Re: [Freeciv-Dev] State of Civworld
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Daniel Markstedt wrote: But that's beside the point. Freeciv 2.2 won't be out for years. Should 2.1 users be left without a map editor? It will certainly be the bane for Freeciv 2.1 as a platform for scenario creation. Can the editor code be easily backported to S2_1? The map editor was IIRC the one feature we decided should be decisive for releasing 2.2, which means, once it was done, we should release. There are no very big changes in 2.2 that sets it apart from 2.1 other than this, from what I remember (perhaps apart from the generalized movement code?). There are also some very nice new mod-friendly features in 2.2, that should make 2.2 a good release for making Freeciv a good mod-platform. I believe that forward porting civworld, or finishing then backporting the map editor, would be tasks taking equal or greater time than merely finishing the map editor then releasing 2.2. Now if we could only find someone with the time to do this... - Per ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
Re: [Freeciv-Dev] State of Civworld
I have tried out the editor in the development branch before. What it does, it does well, but a lot of functionality hasn't been implemented yet. But that's beside the point. Freeciv 2.2 won't be out for years. Should 2.1 users be left without a map editor? It will certainly be the bane for Freeciv 2.1 as a platform for scenario creation. Can the editor code be easily backported to S2_1? ~Daniel On 2/5/07, Vasco Alexandre da Silva Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: IIRC there were some port attempts, but there were too many changes to the codebase since then. It was eventually decided that we should try to incorporate the Civworld functionality into the regular civclient, via an edit mode, changing it to enable remote map editing. I believe some of these features are in CVS right now, but support is rudimentary and poorly tested. On 2/5/07, Daniel Markstedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I tried the old unofficial win32 build of Civworld from late 2004 > (http://deepblue.sk/~r0b0/freeciv/ > ), and it seems to be working fine with 2.0.8. The instructions were > outdated though and potentially confusing, so I modified the package > slightly and uploaded to our ftp. > > How much would the Civworld code for 2.0 have to be modified to work > with 2.1? Even though a build-in editor is in the works for 2.2, we > should still IMO have a Civworld 2.1. > > ~Daniel > > ___ > Freeciv-dev mailing list > Freeciv-dev@gna.org > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev > -- Vasco Alexandre da Silva Costa ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
Re: [Freeciv-Dev] State of Civworld
IIRC there were some port attempts, but there were too many changes to the codebase since then. It was eventually decided that we should try to incorporate the Civworld functionality into the regular civclient, via an edit mode, changing it to enable remote map editing. I believe some of these features are in CVS right now, but support is rudimentary and poorly tested. On 2/5/07, Daniel Markstedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I tried the old unofficial win32 build of Civworld from late 2004 (http://deepblue.sk/~r0b0/freeciv/ ), and it seems to be working fine with 2.0.8. The instructions were outdated though and potentially confusing, so I modified the package slightly and uploaded to our ftp. How much would the Civworld code for 2.0 have to be modified to work with 2.1? Even though a build-in editor is in the works for 2.2, we should still IMO have a Civworld 2.1. ~Daniel ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev -- Vasco Alexandre da Silva Costa ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
