From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29483 invoked by alias); 23 Dec 2003 04:54:52 -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 29476 invoked from network); 23 Dec 2003 04:54:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO garm.central.cmich.local) (141.209.15.48) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Dec 2003 04:54:52 -0000 Received: from leon.phy.cmich.edu ([141.209.165.20]) by egate1.central.cmich.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:54:50 -0500 Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by leon.phy.cmich.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A43C870024; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:54:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 00:48:00 -0000 From: Eric McDonald To: Lincoln Peters Cc: Xconq list Subject: Re: annoying new bug in movement In-Reply-To: <1072154605.31574.1995.camel@odysseus> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Dec 2003 04:54:50.0875 (UTC) FILETIME=[E5CF8CB0:01C3C910] X-SW-Source: 2003/txt/msg01106.txt.bz2 On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Lincoln Peters 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. Eric