Single Player bugs and crashes v36 plus (SVN) - After the 24th of October 2015

[Toffer90]

Using Standout status removes all invisibility from a unit.
I assume hunters will eventually be given unitcombat specific cargo space to load the subdued animals at a size invisibility penalty per loaded subdued animal. Am I wrong in my assumption TB?

Anyways, AI need to be taught that when escorting a unit the escorts need to be more visible than the ones escorted.

 

[olduser]

Ok, the last line here is the call that's causing trouble:

void CvUnit::move(CvPlot* pPlot, bool bShow)
{
	PROFILE_FUNC();

	FAssert(canMoveOrAttackInto(pPlot) || isMadeAttack());

	CvPlot* pOldPlot = plot();

	changeMoves(pPlot->movementCost(this, plot()));

	//GC.getGameINLINE().logOOSSpecial(16, getID(), pPlot->getX_INLINE(), pPlot->getY_INLINE());
	setXY(pPlot->getX_INLINE(), pPlot->getY_INLINE(), true, true, bShow && pPlot->isVisibleToWatchingHuman(), bShow);

	//change feature
	FeatureTypes featureType = pPlot->getFeatureType();
	if(featureType != NO_FEATURE)
	{
		CvString featureString(GC.getFeatureInfo(featureType).getOnUnitChangeTo());
		if(!featureString.IsEmpty())
		{
			FeatureTypes newFeatureType = (FeatureTypes) GC.getInfoTypeForString(featureString);
			pPlot->setFeatureType(newFeatureType);
		}
	}

	if (getOwnerINLINE() == GC.getGameINLINE().getActivePlayer())
	{
		if (!(pPlot->isOwned()))
		{
			//spawn birds if trees present - JW
			if (featureType != NO_FEATURE)
			{
				if (GC.getASyncRand().get(100) < GC.getFeatureInfo(featureType).getEffectProbability())
				{
					EffectTypes eEffect = (EffectTypes)GC.getInfoTypeForString(GC.getFeatureInfo(featureType).getEffectType());
					gDLL->getEngineIFace()->TriggerEffect(eEffect, pPlot->getPoint(), (float)(GC.getASyncRand().get(360)));
					gDLL->getInterfaceIFace()->playGeneralSound("AS3D_UN_BIRDS_SCATTER", pPlot->getPoint());
				}
			}
		}
	}

	CvEventReporter::getInstance().unitMove(pPlot, this, pOldPlot);

This is happening during the city build multithreading. As soon as the unit is built, it's answering to a contract and immediately runs off to answer it - the thread is still not the main thread (it's thread 3 apparently.)

Not sure what's being done on unitMove in python but surely the potential for this issue has been with us for a while.

I don't want to simply delete this event report... I'm not sure if that's even a fix really. And placing it on a queue ... :shrug:

I think this probably would enable one with understanding to envision how this is taking place:

 	CvGameCoreDLL.dll!IFPPythonCall(const char * callerFn=0x05838960, const char * moduleName=0x0583894c, const char * fxnName=0x05838944, void * fxnArg=0x1c8be630, long * result=0x715eefb4)  Line 721 + 0x63 bytes	C++
 	CvGameCoreDLL.dll!CvDllPythonEvents::postEvent(CyArgsList & eventData={...}, const char * eventName=0x05838f04)  Line 71 + 0x24 bytes	C++
 	CvGameCoreDLL.dll!CvDllPythonEvents::reportUnitMove(CvPlot * pPlot=0x630341b4, CvUnit * pUnit=0x7a010458, CvPlot * pOldPlot=0x630466dc)  Line 805	C++
 	CvGameCoreDLL.dll!CvEventReporter::unitMove(CvPlot * pPlot=0x630341b4, CvUnit * pUnit=0x7a010458, CvPlot * pOldPlot=0x630466dc)  Line 374	C++
>	CvGameCoreDLL.dll!CvUnit::move(CvPlot * pPlot=0x630341b4, bool bShow=true)  Line 7325	C++
 	CvGameCoreDLL.dll!CvSelectionGroup::groupMove(CvPlot * pPlot=0x630341b4, bool bCombat=false, CvUnit * pCombatUnit=0x00000000, bool bEndMove=false)  Line 5531	C++
 	CvGameCoreDLL.dll!CvSelectionGroup::groupPathTo(int iX=88, int iY=28, int iFlags=4)  Line 5697	C++
 	CvGameCoreDLL.dll!CvSelectionGroup::continueMission(int iSteps=0)  Line 2512 + 0x22 bytes	C++
 	CvGameCoreDLL.dll!CvSelectionGroup::startMission()  Line 2403 + 0xa bytes	C++
 	CvGameCoreDLL.dll!CvSelectionGroup::activateHeadMission()  Line 8039 + 0x8 bytes	C++
 	CvGameCoreDLL.dll!CvSelectionGroup::insertAtEndMissionQueue(MissionData mission={...}, bool bStart=true)  Line 7760 + 0x8 bytes	C++
 	CvGameCoreDLL.dll!CvSelectionGroup::pushMissionInternal(MissionTypes eMission=MISSION_MOVE_TO, int iData1=88, int iData2=28, int iFlags=4, bool bAppend=false, bool bManual=false, MissionAITypes eMissionAI=MISSIONAI_CONTRACT, CvPlot * pMissionAIPlot=0x62f8e664, CvUnit * pMissionAIUnit=0x00000000)  Line 696 + 0x34 bytes	C++
 	CvGameCoreDLL.dll!CvSelectionGroup::pushMission(MissionTypes eMission=MISSION_MOVE_TO, int iData1=88, int iData2=28, int iFlags=4, bool bAppend=false, bool bManual=false, MissionAITypes eMissionAI=MISSIONAI_CONTRACT, CvPlot * pMissionAIPlot=0x62f8e664, CvUnit * pMissionAIUnit=0x00000000)  Line 661	C++
 	CvGameCoreDLL.dll!CvCity::completeOrderProcessing(const OrderData * pOrderData=0x715efd2c)  Line 19991	C++

Seems to me that units shouldn't be off and running while multithreading is still engaged. Also a little odd that the unit is already moving while the city processing is still taking place.

Ok i'am fixing this one. That issue is a old one and i was working on a fix last year but i must have forgotten to complete it.

 

[Thunderbrd]

There are some possible coding issues in the new Ambush command leading to slowdowns at the moment in case anybody wonders about increased turn times.

Interesting. Let me know why... I wouldn't have thought it would've added much time so your insights would be invaluable.

Thats what i have been saying for sometime now, thx for confirming that . . . .SO

Ambush hasn't been in for some time now. Just went in over the weekend. Arrest was a little earlier and I must wonder since it's built on similar principles if it is causing some delay as well. I did, however, remove a no longer needed portion of code that I WOULD assume would create potentially quite a bit of slowdown in developed games.

I need to get a better understanding of what Arrest and Ambush could be causing but I do consider it important to make sure it processes quickly.

And then there's been long turn times from the AI that would be nice to find ways to speed up significantly.

Curious, do these affect games that have not activated the Option? Is there even an Option to turn Ambush Off?

JosEPh

Ambush is for the core. IMO it's something firaxis should've provided already but they didn't play around too much with invisible units so it never became too important for them.

This is a worrying development, why don't hunters protect their catch any more? What about scouts are they the same? How are you supposed to get those animals you capture back home now? Historically hunters did not take a bunch of fighters out with them when they hunt.

1) Because they have some stealth and not all units will see them.

2) Scouts are not rigged for stealth but on Size Matters their low group size may make them unseen by some.

3) Use the standout promo to have them be completely visible to all. (All of this only impacts the Hide and Seek option.)

Also, consider that the reason warriors didn't need to accompany hunters is largely because hunters are usually pretty good at evading detection by wandering militant forces, the lack of which is the primary reason why hunters NEED protection when out in the wild without stealth skills provided under this option. I've found hunters incapable of surviving neanderthals in particular for long without some help.

Using Standout status removes all invisibility from a unit.
I assume hunters will eventually be given unitcombat specific cargo space to load the subdued animals at a size invisibility penalty per loaded subdued animal. Am I wrong in my assumption TB?

I would really like to implement that, yes. It would be a good alternative if you're not going to play with animals teleporting back and you want to keep your hunter invisible to militant forces.

Eventually I'd like to complexify animal AI for Hide and Seek and make it so that this stealth for hunters becomes critical to taking down many animals that would run as soon as they see any potential threat. So having an alternative mechanism like loading animals would be perfect for giving ways to lengthen the span of the hunt. And I'm going to need to implement some AI for bounty hunter style criminals and ruffians that operate along similar lines for captives so it shouldn't be hard to work this out for hunters at the same time.

Anyways, AI need to be taught that when escorting a unit the escorts need to be more visible than the ones escorted.

Very true. Surprisingly this will be more difficult. Will be tricky to handle status promos without it becoming extremely hard-coded. But it does need to be considered in this case especially.

