these saves were simply too old, too much has changed since then (early January). I now will proceed with my current game and see if I observe something like this and post it in the bugs thread. Could be too late for the Freeze, though...

I found those old saves (here in the forum) and tried to load them with the current SVN but that failed, I had a CTD even before C2C was fully loaded. I guess these saves were simply too old, too much has changed since then (early January). I now will proceed with my current game and see if I observe something like this and post it in the bugs thread. Could be too late for the Freeze, though...

What? That should not be happening, Max Compat saves are designed to be resilent to that. Please post the save in the bugs/crashes thread.

On occasion after a change I still have to now and then delete the Cache file. Usually clears things up when the crash is taking place on modload.

On occasion after a change I still have to now and then delete the Cache file. Usually clears things up when the crash is taking place on modload.

He said it is crashing on trying to load a save. That certainly should not be happening, all saves are supposed to be backwards-compatable.

I had a CTD even before C2C was fully loaded.
I presume he was trying to open C2C directly from a double click on a save file.

Well as you guys do your projects I do chnage my task order to harmonize with any project that is being worked on. For instance if you went and worked on the disease stuff I would then focus my efforts on that. Or when people need icon/buttons I help out that way. But I think we all do this to some extent. I mean we are a team after all. Working together helps the project as a whole. Infact I recall you helping me out when I needed help with the metal ore stuff. Which was done because DH requested that I finally redo the metal resources.

What do you mean "reliable" because I have been to the Galactic Era (http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=314240&d=1329715918) before. It took a LONG time on snail but I got there. And with the viewports I can get there without having to resort to small maps.

Hydromancerx
I know that I'm just starting to participate a little more, but I've mentioned this idea several times and I think it would solve a lot of problems.

Optional Era Selection:

I think the best thing you could do for playtesting, and increasing player/modder access to other eras, is make it a priority to build in a Choose Starting Era option to C2C.

Eventually I also think you should be able to optionally select eras(including alternate ones) and adjust their possibility (dark age/alien invasion/post-apocalyptic) of launching. I would love to be able to control a dark age/apocalypse/ disaster in-game as well as in start options, and it's probability of triggering as well. It would also be nice to be able to adjust the timing of eras in-game as you play - game/research speed as an adjustable slider.

If you could start in the Trans-human or Galactic Eras directly, then you are alot more likely to comment on, or be able to quickly playtest them. It's all about accessibility.
If you can get to those eras easier, then you have more reason to start working on them. (might also get C2C a lot more players, those who prefer to skip the prehistoric, but want to help with the others.)

I think that even though I love them, that the Prehistoric and Future Eras, as well the Alternate potential ones, should be as selectable and controllable as possible, so that people can experience C2C easier.


And another idea.
You could even set up default (recommended) configurations of starting game play.
1. New Player (tutorial) - difficulty easy - map Standard Earth, etc. Prehistoric starting Era, normal historical path.
2. Explorer mode (random generation) - GeoRealism Map generation, most interesting and new features. Most recommended different (non-vanilla) experience to see features.
3. Max Historical (fixed path tech-tree) -Standard or GEM earth map, most probable future tech tree / options. Most like basic Civ Experience + C2C enhancements. Most common experience.
4. Max Settings (unpredictable time frames, random alternate era selection) GEM or GeoRealism random map, maxed out options for maxed out computers. Playing C2C to it's best limits/possibilities. Max default experience for those who want to push the limits.
5. Playtesting mode (Enables new features and individual modules as selectable) - for playtesters and modders to change features and reset features on the fly. Eras/features could be accessed, sped up, slowed down, removed, and added on the fly for playtesting.

This could make multi-maps more accessible.

Well, that was a very long time ago. I've yet to see anyone show me a save that is in the modern or later era on a modern version of C2C. And with larger maps turn times by then would be awful. And at any rate if one person out of the 5000 or so who play C2C gets to the TH era that isn't really 'reliable'.
I could provide a save 4 techs away from modern on a build from about a month ago. It doesn't take that long to get there even on Eons, took me two or three days of playing. The game does kinda break down at late Industrial though, since mechanics like pollution and crime are poorly balanced at that stage, and buildings/techs have so many interdependencies that keeping track of them becomes a chore.

I presume he was trying to open C2C directly from a double click on a save file.
That´s true. I pressed the shift key though when I tried to load and it didn´t work either. Strangely enough I also had problems loading other savegames after that. I´ll look closer into this and keep you informed (in the Bugs thread).

I could provide a save 4 techs away from modern on a build from about a month ago. It doesn't take that long to get there even on Eons, took me two or three days of playing. The game does kinda break down at late Industrial though, since mechanics like pollution and crime are poorly balanced at that stage, and buildings/techs have so many interdependencies that keeping track of them becomes a chore.

Well, I'm glad to know that there are people (albeit a few) getting that far. After we release V29 I'll create a thread for those who are in the Modern or TH eras (after things start to get wacky) to discuss that and we can work on balancing things that late.

Optional Era Selection:

I think the best thing you could do for playtesting, and increasing player/modder access to other eras, is make it a priority to build in a Choose Starting Era option to C2C.

This comes standard with Civ IV. What wee need to do is

Identify which buildings should be free in all cities for each era start.
Figure out how many cities (and their population) a nation should get at the start of the game.
Figure out what units they should start with, how many and where they should be placed.
Figure out what improvements should be done at start.


The code for this already exists, as far as I know most is modable in the XML. We just need to spend some time on it. Just like we did for when we did the building and unit costs.

One problem is that some people insist that things be done their way eg no buildings with any drawbacks. Personally I feel we should just say "tough if you don't want to play the early eras you just have to put up with the 'bad' decisions of your predecessors":lol::mischief:.

To get an idea on how many cities, pop, improvements etc you should get we should have a thread where people post those stats. Would also very got to get an idea to scale the cultural heritage missions.