Faster PBEM required

[Priest]

Knowledge or not, without seeing the structure of the source code he has no idea how long it would take. And in essence calling Steve a liar.

[Caesar]

Originally posted by Fuerte

I am wondering if PBEM Helper could do this automatically. Everything else seems possible but how to cover the screen?? Perhaps it could change the screen or DirectX settings that the display is very dark (black). Or minimize the window.

You could try renaming the BMPs directory and spinning up a second copy of CMBB. I haven't tried this - you might need some of the BMPs, if so just put some very small 2 colour bmps (make them all black) into a dummy directory and use that (if you really miss-trust your opponents, you could run a CRC check to make sure it hasn't been changed). As for the exchange of passwords, just send an additional file that contains an encrypted version of the passwords.

[Guest PondScum]

Originally posted by Fuerte:

I am wondering if PBEM Helper could do this automatically. Everything else seems possible but how to cover the screen?? Perhaps it could change the screen or DirectX settings that the display is very dark (black). :confused: Or minimize the window.

Sure, should be trivial. I estimate one day's work at most. Make sure it's done by tomorrow, ok?

(Gee, ain't payback a bitch?)

[Priest]

Actually it should have been done already. Sounds to me like the program is not to modular. I mean why release it when you could have made it better, obviously all it took was someone with hindsight to figure that out. Now I am no programmer but I am sure that the estimate of one day is way overblown, I figure two lines of code and 5 minutes and whammo new solution!

(Sarcasm intended)

[Mord]

It's one of my absolute favorite things about this BB. Someone bitches, whines, complains, demands, or maybe even suggests a change/fix/patching, and then it is explained in some length why such and such a thing cannot be done. AND it is like the EXPLANATION/ANSWER was never even written.

In short people, if the guys making the game say it can't be done, or wasn't worth the investment of time, or they were making eggs that day, oh well, than that is how it is. LIVE WITH IT. It's A GAME. It's Ultimately their game to produce as they see fit to produce. And Judging that I messed with Combat Mission in some form or another, EVERY single day for two years I'd say they are doing a pretty good job. And seeing how they have addressed quite a few problems in quite a few patches for both games I'd say they have done the best job that could be done.

So anyway, Steve can we get this PBEM thing down to one file swap or what?

Mord.

[Battlefront.com]

Mord

It's one of my absolute favorite things about this BB. Someone bitches, whines, complains, demands, or maybe even suggests a change/fix/patching, and then it is explained in some length why such and such a thing cannot be done. AND it is like the EXPLANATION/ANSWER was never even written.

My God... if that didn't hit the nail right on the head! Fuerte... you read this? I'm curious because you apparently didn't read what I wrote back on Page One and then clearly restated on Page Two:

1. The game engine was written in such a way that the current file swapping system is mandatory.

2. To have it work any other way would require MAJOR recoding. Probably in the range of 2-3 months.

3. The above is why we didn't do it for CMBO or CMBB. When compared with how many things would have been cut to make this rather minor change (folks, it is VERY MINOR on the grand scale of things) when we fully intend to chuck out the code the second we are finished, is an idiotic use of our time.

4. Do not mistake what I say. We FULLY AGREE that it would be better if the system did not have the extra file swap. This is why Charles looked into this issue again when we started working on CMBB. He looked for quick and dirty ways to shortcut the work. We figured if we could get it down to a week (which is a massive amount of time for Charles to do anything) we would have done it. But there was absolutely no way for him to do this.

Anybody who thinks this is not the total truth is an absolute fool. We are neither unresponsive to customer requests nor lazy. We also do not spin yarns in order to deflect criticism like other developers are known to do.

Can someone PLEASE tell me how I can rephrase this so even a 2 year old with a learning disability (like being blind) could understand it? Apparently that is the level at which I must explain myself

Look folks... I have CLEARLY stated that we do not disagree that there could be a secure PBEM experience without the extra file swap. I have also CLEARLY stated that we agree that this would be a good thing to have. I have also stated many times that we have looked into doing this way back in CMBO development (after the engine was well under way) and when we set out to do CMBB. And also have stated that we found that nothing short of a near total rewrite of a core section of code would be required to get rid of the extra swap. Quick and bloody hacks were looked for and none were found. So the idea was shelved because its relative importance was quite low compared to other things.

Now, before ANYBODY disputes me again on this painfully idiotic thread... Please preface any comments made by declaring Charles to be either:

1. A bumbling idiot programmer

2. A liar

3. Someone who made a simulation of unparalled accuracy, depth, and fun

Since CMBO and CMBB exist for everybody to see, if one says #3 we can accept these games as evidence. If #1 or #2 are chose, you had better provide proof or I will really let you have it.

Now, if anybody has the balls (and misfiring synapses) to go with #3 and claim that the 2-3 month estimate is wrong, then they must first prove that they have worked with the same code base for 5 years. Anything short of that will prove, conclusively, that said person is a) an idiot and a whiner extradorinare.

The challenge to the whiners has been made. Either start dealing with the facts or shut your hole.

Thank you

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

CeeBod

Hi All - 1st post on the forum, so bear with me!

Welcome! And bearing with you mode is on Note also that nobody flamed you for your thoughts, even though they miss the mark.

But I'm also under no ilusion that it's perfect - every game has flaws and imperfections, and the fact that people get wound up about small details, usually means that all the big things are done well enough to have hooked poeople's interest in the first place.

Correct. And as you can see in my posts and every other post in this thread... nobody disagrees that having one less file swap would be superior to the way it is now (providing security could be preserved if that method was mandiatory).

That being said, why the fanatical devotion to defending every aspect of the game, that i see on threads like this one?

See comments above. Nobody... not a single person including me... has defended the PBEM functionality "as is" as a feature. Quite the contrary. Everybody here agrees that it could be better.

Several people posted that there were a few things they wish were improved, and instantly, high calibre artillery is being shot at them from all sides! Flaming, abuse, and a "if you don't like it you should **** off from these boards!"

That is a misfortunate way to read this thread. What has really happened is a few people knowingly proposed something that has already been discussed to death as being impractical to implement. And, just like previous times, our honest and very informed answers are discarded simply because said people do not want to hear it. Said people think they know how to program a game of CM's size and complexity better than Charles, yet they haven't even come close to doing so. And in any case, they have absolutely zero idea how CM's code is structured and therefore can give no more meaningful insight into how to fix it as they can describe what happened to the Challenger shuttle. Nobody should have to put up with being called either a liar or an incompetent boob by someone that doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.

Lighten up people! It's enuff to scare a newbie into not coming back here (and when I need all the help I can get in terms of tactics, how to create good scenarios, etc, etc - that's not good!!!)

Unfortunately, if challenging whiners scares away newbies... so be it. If whiners are not challenged then the intellectual standard of this forum would be lowered to disgracefully low levels. Those who do not feel they can engage in a full on intellectual debate should not condem it when they see it, but simply opt not to participate. There are plenty of other discussions on this Forum that do not require debate skills, so there is plenty of material here for everybody.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Oh... meant to address this red herring argument earlier:

"Gee, all I am doing here is trying to point out something that probably nobody ever thought of before, and therefore perhaps Charles never thought of. I mean, afterall, Charles is only Human and might not have seen a way around this problem"

Sounds reasonable, right? It would if the following fact's didn't exist:

1. The proposed "solution" is pathetically obivous. Any dope, including Charles , can see what the desired end goal is.

2. That this desired end goal really only can be acheived through one system without compromising security (which we would NEVER overlook).

3. That Charles obviously was aware of this both times he sifted through the code to see if a "clean" way was possible.

4. After finding that the "clean" way was impractical he looked for various "dirty" ways to shortcut the time comittment.

5. Final conclusion was that the "dirty" ways were too dangerous and therefore only the "clean" way was open, in theory. But since it was estimated to take 2-3 months it was shelved as being impractical.

Again... I am at a total loss how someone can read everything I have written, fully understand it, and STILL keep telling me that we don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Argh :mad:

Steve

[THumpre]

Probably the biggest impediment to speeding up PBEM play isn't the system, it is the players themselves. Any of the poor sods who play me can testify to my near mythical ability to lose turns and forget to send them when I do find them

[UberFunBunny]

Steve,

Your explanation made sense to me when I read it the first time (a few posts back now). I would be annoyed too if I had to keep repeating it. So I'm with you there. And I’m with the posters in this thread who have defended you guys: it’s plainly obvious that you are the ones with the code and therefore the best people to comment on any coding issues.

But I think what CeeBod might be saying is that the heavy artillery can come out a bit - how do I put it - prematurely from some of the less tolerant posters. A little like "You want what?! How dare you make any suggestion which goes against WHAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN...."

An example would be my suggestion for a "Seek LOS" command. Instead of some reasoned - and as you put it, intellectual – debate, there was basically a torrent of abuse from certain quarters. How dare someone make a suggestion for another order! And my response was basically that if I had suggested a "Seek Hull Down" order before it existed there would have been a similar response from THOSE WHO KNOW ALL....

Of course CeeBod might be saying something entirely different; but my reasoning still stands.

[Battlefront.com]

UberFunBunny,

Your explanation made sense to me when I read it the first time (a few posts back now). I would be annoyed too if I had to keep repeating it. So I'm with you there. And I’m with the posters in this thread who have defended you guys: it’s plainly obvious that you are the ones with the code and therefore the best people to comment on any coding issues.

Thank you. And I think your first and second posts in this thread show why someone needs to stomp on threads like this. You innocently bought the BS because it sounded so well informed. Once you found out that it wasn't, you instantly changed your opinion. The problem is that we can not be here to always straighten things out and that means people who spin yarns regullarly can sometimes get "urban legands" started. There have been cases of that here. And darnit... they are really hard to stamp out once they get started. Oh, like that Combat Mission is based on ASL for example

But I think what CeeBod might be saying is that the heavy artillery can come out a bit - how do I put it - prematurely from some of the less tolerant posters. A little like "You want what?! How dare you make any suggestion which goes against WHAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN....".

Yes, I think this exactly what he meant. However, this is absolutely NOT what happened in this thread. Instead it was like "You want what?! How dare you be so arrogant as to assume that you know so much about something you know absolutely nothing about even after Battlefront has repeatedly taken the time to demonstrate exactly that"

As I said above... NOBODY has challenged, disputed, degraded, ridiculed, or in any way pissed on either the notion that things could be done differently or that that way is superior to the way it is done now. There was the side point about "trust" and "security", but those are side issues which are in fact legit to bring up.

Instead the abuse, as you might call it, is aimed strictly at a reckless and irresponsible manner of demanding something which has been repeatedly addressed here and in the past. And that is to claim that we are either boobs or liars because we have not implemented their pet peeve (even if it is a popular peeve). Because these comments are so condescending, arrogant, and ill informed... why not slam them? They deserve nothing less.

An example would be my suggestion for a "Seek LOS" command. Instead of some reasoned - and as you put it, intellectual – debate, there was basically a torrent of abuse from certain quarters.

I did not see this particular thread, but generally when this happens the following elements exist:

1. The idea being presented has already been brought up, and discussed to death, at least 2-3 times. Some cases, like your "Seek LOS" command, probably more like a dozen

2. Someone starts off by restating positions made in the past. Perhaps curtly, pehaps politely. But their main point is "been discussed before, it ain't going to happen".

3. If a fight starts it usually starts by the side that thinks this is a new and novel discussion that is going to break new ground only if certain people butt out. Or a fight starts if someone thinks the idea is so "stupid" or "dead horse" that say so too bluntly. But I find that the latter is the lesser cause of the two.

4. Then starts in a cycle where one group (call them the "Cons") attempts to inform the other group that the idea won't go anywhere based on previous discussions. The the other group (call them the "Pros") gets all huffy and offended as if their intellectual process is getting stompped on prematurely before they have a chance to explain why their idea/s are so cool/different/vital/etc.

5. The Con group restates that the issue is Old Hat, the Pro group shifts to yelling about Thought Police, Bullies, Fanboys, etc.

And on and on it goes

Very rarely in the nearly 6 years of managing this Forum (way back when Chalres and I weren't officially working together!) have I ever seen a unique idea, expressed clearly and rationally, stompped on by anybody. I've seen it questioned and challenged (which is a GOOD thing to do), but never stompped on in and of itself. Provided, of course, that the idea isn't waaaaaaaay out there ("it would be cool if we could edit the dudes so they could shoot laserbeams instead of bullets" would likely be such a case )

These Forums are an interesting lesson in Human behavior. A few years ago I got to a point where I finally understood why there are professions which can train people how to correctly anticipate the way groups of people will behave to a given stimuli. It is amazing how predictable groups of people really are when you know what to look for

Steve

P.S. I do think that too often repeat threads are pointed out as "old hat" too gruffly. However, this has nothing (or very little) to do with snuffing out debates on creative grounds, but rather grounds of irrelevancy or redundancy. Subtle difference that is often missed, just as it has been here.

[ February 07, 2003, 03:35 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Dschugaschwili]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

[...]

What has really happened is a few people knowingly proposed something that has already been discussed to death as being impractical to implement. And, just like previous times, our honest and very informed answers are discarded simply because said people do not want to hear it. Said people think they know how to program a game of CM's size and complexity better than Charles, yet they haven't even come close to doing so. And in any case, they have absolutely zero idea how CM's code is structured and therefore can give no more meaningful insight into how to fix it as they can describe what happened to the Challenger shuttle. Nobody should have to put up with being called either a liar or an incompetent boob by someone that doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.

Steve

I know full well that this topic was already discussed to death. I remember this discussion quite clearly because I started the thread back then. But how should somebody who is not a forum member this long know about it? Judging by his member number, Fuerte could have been around back then.

The problem is, the thread with the long discussion of this topic is nowhere to be found. I have searched every Combat Mission related forum for it, it's just not there. So how should a newcomer to this forum know about lengthy discussions?

What I did here is repost a summary of parts of this thread from memory.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Oh... meant to address this red herring argument earlier:

"Gee, all I am doing here is trying to point out something that probably nobody ever thought of before, and therefore perhaps Charles never thought of. I mean, afterall, Charles is only Human and might not have seen a way around this problem"

[...]

Again... I am at a total loss how someone can read everything I have written, fully understand it, and STILL keep telling me that we don't have a clue what you are talking about.

While I was never explicitly mentioned by Steve in his posts in this thread, I'm wondering if this post is also directed at me.

If so, let me clarify a few things:

1. I never claimed to be the first one who had this idea.

2. I never said that you guys at BFC don't have a clue what you're talking about.

3. I do not think that Charles is an idiot. Quite the contrary, in fact.

If I have accidently created the impression that I was implying one or more of the above, I would like to apologize.

Dschugaschwili

[Fuerte]

Originally posted by karch:

I seriously doubt any of you work for a small privately held company and are software developers. If I am wrong, I apologize for you may be a far better programmer than I assume, otherwise I think you have no idea of what you are talking about.

I am a 39 years old programmer, have been programming professionally for about 19 years. I have been programming in Forth, assembly language, C, C++, Visual Basic, some Java, even Pascal and Fortran during the early years. Currently I develop database applications, using MS Transact SQL. I have also developed a database server (having SQL syntax) and ODBC driver for it, as well as client using the ODBC driver. I work in a company having under 100 people, of which 20-30 are programmers.

I have currently two private projects, PBEM Helper and MTGPlay. MTGPlay is an open source VB application, the source is here: MTGPlay source code It is co-developed with a couple of other programmers.

[Fuerte]

Originally posted by Caesar:

Originally posted by Fuerte

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

I am wondering if PBEM Helper could do this automatically. Everything else seems possible but how to cover the screen?? Perhaps it could change the screen or DirectX settings that the display is very dark (black). Or minimize the window.

You could try renaming the BMPs directory and spinning up a second copy of CMBB. I haven't tried this - you might need some of the BMPs, if so just put some very small 2 colour bmps (make them all black) into a dummy directory and use that (if you really miss-trust your opponents, you could run a CRC check to make sure it hasn't been changed). As for the exchange of passwords, just send an additional file that contains an encrypted version of the passwords. </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Dschugaschwili

I know full well that this topic was already discussed to death. I remember this discussion quite clearly because I started the thread back then. But how should somebody who is not a forum member this long know about it? Judging by his member number, Fuerte could have been around back then.

His initial post makes it clear that he was. Further posts make it abundantly clear that he doesn't care what was said before or even what is said now. He thinks Charles is a moron, or at best a lazy guy who lies to cover up his lack of concern for the customers he so randomly managed to please.

The problem is, the thread with the long discussion of this topic is nowhere to be found. I have searched every Combat Mission related forum for it, it's just not there. So how should a newcomer to this forum know about lengthy discussions?

Fuerte is no newcomer. Plus, I came into this thread and directly answered the subject and was basically told that Charles is an idiot, lazy, or a liar. That is the problem here, not the subject itself. And this is not the first time I have seen this behavior from some here.

What I did here is repost a summary of parts of this thread from memory.

While I was never explicitly mentioned by Steve in his posts in this thread, I'm wondering if this post is also directed at me.

Nope, not as such. To clear up any confusion, in this particular thread I was directing most of my words towards Fuerte and Redwolf. But many were directed at patterns of behavior that are seen in other threads by people other than them.

Fuerte,

I note you avoided rising to my challenge above. Not surprised.

I am a 39 years old programmer, have been programming professionally for about 19 years. I have been programming in Forth, assembly language, C, C++, Visual Basic, some Java, even Pascal and Fortran during the early years. Currently I develop database applications, using MS Transact SQL. I have also developed a database server (having SQL syntax) and ODBC driver for it, as well as client using the ODBC driver. I work in a company having under 100 people, of which 20-30 are programmers.

Great! Then why don't you know the most fundamental rule of programming... if you didn't code it, and haven't seen the code, then you can't know jack squat about it? Combat Mission is not a 10 line "Hello World" program we are talking about here. It is a HUGE code base which took years to create by someone whom I regard as one of the best game programmers in the industry. To presume that your resume somehow puts you in a superior position to judge Charles' word in any way shape or form is at the very least insulting. It also doesn't do much to enhance your reputation.

Also, just looking at the thread title you chose hints at how you value your opinions.

I have currently two private projects, PBEM Helper and MTGPlay. MTGPlay is an open source VB application, the source is here: MTGPlay source code It is co-developed with a couple of other programmers.

And how does this give you the ability to call Charles either a boob or a liar? I am VERY curious to know.

Now, to toss about crap that means more than what you typed...

I took several Sociology and Psychology classes in college, which I did rather well in. I also took some interesting classes on interpreting hidden/subconscious meaning behind physical, verbal, and written expressions (Goffman is boring, but oddly interesting . I have been online since before AOL was invented and the world worked on 1200 BAUD modems. I participated in many online discussions areas as I have intellectual debates in the real world. For almost the past 6 years I have been moderating this Forum in its various forms. I have seen a large percentage of the hundreds of thousands of posts made by the thousands of posters here during this time. I also happen to have intimate knowledge of all things Combat Mission related, whether it be design decisions Charles and I made for CMBB while at a coffee shop outside of Boston, or more "private" things like Charles' work ethic and intelligence. I also have had various senior positions for the development and release of a half dozen major wargames and a half dozen smaller ones, including design, production, management, and quality assurance.

What I mean to say here is that I think I am far more qualified to judge you than you are to judge Charles or Combat Mission. Why? Because I have knowledge and training that is directly applicable to this discussion because I have all that I need to sit in judgement. You only have stuff that is tangentially relevant and are missing the one thing that you require to give an informed opinion (i.e. the code, as well as at least 6-8 months to get familiar with it). So if I say you are an arrogant blow hard, that holds far more value as an opinion than you saying that thePBEM thing is easy to change.

Steve

[Andreas]

Christ Steve, go to bed

[Fuerte]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Great! Then why don't you know the most fundamental rule of programming... if you didn't code it, and haven't seen the code, then you can't know jack squat about it? Combat Mission is not a 10 line "Hello World" program we are talking about here. It is a HUGE code base which took years to create by someone whom I regard as one of the best game programmers in the industry. To presume that your resume somehow puts you in a superior position to judge Charles' word in any way shape or form is at the very least insulting. It also doesn't do much to enhance your reputation.

I am not calling Charles a liar or anything! I am just saying that 2-3 months sounds too much. I believe that if he starts doing this PBEM thing full time, it may take one or two weeks.

I have personally estimated my own work times many times during the last 20 years. Sometimes I estimate a too long time, sometimes too short. Charles may have estimated a too long time, although I admit that usually the times should be multiplied by pi, when the whole project is concerned.

So, we should just agree to disagee: I think that changing this PBEM system is easier than you think. I have not insulted you or Charles - OK, you have insulted me, but it's OK. I just want this feature, I don't care about arguing or whining or insulting, I am willing to try to implement it in PBEM Helper, because it will take 2+ years until it is in CMBB+.

It will take me about two weeks... I can't do it full time, only 1 hour per day or something. And controlling another program with mouse clicks and keyboard messages is not trivial, it would be easier to implement it in the actual program!

[Caesar]

Posted by Fuerte

And controlling another program with mouse clicks and keyboard messages is not trivial

This is not necessarily true, I have a program that is specifically designed to do exactly that. It uses an XML file to control where to click and what to do. As a result, the extra key clicks to do what you want to do plus a routine to swap the directories would be pretty trivial. I guess it depends on the design of the original program

[Battlefront.com]

Dschugaschwili,

I neglected to answer your post from Page 2. Obviously you should know by know what the answer is...

So, where are potential problems with this? I can think of two:

1. Obviously the order in which the different file types are created and used is different. This will require some recoding. Depending on how the current engine is implemented, this can be very little or a substantial amount of work.

2. Some of the information about the troops of the player who does not currently view the movie file first may be encrypted in a way to only be accessable with the right password. On the other hand, the game engine must have all information about both players' troops to be able to do the calculations, so I doubt that this is the case.

Correct about the second one not being an issue, so I will recap the most important part of #1:

Depending on how the current engine is implemented, this can be very little or a substantial amount of work.

And this is exactly what I have answsered many times before The answer is "a substantial amount of work". The game engine was obviously not written to handle multiple turn states. The game is set up to do the following according to my layman's understanding (which is a bit rusty):

1. Clear out everything from before, load in end state of previous Movie (or Setup in the case of Turn 1).

2. Issue Orders. Wait until Go! is hit before moving on.

3. Incorporate other player's orders (if Host, otherwise transmit orders).

4. Compute Movie (if Host).

5. Offer (if Host, otherwise Accept) Movie for viewing. When Done! is hit, go back to Step 1.

Note that there is NO mention of PBEM here. This system works the same no matter how the game is played (Single, Hot Seat, PBEM, or TCP/IP).

This is how the code is set up. Works great for everything EXCEPT that PBEM has an extra swap necesary to get #3 to happen. That is because the code was not designed with PBEM as its main design goal. Solo and TCP/IP were the primary design considerations, so that is what the system was set up to cater to. Was this a mistake? Perhaps. Could it have been done in a way that worked equally well for everything? Sure. But does that bit of hindsight make redoing the entire way games are stored, transported, computed, and replayed easy? Nope

Steve

[ February 07, 2003, 04:39 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Moon]

Originally posted by Fuerte:

I am willing to try to implement it in PBEM Helper, because it will take 2+ years until it is in CMBB+.

It will take me about two weeks... I can't do it full time, only 1 hour per day or something. And controlling another program with mouse clicks and keyboard messages is not trivial, it would be easier to implement it in the actual program!

What are you waiting for then? Start coding... time's running. Sheesh...

Martin

PS. Doh! Steve, go to bed!

[ February 07, 2003, 04:41 AM: Message edited by: Moon ]

[UberFunBunny]

Steve,

generally when this happens the following elements exist:

1. The idea being presented has already been brought up, and discussed to death, at least 2-3 times. Some cases, like your "Seek LOS" command, probably more like a dozen

I'm pretty sure my idea was original!

Very rarely ... have I ever seen a unique idea, expressed clearly and rationally, stompped on by anybody. I've seen it questioned and challenged (which is a GOOD thing to do), but never stompped on in and of itself.

I think the standard of stomping is subjective, and could be suffering from "grade inflation"....

[Battlefront.com]

Fuerte,

I have personally estimated my own work times many times during the last 20 years. Sometimes I estimate a too long time, sometimes too short.

Sure, it is entirely possible. But one doesn't know until one gets started. And as you should well know, once started it is very difficult to go back. So if we think the feature is a minor issue and it looks to be MAJOR work after a careful assessment, then what would the correct decision? Spend a week doing something that is likely to be a total waste of time, thereby cutting out many other things, or say "it isn't worth it" and put in those things? As a project manager that has had to make life and death decisions for a project, I can tell you that there is only ONE right answer here.

Charles may have estimated a too long time, although I admit that usually the times should be multiplied by pi, when the whole project is concerned.

First thing you have said thus far that I can find no fault with. Except that you should add that you have NO WAY of knowing if Charles has estimated too long. You should hold out the possibility that if you looked at the code, and knew it as well as he does, that you might think it would take 3-4 months. Why not?

So, we should just agree to disagee: I think that changing this PBEM system is easier than you think.

Without seeing the code, and knowing that Charles looked hard at this issue, how on Earth can you say this? You have ZERO right to "disagree" any more than I have the right to conclude that you have a very small penis. If you disagree with that assesment, then I susppose we will just have to agree to disagree.

I have not insulted you or Charles - OK, you have insulted me, but it's OK.

I state again... by disagreeing with somebody who has demonstrated a fantastic level of competence over something you have ZERO first hand knowledge about... what else can you be saying about him? If you are not saying that Chalres is a boob than you are saying you are better at programming CM than he is. Either way you are putting him down and elevating you. And that is the plain truth. Identifying this glaring truth is not an insult, even if you are offended by the conclusion.

I just want this feature, I don't care about arguing or whining or insulting, I am willing to try to implement it in PBEM Helper, because it will take 2+ years until it is in CMBB+.

Fine, but drop the attitude and put your money where your mouth is. I have already repeatedly told you exactly where we stand on this so whinging and insulting us won't get it done any faster.

It will take me about two weeks... I can't do it full time, only 1 hour per day or something. And controlling another program with mouse clicks and keyboard messages is not trivial, it would be easier to implement it in the actual program!

Let us know how it turns out.

Steve

[Guest konrad]

Originally posted by UberFunBunny:

Steve,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> generally when this happens the following elements exist:

1. The idea being presented has already been brought up, and discussed to death, at least 2-3 times. Some cases, like your "Seek LOS" command, probably more like a dozen

I'm pretty sure my idea was original!

Very rarely ... have I ever seen a unique idea, expressed clearly and rationally, stompped on by anybody. I've seen it questioned and challenged (which is a GOOD thing to do), but never stompped on in and of itself.

I think the standard of stomping is subjective, and could be suffering from "grade inflation".... </font>

[Fuerte]

Originally posted by Caesar:

This is not necessarily true, I have a program that is specifically designed to do exactly that. It uses an XML file to control where to click and what to do. As a result, the extra key clicks to do what you want to do plus a routine to swap the directories would be pretty trivial. I guess it depends on the design of the original program

How about the BMP format? Does the BMP size (in pixels) have to be identical to the original? Or can I have 1x1 (or 16x16) black BMP for all images?

The problem with mouse clicks and keyboard messages is that how to make it work 100% of the time? Currently PBEM Helper works about 98%, it does not always click Multiplayer and Load correctly. The file name entering is now reliable, but again password entering is not. There are no Windows controls in CMBB screen other than the file loading dialog.

[ February 07, 2003, 05:15 AM: Message edited by: Fuerte ]

[Dschugaschwili]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The game is set up to do the following according to my layman's understanding (which is a bit rusty):

1. Clear out everything from before, load in end state of previous Movie (or Setup in the case of Turn 1).

2. Issue Orders. Wait until Go! is hit before moving on.

3. Incorporate other player's orders (if Host, otherwise transmit orders).

4. Compute Movie (if Host).

5. Offer (if Host, otherwise Accept) Movie for viewing. When Done! is hit, go back to Step 1.

[...]

Steve

Hehe, good thing I checked back before posting, otherwise I would have missed your editing and posted your correction myself.

First, thanks for the explanation how the game works. The system you describe here sounds good and entirely plausible.

I know that I'm probably beating a dead horse here, but I guess that somebody else will eventually notice this too, so I can just as well say it myself (and please don't flame me for that):

The information you provided here about the game system contains nothing that would make implementing the system I described above impossible, because what I suggested is essentially sending two PBEM files together every second time. So we would effectively still have the same three files per turn, but since two of them are always sent together, we would only need two e-mails. The only necessary change would occur in step 3, because with the faster system the same machine would always be the host (which is actually more similar to how TCP/IP is handled than the current PBEM system).

So there must be something else that makes implementing the faster system extremely difficult. Probably something so technical that only Charles knows about it.

I do not want to call you a liar, nor even just say that you're wrong, it's just that what you wrote is not sufficient to justify why it can't be done in the proposed simple way. Sorry.

Dschugaschwili