We've had the recalc feature now for almost two years, and I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to just have it done manually when there is a checksum difference. It still claims that it is 'beta functionality', but at this point I'd say that it is probably stable enough to make standard. What does everyone else think?
Automatic Recalculation
- Thread starter ls612
- Start date
It's time consuming, and personally I spend a LOT of time loading save games that span various recent revisions in order to track bugs - I'd hate to be forced to wait for the recalc on those every time, when in most cases (for debugging purposes) it doesn't matter
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Good points. I can see why it'd be desirable to have it this way. Would surely look better for the standard occasionally updating C2C player.
We still need to build this out for units though... would've been helpful to have all this time. It's a project on my list - but that's a pretty long list. Eventually I'm sure I'll get frustrated enough and want to include the units in the recalc cycle.
BUT - that may be too time consuming for systems in a multi-player connection so I may want to divide the two so the units recalc is a separate function entirely.
Additionally, we get cases, like in our mp games, where consistent recalc occurrences are at least letting us know something is amiss. Doing it automatically would just make us sit there wondering why it's taking so long for our turns to come up after loading the game and could deny us the opportunity to realize there's an issue that can/should be resolved.
So I'd be reluctant to make it just auto-happen in the background.
That, too, is oh so true. Particularly on the saves that are fairly well developed into the game already.
strategyonly
C2C Supreme Commander
I'd have to agree here, sometimes when i am doing testing, i go back sometimes 5 times for each turn, and look at things, and doing an auto-recalc would be unbeneficial to me doing this kind testing i dont so it that way all the time but sometimes only twice.
Thats why turn times and loading times are so important to me. Again thatsa just me.
I like it the way it is because that way i cant forget to remember to do a recal sometimes.
But i will go along with the consensus, no problem.
It could only happen in Final Release builds, debug builds could stay how it is currently.
strategyonly
C2C Supreme Commander
Thats makes sense.
I often do initial debugging from final release builds (from BBAI logs and so on), because playing a single turn of a large game on the debug build can take an hour or more, so this doesn't work for me.
Making it a GlobalDefine and defaulting it to auto would be ok though.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
I was thinking the same thing on the first point. The second... ugh, another file to have to remember to ignore including in a commit. Not horrible... workable... but its like that lift in the pavement you watch out for whenever you're walking down the sidewalk - don't forget it or you might trip up.
I wouldn't be against it though.
You can tell TortoiseSVN to ignore it for you.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
What if I want to commit changes to it later? Is it easy enough to get out of the ignore list at that point? What if changes are made to it that are critical that I'm not aware of and I go to update and it ignores the updates on that file because its on the ignore list? Will it let me know its been altered on the SVN since I decided to ignore it?
If you use ignore-on-commit it only does not commit it by default. You can still select it on the commit dialog (it is at the end of the list) and it will still update your files like normal if they have been changed on the server.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Ok... sounds functional for me then.
Similar threads
