From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5983 invoked by alias); 24 Dec 2003 23:05:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact xconq7-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: xconq7-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 5976 invoked from network); 24 Dec 2003 23:05:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp806.mail.sc5.yahoo.com) (66.163.168.185) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Dec 2003 23:05:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO 6-allhosts) (sampln@sbcglobal.net@64.175.248.254 with plain) by smtp806.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Dec 2003 23:05:43 -0000 Subject: Re: annoying new bug in movement From: Lincoln Peters To: Eric McDonald Cc: Xconq list In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1072307355.3305.13995.camel@odysseus> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 02:06:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003/txt/msg01107.txt.bz2 On Mon, 2003-12-22 at 20:54, Eric McDonald wrote: > > Meanwhile, I also noticed that I no longer seem to be able to issue move > > commands to units if the move command would leave them inside another > > unit (e.g. I tell a battledroid to move into a base). However, I can > > still have one unit occupy another if they are adjacent to each other. > > I'm not yet sure if this odd behavior is restricted to bolodd2.g or not. > > Didn't you previously report that a unit would not take a path > that would lead it through a potential transport, such as a city > or a base? If so, it is probably related to this. dist > 1 > logic has changed rather significantly due to the new > pathfinding and its attendant details. Yes, I did. Although I didn't have any difficulty telling a unit to enter a transport until now (I only had difficulty when a unit tried to pass through a transport). Perhaps that is the root of the problem? Unless, of course, there are multiple bugs at work here... -- Lincoln Peters