http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39830 >
William Allen Simpson wrote:
> Anyway, this shows my solution is on the right track. The tile will
> point to the dummy for owner information; they will always be the same.
>
Sadly, unless I'm able to think of some other method in the futur
http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39830 >
Finally found the logic line that's causing one of the problems:
citytools.c package_dumb_city() line 1377:
if (ptile->owner) {
/* Use tile owner information not city owner information. */
packet->owner = ptile->owner->player_n
http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39830 >
Per Inge Mathisen wrote:
> But why is this a problem? The vision code and the border code should
> not interact at all in the current design.
>
And that, my friend, is the root of the problem. As the border expands,
the vision isn't expandi
http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39830 >
On 11/5/07, William Allen Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The server "knows" the city isn't there anymore. It expands the border,
> but doesn't update the vision. Probably, send_map_is_known_and_seen()
> needs to return TRUE when the t
http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39830 >
Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> If you are thinking about the distinction between server view of the
> world, and client views of the world (both contained within the
> server), then yes, these view may be radically different due to fog of
> war. Ho
http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39830 >
On 11/2/07, William Allen Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Per, I need help understanding this one. Is there a reason that border
> expansion doesn't include vision expansion? That's not intuitive, and
> that's not how commercial civ bo
