Reimplement the code reverted in 35f5f3eb3758dc09d3a0ae3bffccd033245abe51 - #2088
Conversation
|
Nightly build for this pull request:
This comment is automatic and is meant to allow guests to get latest nightly builds for this pull request without registering. It is updated on every successful build. |
|
The The |
|
given there were quite a lot of controversial for our previous tag renaming (such as new Trajectory and the recent major renaming), I think we should still stick to the principal of no tag name change unless necessary. For this PR I think we don't have to depreciate those AttackMove tag, could just redirect their implementaion to the new one. |
I don't think we should keep something that is incorrect. This is not a simple tag renaming. They are removed because the function itself is incorrect. |
DeathFishAtEase
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Changelog entry position error
|
I see that it has already added the Tested label and is not a draft, so should this PR already be in a completed state?
The documentation for the discarded INI flag and its related content does not seem to have been removed yet, which should also be part of the pending work for this PR, because I see that they have already been removed in the changes to the source code. |
1c3b9f7 to
e8826d9
Compare
…hTarget_StopMovingWhenInRange
# Conflicts: # CREDITS.md # docs/Whats-New.md # docs/locale/zh_CN/LC_MESSAGES/CREDITS.po # docs/locale/zh_CN/LC_MESSAGES/Whats-New.po # src/Ext/Rules/Body.cpp # src/Ext/Rules/Body.h # src/Ext/TechnoType/Body.h # src/Utilities/TemplateDef.h
Supplement migration information and adjust the relative positions of variable declarations
|
Can you post a gif? |
|
@Coronia The choice is in your hands. |
|
First of all, I don't think the problem should be left unresolved even if AdvancedDrive is added. Hover is something that every mod has been used for age so it's not even feasible to replace them in a wide scale. Whatever AdvancedDrive did shouldn't be considered in the current topic As of the problem itself, I think tweaking FootClass_ReadyToNextMission_MovingCheck might be an acceptable solution since this is the root cause. But if we want to avoid potential side effect, maybe we could just do some special handling to Hover for ApproachTarget's case alone? In worst case we can just reuse the previous codes for Hover alone since it has proven to work In any case, if we can't find a proper solution then I would still suggest reverting the old implementation for now |
|
so far seems to be fine in testing, perhaps @Metadorius could take a look before the merge |
|
there's still one remaining thing to optimize: using locomotion_cast to merely check if it's jumpjet or hover type is a little bit costy. I'll make a variable to cache it for such scenario, but that's not part of this PR anyway. Merge it first so that I can proceed the latter work |





Stop immediately if the target enters the range during ApproachTarget
AttackMove.StopWhenTargetAcquiredis read as a compatibility alias forApproachTarget.StopWhenInRange(in both[General]and techno type sections).In
rulesmd.ini:Keep pursuing the target during ApproachTarget
ApproachTarget.StopWhenInRangeis set totrue, the unit will stop as soon as the target enters its range and will not chase it further.AttackMove.PursuitTargetis read as a compatibility alias forApproachTarget.PursuitTarget.In
rulesmd.ini: