DEFCON source code available

General discussion about Defcon

Moderator: Defcon moderators

User avatar
Zorotama
level5
level5
Posts: 1508
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 am
Location: 64x80

Postby Zorotama » Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:40 am

@Weps@

A bug is a bug, a feature that we can not like is a feature. I Agree about AI no pinging sub, but also vs "human" subs I noticed a strange thing..a sub (not pinginging) gives ever a shot vs the sub that attacks. When it receives the enemy shot, in that moment he has an "hiden" and automatic target..that you can see as a red circle with orders tab active. I'm not sure it is a bug.

@zoro's dog@

Shut up Fluck!! And don't lick my feet!! :D
User avatar
tllotpfkamvpe
level5
level5
Posts: 1768
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:04 am
Contact:

Postby tllotpfkamvpe » Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:50 pm

microchip08 wrote:
tllotpfkamvpe wrote:It would be useful if allies can land planes on each others airbases and carriers.


How would the game deal with a backstab? Would the planes go under the ownership of the airbase owner, or would they automatically take off, or would they spontaneously combust?


It seems obvious to me, if you land a bomber in an allie's airship or airfield then it belongs to your ally. Why would you want to do this?

1) To save a bomber that is running out of fuel, there is a friendly airbase in range but you can't land on it.
2) Your ally has run out of bombers and can't use his nukes in his airbase.

If you can give a good reason why they should spontaneously combust then I'm happy to accept that also.
microchip08
level5
level5
Posts: 1186
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:37 pm
Contact:

Postby microchip08 » Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:14 am

tllotpfkamvpe wrote:if you land a bomber in an allie's airship or airfield then it belongs to your ally.


But it's still your pilots piloting (ish).
Phantom Hoover
level0
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:09 pm

Postby Phantom Hoover » Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:17 pm

If you can give a good reason why they should spontaneously combust then I'm happy to accept that also.


They're fitted with self-destructs for the pilots to use in the event of an alliance collapsing?
microchip08
level5
level5
Posts: 1186
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:37 pm
Contact:

Postby microchip08 » Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:11 am

tllotpfkamvpe wrote:
microchip08 wrote:
tllotpfkamvpe wrote:It would be useful if allies can land planes on each others airbases and carriers.


How would the game deal with a backstab? Would the planes go under the ownership of the airbase owner, or would they automatically take off, or would they spontaneously combust?


It seems obvious to me, if you land a bomber in an allie's airship or airfield then it belongs to your ally. Why would you want to do this?

1) To save a bomber that is running out of fuel, there is a friendly airbase in range but you can't land on it.
2) Your ally has run out of bombers and can't use his nukes in his airbase.

If you can give a good reason why they should spontaneously combust then I'm happy to accept that also.


You could probably exploit the fighter farming to get some seriously overpowered airbases, if every single airbase has the full complement of 10+5.
User avatar
bert_the_turtle
level5
level5
Posts: 4795
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:11 pm
Location: Cologne
Contact:

Postby bert_the_turtle » Thu Jan 12, 2012 12:48 am

Weps wrote:-1- Bombers when directed to fly to a new waypoint sometimes fly the opposite way, in a circle. Most noticable to the top of the screen.

-2- Bombers and fighters sometimes cling on to enemy ships.

-13- Launching a fighter from a carrier to a target will move the fleet in that direction. It should stay put, or remain on whatever course it was.

-14- Nukes sometimes go haywire if they cross the seam twice.

-15- Subs can hit tokyo from middle of pacific, way beyond their range.

-16- Ships still can cross land.

Mark those as fixed.

I don't think I'll be able to do a lot about the performance related bugs.

The other gameplay changes should all get their own threads, as it is apparently debatable whether they're bugs at all. Is the Beta Testing forum open for everyone? If so, that's the place. Otherwise the Future (Edit; err, I mean Think Tank) (Edit2: and yeah, Think Tank it is, Beta Testing is still closed).
User avatar
bert_the_turtle
level5
level5
Posts: 4795
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:11 pm
Location: Cologne
Contact:

Postby bert_the_turtle » Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:52 pm

Yay, all fixed (jon's two as well) except:
Weps wrote:-4- Silos will target armed bombers before bombers that no longer hold a nuke. Silos should not be able to make this distinction.
Couldn't reproduce, couldn't find anything in the code that would cause it.

Weps wrote:-5- When your subs are pinging and engaging enemy cpu subs, then those enemy cpu subs will fire back even when they themselves are not pinging. Non-pinging human subs cannot shoot at subs.
How is that a bug? Passive sonar, they can totally do that. And it's not like they need to hold the fire so they don't give away their position, they are already spotted.

Weps wrote:-6- Sometimes, at the end of a game, the score will be different.
General desyncs, I'd say. Probably endemic and unfixable unless the whole system gets reworked to use real fixed point math. (Currently it's just double precision floats and mostly hoping that the added accuracy keeps desyncs too small to matter).