Ok i'am fixing this one. That issue is a old one and i was working on a fix last year but i must have forgotten to complete it.

Thanks Alberts! Nice to have you on the case. I'm pretty sure I have the fix to not being able to capture cities at the moment. Again, though, please send me info on how the new commands would be causing slowdowns and how to best resolve that. I presume that converting to a mission (sadly much more complicated) would help?

 

[Nevets_]

Found a bug with the Tuareg Camel Rider:

SVN 8925

When the unit is selected the UI doesn't update the action bar from the previous selection, and the unit list and mouseover info panel aren't shown. Attached are example screenshots of before & after selection and a savegame.

Edit: Just discovered that now clicking on any action buttons doesn't work even after I select other units or cities.

 

[dummy1929]

I love the idea of the Hide & Seek mod, but I'm not sure I understand how it is supposed to work. I was attacking a group of barbarian horsemen with my stack of deer archers and bowmen, which included a general and a worker. None of my units are on standout.
On attacking, the horsemen retreat. I send some deer archers out to chase them down, the already weakened horsemen retreat again, sometimes into my main stack. They are then visible as present on the same tile; I can't attack them. I check next turn and see that my general and worker are gone; none of the combat units are affected. Is there something I am not getting here?

(I don't have the save file for the turn when it happened, sorry.)

 

[Toffer90]

I love the idea of the Hide & Seek mod, but I'm not sure I understand how it is supposed to work. I was attacking a group of barbarian horsemen with my stack of deer archers and bowmen, which included a general and a worker. None of my units are on standout.
On attacking, the horsemen retreat. I send some deer archers out to chase them down, the already weakened horsemen retreat again, sometimes into my main stack. They are then visible as present on the same tile; I can't attack them. I check next turn and see that my general and worker are gone; none of the combat units are affected. Is there something I am not getting here?

(I don't have the save file for the turn when it happened, sorry.)

The enemy horseman could not see your defenders so it was capable of withdrawing into the stack with the great general in it.
There is obviously some tweaking needed concerning the newly introduced module H&S.
For now, the only way you could have avoided it, would be to always have 1 unit with standout status protecting the general/worker.

 

[Toffer90]

Found a bug with the Tuareg Camel Rider:

SVN 8925

When the unit is selected the UI doesn't update the action bar from the previous selection, and the unit list and mouseover info panel aren't shown. Attached are example screenshots of before & after selection and a savegame.

Edit: Just discovered that now clicking on any action buttons doesn't work even after I select other units or cities.

I fixed the same problem for the regular camel rider right before v36 release. That the Tuareg Camel Rider had the same problem was unknown to me then.

@Sparth: Does the Tuareg Camel Rider use the same model as camel riders did before, its nif is named different, but is it essentially the same model? Can we just use the new model I made for regular camel rider?
Edit: Forget it, I checked and the model has a dude with sword and shield, I guess I need to remake this one in blender too. Luckily the camel itself is the same, so I won't even have to animate it again.

 

[Pit2015]

Look up the new savegame in marathon game speed that joseph provided:

Savegame: Test-GW Marathon BC-7557.7z Page 2 in http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=552901

"Thanx, ok alot of AI problems at your marathon game speed, like shaka zulu civ has again -118 gold per turn, sitting bull is building log rams like hell also about -50 gold, also crime is hitting hard again all civs, most civs will go bankrupt, you guys have to fix the AI first before i will start a new long game. I made all civs again visible in this savefile, load the attached savegame and look into the citys of the AI civs and look up these problems. "

There you can see alot of problems 43 AI civs to watch...

"India, australia, zulu, aborigines, sitting bull... france... all to -50 to -200 gold a turn now, the others will follow when they have the tech that gives them the crime, they build more citys and useless stacks of troops, log rams."

 

[Thunderbrd]

I love the idea of the Hide & Seek mod, but I'm not sure I understand how it is supposed to work. I was attacking a group of barbarian horsemen with my stack of deer archers and bowmen, which included a general and a worker. None of my units are on standout.
On attacking, the horsemen retreat. I send some deer archers out to chase them down, the already weakened horsemen retreat again, sometimes into my main stack. They are then visible as present on the same tile; I can't attack them. I check next turn and see that my general and worker are gone; none of the combat units are affected. Is there something I am not getting here?

(I don't have the save file for the turn when it happened, sorry.)

The enemy horseman could not see your defenders so it was capable of withdrawing into the stack with the great general in it.
There is obviously some tweaking needed concerning the newly introduced module H&S.
For now, the only way you could have avoided it, would be to always have 1 unit with standout status protecting the general/worker.

Sounds like that's what happened. Deer riders can have some stealth so if they were all that was left to guard the general and worker then this doesn't surprise but if bowmen were there I'm surprised they would've not been visible. Bowmen should have no greater invisibility than the worker and general would've.

 

[Pit2015]

So i will try to adapt the scenario to fix some of the current AI problems, i need to know:

1. Will you give the community disscussions building or the animal myth requirment free from start to all civs? So the AI can build myths directly from start? AI currently falling back with research because it takes them to long to build knowledge inhertiance because the AI never builds community disscussions. So they dont get animal myth requirment for a long time and so they are to late able to build animal myths and increasing there research output. Or can you fix that now so the AI builds community discussions building?

Otherwise i can fix that by giving a free community discussions building to all civs in UEM scenario.

Also maybe try to set the AI conserve gold variable higher again, maybe that will help to dont make the AI -50 to -200 gold a turn in later game. Toffer showed me this variable here in this thread before somewhere, it was 50 now its 40, maybe set it to 80.

 

[Thunderbrd]

So i will try to adapt the scenario to fix some of the current AI problems, i need to know:

1. Will you give the community disscussions building or the animal myth requirment free from start to all civs? So the AI can build myths directly from start? AI currently falling back with research because it takes them to long to build knowledge inhertiance because the AI never builds community disscussions. So they dont get animal myth requirment for a long time and so they are to late able to build animal myths and increasing there research output. Or can you fix that now so the AI builds community discussions building?

Otherwise i can fix that by giving a free community discussions building to all civs in UEM scenario.

Also maybe try to set the AI conserve gold variable higher again, maybe that will help to dont make the AI -50 to -200 gold a turn in later game. Toffer showed me this variable here in this thread before somewhere, it was 50 now its 40, maybe set it to 80.

1) Put an AI weight value on community discussions for now. I'm not sure what level would be appropriate. Would probably start with 50 or something. The only other way we're going to inspire the AI to build the community discussions (which would lose all purpose if it was to be made free-built) would be to teach the AI that they need to enhance their positive property values... that's going to be a bit tricky but should be accomplishable... just not overnight so for now setting an AI weight on that building in the xml would do the trick.

2) That 'conserve gold' variable should not be tampered with. Doing so, particularly in the direction you're looking to adjust it, will cause the AI to stop spreading cities.

 

[Pit2015]

Anyone please provide a savegame here where you have played some hundred turns with a normal or your own game, i want to check if the AI still hast these gold problems if you start without extra gold, when you start with 0 gold, so maybe the 20000 extra gold on my scenario will freak out the AI so they think they can overbuild units and buildings because they have enouth gold left, please provide a savegame of your own games with 300-5000 turns.

EDIT:
For your information:
"Here look, i now set all to 0 gold in joseph's savegame at turn 398 and they still doing about -70 gold, also with new SVN update, the aboriginals i dont set the gold to 0 you see they have -106 now in joseph's game:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=401734&d=1449686547

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=401735&d=1449686547
http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=401736&d=1449686547
http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=401737&d=1449686567
http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=401738&d=1449686567

Will the AI be able to continue the game with that -gold or will they die or get under/be destroyed?

Also i dont understand why some AI dont has red faces... australia has... cheat for the AI that has been forgoten to give it to australia?

Maybe more AI weight to crime reducing buildings and education buildings will help and less AI weight to unit building if possible. Or teach the AI to not build more units as 4 city defense when low at gold. AI should not be able to build units when they have -gold. Maybe mod no unit building when they have -gold/negative balance. AI looks good to fight disease when they can build healers, but to mutch of these healers will cost to mutch unit maintainance, consider to make helaers and units like this that are non combat for free without the need for maintainance cost for them, but then there must be a limit for healers in a city or they will build them endless. These many healers sucks alot of gold from the AI also.

 

[Cosmic Fox]

At revision: 8931

I found an odd issue, barbarians are taking goody huts.

using Planet Gen_68 script, playing Americans, 2nd Invisible scout, it fixes itself but it stayed that way for a good 20-30 secs.

here are screenshots guys. Let me know if save is needed.

I forgot to crop a couple, sorry about second monitor. :/

 

[JosEPh_II]

Anyone please provide a savegame here where you have played some hundred turns with a normal or your own game, i want to check if the AI still hast these gold problems if you start without extra gold, when you start with 0 gold, so maybe the 20000 extra gold on my scenario will freak out the AI so they think they can overbuild units and buildings because they have enouth gold left, please provide a savegame of your own games with 300-5000 turns.

EDIT:
For your information:
"Here look, i now set all to 0 gold in joseph's savegame at turn 398 and they still doing about -70 gold, also with new SVN update, the aboriginals i dont set the gold to 0 you see they have -106 now in joseph's game:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=401734&d=1449686547

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=401735&d=1449686547
http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=401736&d=1449686547
http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=401737&d=1449686567
http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=401738&d=1449686567

Will the AI be able to continue the game with that -gold or will they die or get under/be destroyed?

Also i dont understand why some AI dont has red faces... australia has... cheat for the AI that has been forgoten to give it to australia?

Maybe more AI weight to crime reducing buildings and education buildings will help and less AI weight to unit building if possible. Or teach the AI to not build more units as 4 city defense when low at gold. AI should not be able to build units when they have -gold. Maybe mod no unit building when they have -gold/negative balance. AI looks good to fight disease when they can build healers, but to mutch of these healers will cost to mutch unit maintainance, consider to make helaers and units like this that are non combat for free without the need for maintainance cost for them, but then there must be a limit for healers in a city or they will build them endless. These many healers sucks alot of gold from the AI also.

@Pit,
Please stop posting this kind of stuff in the Bug and Crash thread. It belongs in the Caveman2Cosmos Discussion thread.

Also the word is "Much" not mutch.

Plus you need to update your Scenario to the latest SVN.

Finally the game save I provided you was from your 2.4 version with it's attached settings problems. I provided it as a courtesy to help you, not for you to bludgeon the Bug thread with. Please consider that next time.

JosEPh

 

[Thunderbrd]

At revision: 8931

I found an odd issue, barbarians are taking goody huts.

using Planet Gen_68 script, playing Americans, 2nd Invisible scout, it fixes itself but it stayed that way for a good 20-30 secs.

here are screenshots guys. Let me know if save is needed.

I forgot to crop a couple, sorry about second monitor. :/

These screenshots don't appear to me to prove that barbs are taking goody huts. It looks like the hut was known about there but when you went and put visibility on the plot, it had been taken by then.

Let's say you get a map result from a goody hut. It will show you where the goodies currently are on the 'exposed' plots. But if another civilization has moved through it by the time you get there and put visibility on the plot, it will appear to be 'taken' as you arrive. If a barbarian unit (such as the animal in the pic there) happens to currently be on that plot, the animation of the removal of the goody hut can make it appear that the unit 'took' the hut when in fact they just happen to be there already.

That's my suspicion of how this played out.

Barbs patently cannot obtain goody huts and since the last time I made any changes to that region of code I've seen barbs appropriately go and stand on a goody hut's plot without taking the hut themselves. In fact, this happened in my most recent test scenario setup so I KNOW the code hasn't been changed to allow it.

 

[Harrier]

I've seen barbs appropriately go and stand on a goody hut's plot without taking the hut themselves. In fact, this happened in my most recent test scenario setup so I KNOW the code hasn't been changed to allow it.

Not playing the latest version, but in every game played I have seen this. I actually thought the Barbs were coded to protect the goody huts.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Not playing the latest version, but in every game played I have seen this. I actually thought the Barbs were coded to protect the goody huts.

They most certainly are. I found that they do this with a little TOO much priority imo, since some attacks perhaps should be first considered. I've included ambush attacks as a priority above this point but I'm still thinking even attacks out to one turn away that could be easily won should take a precedence over running off to goody huts.

 

[Harrier]

but I'm still thinking even attacks out to one turn away that could be easily won should take a precedence over running off to goody huts.

That would seem logical. It is what a lot of human players would do. As long as you scan the tiles around the goody hut, to check it can not be taken by another unit (what we can see on screen). I would rather take a goody hut (for the possible bonus) than attack another unit. So even though the barb can not take it, it should defend it IMO.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Honestly though the problem is that if there's a goody hut on the continent, a spawned barb will ignore everything to get to it. It's not a purely localized matter.

 

[Pit2015]

@Pit,
Please stop posting this kind of stuff in the Bug and Crash thread. It belongs in the Caveman2Cosmos Discussion thread.

Also the word is "Much" not mutch.

Plus you need to update your Scenario to the latest SVN.

Finally the game save I provided you was from your 2.4 version with it's attached settings problems. I provided it as a courtesy to help you, not for you to bludgeon the Bug thread with. Please consider that next time.

JosEPh

Dont cry old man. Better go and fix the bugs that i reportet correctly in the bug thread here. These bugs not limited to my scenario, they are in every game. I am finishing the new test version, if you want to test it look in my scenario thread later.