Topic: I think I solved the double-fighter bug..

[FireSoul]

You see that topic? That's right. I really do think I've solved it. My tests show that I have.

Setup: 3 PCs. 1 as my own D2 server, and the other 2 as clients.
Time it took: Been trying all sorts of things since Tuesday..
Mission: Met_17PatrolEnemy  (found to cause it)

I'm sure some of you spotted the "Luc's Test Server" lately. This is what it was for.. and guess what, I think I fixed it.


Now, pay attention..
Anywhere you have a ship creation like this...

-------------------------------------
   mCreateShip( typeid( tAttackTeamShip ),
             shipScriptDescription.fClassName.c_str(),
             kStartPosition_W,
             shipScriptDescription.fMetaDatabaseID,
             gWC.fNWCustID++, 0, 0, -1, -1,
             shipScriptDescription.fCustomName.c_str(),
             static_cast<eShipOptions>( option | kCanBeCarrier | kStartPositionCanBeOffset ) );
-------------------------------------

.. you gotta find the file that handles the typeid.. (in this case, AttackTeamShip.cpp).
In there,  look for the mSetupState function and change it to something more restrictive:

-------------------------------------
void tAttackTeamShip::mSetupState()
{
   tTeamInfo* ti = fMissionInfo->mGetTeamHandle( mGetTeam() );
   if (ti)
   {
      if (! ( (!ti->mIsTeamHumanControlled()) && (!gScriptInterface.mIsHost()) ) )
      {
         mRegisterState( new tAttackTeamShipInitialState( ) );
         mGotoState( typeid( tAttackTeamShipInitialState ) );
      }
   }
}
-------------------------------------


Prevent NON-hosts from setting up the TeamState IF it's also an AI. If it's a player, you need the TeamState for the nonhost.


Now, I'm gonna try to compile as many missions as possible, but can someone get NuclearWessels and Karnak to see this? Thanks.

-- Luc

[FVA_C_ Blade_ XC]

 

[Durin]

 

[FireSoul]

Note: I think this also serves for the double-damage bug, which in my opinion is one and the same..  I will of course need someone to put up a test server..

[Green]

Green looks left towards J'inn, tilts head, scratches ear.  Green look right towards Hooch, tilts head, scratches ear.  Green looks back towards Krueg, tilts head, scratches ear.

What is a "shipScriptDescription.fClassName.c_str(),"?

Receives a bunch of hunched shoulders and 'ida know' replies ... "but it looks to be a good thing."

[Strafer]

What is a "shipScriptDescription.fClassName.c_str(),"?

A function requiring no parameters within a C++ Class, itself being passed as a parameter to another function. 

[Green]

What is a "shipScriptDescription.fClassName.c_str(),"?

A function requiring no parameters within a C++ Class, itself being passed as a parameter to another function. 

Green looks back at same audience, receives same response.  But knows whatever these magical words are that have been spoken are good.

[FPF-DieHard]

I guess there will be a new dowload fo the GW3 test server.

J'inn, reply to your email.

Karnak, will this fix work in your scripts?

[Lepton]

So the opposing AI's "state" was being set up twice before and this prevents that??

[FireSoul]

So the opposing AI's "state" was being set up twice before and this prevents that??

Technically, this was not "Double", it was "Multiplied by as many live players there are in the game". But in essence, yes. All non-hosts had their own sets of weapons and fighters on AI units. This seems to prevent that to happen. 


Edit: To make this a bit clearer..
.. each player's machine Always had and always will have their own version of each ship while in game, but only the host's should be the one used (and active).  It's like when you capture a carrier: it can spew out a bunch of fresh fighters.

Well.. that's because YOUR machine just took over and by its calculations, all the fighters are still inside. Proper capture code should be added to prevent this from happening.. but that's not something I want to get into..   The code for that exists in Coopace and I hope NuclearWessels or someone else could pick up on that.

-- Luc

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

Damn fine job, FS.

Thank you.

[Bonk]

Good work FireSoul!

Well.. that's because YOUR machine just took over and by its calculations, all the fighters are still inside. Proper capture code should be added to prevent this from happening.. but that's not something I want to get into..   The code for that exists in Coopace and I hope NuclearWessels or someone else could pick up on that.

So when can we expect say a half-dozen "Evil-Luc" D2 mission scripts?

[Strafer]

So when can we expect say a half-dozen "Evil-Luc" D2 mission scripts?

I suggested a handful of builds to have other test them, but more in an -AC Alan Cox fashion. Wouldn't want a repeat of the whole OPPLUS 4.0 thingie...

[FireSoul]

Good work FireSoul!

Well.. that's because YOUR machine just took over and by its calculations, all the fighters are still inside. Proper capture code should be added to prevent this from happening.. but that's not something I want to get into..   The code for that exists in Coopace and I hope NuclearWessels or someone else could pick up on that.

So when can we expect say a half-dozen "Evil-Luc" D2 mission scripts?

My personal preference would be for NuclearWessels to update his, but otherwise I want nothing else than updated missions for our servers.... especially the ones I will be playing on.   

[Bonk]

Good point Strafer, naming and permissions should be considered carefully. This is exactly why NW released his latest sources though, I'm sure he wouldn't mind -  but should certainly be asked for permission to release modified versions of his scripts (as opposed to "original" scripts implemented like this). I'm j/k about the "Evil-Luc" part...

Cool FireSoul, I was under the impression dave had set aside his D2 scripts for now, but  its definitely better for the original author to modify them, I agree. But as you suggest, if Dave doesn't get around to it I'd be happy to give any scripts you produce a whirl!  (Thanks for the hard work on this - I noted the "since tuesday" part...)

[FireSoul]

(Thanks for the hard work on this - I noted the "since tuesday" part...)

Yeah..

.. I was down to doing it with the scientific method:
1- Hypothesis
2- Experiment
3- Results
4- Conclusion

I tried a great many things until I was down to "trying anything that could even remotely make sense", and this was one of them. The obvious things didn't work, so I tried other options.

-- Luc

[KBFLordKrueg]

This indeed is good news, FS.
We all appreciate your untiring efforts with SFC!
 

[NuclearWessels]

Very Cool FS!

Yes, I'll update the pack - I'm in the process of cleaning up a bunch of other bugs and irritants, so will go through and incorporate that as well.

(Hopefully will have the revisions posted by Friday.)

Thanks heaps!
dave

[FireSoul]

Very Cool FS!

Yes, I'll update the pack - I'm in the process of cleaning up a bunch of other bugs and irritants, so will go through and incorporate that as well.

(Hopefully will have the revisions posted by Friday.)

Thanks heaps!
dave

I'm almost done compiling the packs with just this fix myself.. I will make it public so that we can get a test server up and know for sure that it worked.. what do you think? I'll make sure that it's not going to be confused as being one of your own releases.

-- Luc

[NuclearWessels]

Sure thing - thanks again!

dave