Weps wrote:-11- The number of nukes remaining is counted wrong.
Need examples. You know the count is supposed to be the number of nukes you can unleash right now, right? Stockpiles on airbases and carriers don't count.

Weps wrote:-12- Subs should be able to fire at anything, not just land bases targets.
This is quite evidently deliberately so. The bits of code that determine this explicitly state "bombers and silos can, subs can't." I'm not against making this optional later on, but right now, if there is clear and not obviously misguided (see: chat window auto-resize) intent behind current behaviour, I'll leave it at that.

Weps wrote:-17- Linux client seems to have a bug where submerged subs (after they fired nukes) remain visible.
I'll need a recording where this happened. I can't see what would make the Linux client special, apart from the fact that it ran on odd intermediate code (1.42 for Linux was between 1.42 and 1.43 for Windows; did 1.42 exist? Anyway, I mean the last 1.4x version.) This probably has auto-fixed itself by now.

jon wrote:Would it be possible to integrate one of the bots people developed as well?
Not easily, the bot interface code is not available and would need to be rewritten or the bots would need to be adapted to work straight with the full source. It'd be probably easier to adapt the existing CPU players. Give them more modern land deployments, better nuke target selection to focus impacts and have them not all launch their silos at 1:30 and they'd already play much better.
User avatar
Schubdüse
level5
level5
Posts: 1210
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 10:00 pm
Location: Seoul

Postby Schubdüse » Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:38 pm

I don't understand this fixing process.
Bert, are you fixing the source code? If yes, do we need to install this fixed Defcon? Or will these bugs just don't occur, when I'm playing on a newly modified Dedcon server?

In other words: I want to play an almost bug-free game. What do I have to do?

(/me looking for this bert_the_turtle shrine thread in order to bump it.)
User avatar
bert_the_turtle
level5
level5
Posts: 4795
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:11 pm
Location: Cologne
Contact:

Postby bert_the_turtle » Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:10 pm

I'm working on the source in the IV repository. If you have access to that, it's in branches/bert/compatible_fixes for those things fixable without gameplay changes and branches/bert/incompatible_fixes for the rest. Sadly, none of it can be done just with dedcon, at least not feasibly; they're all either client problems or game simulation problems and dedcon doesn't know about either (well, it could know about the game state now, but that would massively increase the CPU and memory requirements and knowing the state still doesn't mean you can fix it for the connected clients.)
If you have been beta testing before, here are instructions on how to get beta builds. Doesn't look like too many people saw this yet, so maybe I'll have to go public beta a little sooner than planned to get actual testing done. Or, you know, I could just give out the access data to those interested via PM right now. Let me quickly start a new thread for recruiting. Edit: done.

So yeah, new client with old problems gone and new problems appearing :)
Weps
level3
level3
Posts: 250
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:25 pm

Postby Weps » Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:36 pm

[I-dont-have-the-time-nor-the-inclination-to-really-care-mode on]

bert_the_turtle wrote:Yay, all fixed (jon's two as well) except:
Weps wrote:-4- Silos will target armed bombers before bombers that no longer hold a nuke. Silos should not be able to make this distinction.
Couldn't reproduce, couldn't find anything in the code that would cause it.


I did not find this in the code either (tho I did not look whether the targets list gets or got sorted somehow). And I also could not reproduce it in 1.4. So I must be mad. But then again, my list of bugs is like 6 years old...

bert_the_turtle wrote:
Weps wrote:-5- When your subs are pinging and engaging enemy cpu subs, then those enemy cpu subs will fire back even when they themselves are not pinging. Non-pinging human subs cannot shoot at subs.
How is that a bug? Passive sonar, they can totally do that. And it's not like they need to hold the fire so they don't give away their position, they are already spotted.


No it's not a bug, it's intentional. The cpu is weak as it is so it can fire its silent subs at your pinging subs while your silent subs cannot fire at his pinging subs.

bert_the_turtle wrote:
Weps wrote:-6- Sometimes, at the end of a game, the score will be different.
General desyncs, I'd say. Probably endemic and unfixable unless the whole system gets reworked to use real fixed point math. (Currently it's just double precision floats and mostly hoping that the added accuracy keeps desyncs too small to matter).


Yeah, I guess desyncs are intentionally too.

bert_the_turtle wrote:
Weps wrote:-11- The number of nukes remaining is counted wrong.
Need examples. You know the count is supposed to be the number of nukes you can unleash right now, right? Stockpiles on airbases and carriers don't count.


Ow, I thought "nukes" meant "number of nukes", but it actually means number of nukes when you stand on your head waving at the milkman. How stupid of me.

bert_the_turtle wrote:
Weps wrote:-12- Subs should be able to fire at anything, not just land bases targets.
This is quite evidently deliberately so. The bits of code that determine this explicitly state "bombers and silos can, subs can't." I'm not against making this optional later on, but right now, if there is clear and not obviously misguided (see: chat window auto-resize) intent behind current behaviour, I'll leave it at that.


