Cebot

About
  • This user has not yet committed.

Reviews

0 active reviews

Counts may include data that you cannot access.
Sunday 13 Jan
10:35 pm

Cebot

Did you have any other questions about this?

Did you have any other questions about this?

Sunday 06 Jan
9:47 pm

Cebot

No, because p = the coordinate of the PlanetTravelPoint that was created by the placement of the shuttleport, so the Z of that coordinate is consistent with the shuttleport's actual height.

No, because p = the coordinate of the PlanetTravelPoint that was created by the placement of the shuttleport, so the Z of that coordinate is consistent with the shuttleport's actual height.

Saturday 05 Jan
3:48 pm

Cebot

Thanks to ElPete for the help figuring out how to interpret the shuttle direction.

Thanks to ElPete for the help figuring out how to interpret the shuttle direction.

3:46 pm

Cebot

  • More
  • SWGEMU-517
  • submitted for moderator approval
Monday 31 Dec 2012
5:16 pm

Cebot

  • More
  • SWGEMU-507
  • submitted for moderator approval
Monday 17 Dec 2012
10:38 am

Cebot

Ok, figured it out. Added another patch that shows those.

Ok, figured it out. Added another patch that shows those.

Thursday 13 Dec 2012
1:37 pm

Cebot

Sorry for my noobishness with SVN, but how do I remove files? If I remove them from my local copy and generate a new patch, will it include that kind of change?

Sorry for my noobishness with SVN, but how do I remove files? If I remove them from my local copy and generate a new patch, will it include that kind of change?

Thursday 06 Dec 2012
10:16 am

Cebot

And in retrospect, I should also have changed the existing check to >=, rather than ==, just in case some weird condition happens that would have allowed a 21st person, and therefore 22, 23, etc.

And in retrospect, I should also have changed the existing check to >=, rather than ==, just in case some weird condition happens that would have allowed a 21st person, and therefore 22, 23, etc.

10:14 am

Cebot

Crap. Yes - wasn't going to try getting 20 chars online on one client machine http://www.swgemu.com/fisheye/static/mhd9mz/2static/images/wiki/icons/emoticons/smile.gif Though it strikes me as bad ...

Crap. Yes - wasn't going to try getting 20 chars online on one client machine

Though it strikes me as bad practice to have had this hard-coded in the first place, rather than as a config parameter (or a constant at the very least).

12:12 am

Cebot

  • More
  • SWGEMU-462
  • submitted for moderator approval
Saturday 01 Dec 2012
1:20 pm

Cebot

  • More
  • SWGEMU-449
  • submitted for moderator approval
Wednesday 28 Nov 2012
1:02 pm

Cebot

  • More
  • SWGEMU-446
  • submitted for moderator approval
10:44 am

Cebot

Tuesday 09 Oct 2012
6:58 am

Cebot

Damn. I hate it when I'm wrong. http://www.swgemu.com/fisheye/static/mhd9mz/2static/images/wiki/icons/emoticons/smile.gif /deepbow I was mis-interpreting that as the number per rank, obviously.

Damn. I hate it when I'm wrong. /deepbow

I was mis-interpreting that as the number per rank, obviously.

Monday 08 Oct 2012
10:50 pm

Cebot

My original patch has been tested, and while yours is slightly more efficient (breaks out of the loop as soon as totalAtRank > maxAtRank), it's also flawed because it compares city >= rank, not cit...

My original patch has been tested, and while yours is slightly more efficient (breaks out of the loop as soon as totalAtRank > maxAtRank), it's also flawed because it compares city >= rank, not city == rank. The list of rank caps is per rank, and cities of a higher rank are irrelevant.

Monday 03 Sep 2012
8:11 pm

Cebot

After much discussion about this tonight, I'm also thinking the check for totalCities > maxCities (the number of outposts, really) should go away. Just because the planet somehow got over the limit...

After much discussion about this tonight, I'm also thinking the check for totalCities > maxCities (the number of outposts, really) should go away. Just because the planet somehow got over the limit doesn't mean no one should be able to progress.I updated the patch to reflect this change.

Sunday 26 Aug 2012
8:43 pm

Cebot

Just other community members - nothing official. But it doesn't make sense to stop an entire planet's worth of city progression just because there are too many cities total.

Just other community members - nothing official. But it doesn't make sense to stop an entire planet's worth of city progression just because there are too many cities total.

Friday 24 Aug 2012
6:05 pm

Cebot

The basic issue with city advancement is that the "isCityRankCapped" was returning "true" too often because it wasn't comparing the cities by rank, just the total count. This one is "the sooner the...

The basic issue with city advancement is that the "isCityRankCapped" was returning "true" too often because it wasn't comparing the cities by rank, just the total count. This one is "the sooner the better" because the longer we wait to fix it, the more cities get stuck, and it won't untangle itself very well.

5:09 pm

Cebot

  • More
  • SWGEMU-375
  • submitted for moderator approval
4:53 pm

Cebot