Ah no problem, you know, subs CAN fire at anything don't you?

bert_the_turtle wrote:
Weps wrote:-17- Linux client seems to have a bug where submerged subs (after they fired nukes) remain visible.
I'll need a recording where this happened. I can't see what would make the Linux client special, apart from the fact that it ran on odd intermediate code (1.42 for Linux was between 1.42 and 1.43 for Windows; did 1.42 exist? Anyway, I mean the last 1.4x version.) This probably has auto-fixed itself by now.


Could be, I don't run the linux client.
User avatar
Zorotama
level5
level5
Posts: 1508
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 am
Location: 64x80

Postby Zorotama » Mon Jan 30, 2012 2:45 pm

The source code is still avaiable?
User avatar
bert_the_turtle
level5
level5
Posts: 4795
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:11 pm
Location: Cologne
Contact:

Postby bert_the_turtle » Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:19 pm

Not via regular paths, no. The humble bundle was the only way to get it, and the point of those bundles is that their availability is limited.

Weps wrote:
bert_the_turtle wrote:
Weps wrote:-5- When your subs are pinging and engaging enemy cpu subs, then those enemy cpu subs will fire back even when they themselves are not pinging. Non-pinging human subs cannot shoot at subs.
How is that a bug? Passive sonar, they can totally do that. And it's not like they need to hold the fire so they don't give away their position, they are already spotted.


No it's not a bug, it's intentional. The cpu is weak as it is so it can fire its silent subs at your pinging subs while your silent subs cannot fire at his pinging subs.
Ah, it's JUST CPU subs. Didn't get that. Really odd, I can find nothing in the source that could be responsible. The attacked subs will prepare to retaliate in both cases, but for non-CPU subs, they don't go through with it because the enemy subs are invisible. The CPUs either don't care or... maybe they see enemy subs as a balance measure?
User avatar
BGP
level2
level2
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:01 pm
Contact:

Postby BGP » Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:18 pm

I don't have access to the source code....


Can someone compile a version of Defcon with the following TWO changes:

1. Increase sub SLBM range to same as silo range. Missiles fired from subs can now fly as far as those from silos.
2. Decrease the efficacy of silo air defense strength by 50%. In real life, BMD and NMD technology is not that good at all.

These two simple changes alone would make Defcon dynamics and game mechanics changed in favor of mutually assured destruction aspect of the game an make it far more enjoyable for me. Anyone who has access to this code should be able to recompile a working binary in matter of minutes and it would be trivial. Or make a patch to it or whatever.

As long as this new modded version works in Diplomacy mode online, I will pay the first person to deliver this working mod $100 USD.
keyID = 436060 apollo13@lavabit.com
User avatar
TGR
level3
level3
Posts: 416
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:34 am
Location: United Kingdom

Postby TGR » Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:27 pm

BGP wrote:I don't have access to the source code....


Can someone compile a version of Defcon with the following TWO changes:

1. Increase sub SLBM range to same as silo range. Missiles fired from subs can now fly as far as those from silos.
2. Decrease the efficacy of silo air defense strength by 50%. In real life, BMD and NMD technology is not that good at all.

These two simple changes alone would make Defcon dynamics and game mechanics changed in favor of mutually assured destruction aspect of the game an make it far more enjoyable for me. Anyone who has access to this code should be able to recompile a working binary in matter of minutes and it would be trivial. Or make a patch to it or whatever.

As long as this new modded version works in Diplomacy mode online, I will pay the first person to deliver this working mod $100 USD.


Wouldn't the server need to be modded for this to be viable?
User avatar
BGP
level2
level2
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:01 pm
Contact:

Postby BGP » Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:35 pm

TGR wrote:
BGP wrote:I don't have access to the source code....


Can someone compile a version of Defcon with the following TWO changes:

1. Increase sub SLBM range to same as silo range. Missiles fired from subs can now fly as far as those from silos.
2. Decrease the efficacy of silo air defense strength by 50%. In real life, BMD and NMD technology is not that good at all.

These two simple changes alone would make Defcon dynamics and game mechanics changed in favor of mutually assured destruction aspect of the game an make it far more enjoyable for me. Anyone who has access to this code should be able to recompile a working binary in matter of minutes and it would be trivial. Or make a patch to it or whatever.

As long as this new modded version works in Diplomacy mode online, I will pay the first person to deliver this working mod $100 USD.


Wouldn't the server need to be modded for this to be viable?


What are you talking about? I intend to use it to play LAN games. As long as each exe is the same, there would not be a sync issue.
keyID = 436060 apollo13@lavabit.com

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests