Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jeff Wilder

Podcast - Wide World of Wargaming (X-Wing)

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Would having the "printed" arcs reference the auto arcs be a pain in the butt to do?

We're using images of base plates. They have printed arcs on them, so as first step you would have to photoshop every single baseplate.

Then you'd want to do what? Permanently display a shortened version of the 1-2-3-firing arc on all 4 sides?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

We're using images of base plates. They have printed arcs on them, so as first step you would have to photoshop every single baseplate.

Then you'd want to do what? Permanently display a shortened version of the 1-2-3-firing arc on all 4 sides?

So I take it that is a "Yes, it would be a pain in the butt to do".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

So I take it that is a "Yes, it would be a pain in the butt to do".

I only dabble a bit in programming, but I've been reading the vassal alpha slack channel for quite some time and it definitely sounds like the effort would far outweigh the fringe benefit of a bit more accuracy.

 

e: especially when compared to moving the arc base by 1 pixel

Edited by GreenDragoon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could also "correct" it by allowing a convention on VASSAL: let a user check when it's needed to make a decision.

Either by Ctrl+Shift+F (existing) or by a new command that simply returns a binary YES on ships in arc.  This comports with the overall philosophy of 2E: lettings users check game-state when needed to resolve an ability.

Again, it's better to give a little more information than it is to give wrong information.  That seems like a truism to me, but I'm positive there are somehow people who'd take issue with it.

In other news, episode 70 is out (nothing on this in that episode; we have the talented Nick Sperry as a guest):

https://wwwargaming.podbean.com/e/wide-world-of-wargaming-x-wing-episode-70-shuffling-the-hyperspace-deck/

And I commentated another Militant Casuals game:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tkq65mq8m4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

You could also "correct" it by allowing a convention on VASSAL: let a user check when it's needed to make a decision.

Either by Ctrl+Shift+F (existing) or by a new command that simply returns a binary YES on ships in arc.  This comports with the overall philosophy of 2E: lettings users check game-state when needed to resolve an ability.

I don't understand what you mean. What kind of check are you thinking? CtrlShiftF exists. I assume you used that and it didn't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

I don't understand what you mean. What kind of check are you thinking? CtrlShiftF exists. I assume you used that and it didn't work.

I couldn't use Ctrl+Sht+F until Jess engaged, which was too late.  My only means of making the decision I had to make was by eyeballing it.  (Which was correct, but then of course Ctrl+Sht+F said "nope.")  Do you understand?  At the time I had to make my decisions on defense and such with Jess, my only permissible way to judge the info I needed was by eyeballing it.  My eyeballing it turned out to be correct; but the "official" VASSAL ruling was wrong.

So, to restate, VASSAL games could allow either:

(1) Checking Ctrl+Sht+F early when a decision like this needs to be made, or

(2) Create a new command that doesn't give all the info Ctrl+Sht+F gives, but simply returns a binary "Ship X is in-arc.  Ship Z is in-arc."  And allow use of this command when a decision based on a close arc needs to be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I couldn't use Ctrl+Sht+F until Jess engaged, which was too late.  My only means of making the decision I had to make was by eyeballing it.  (Which was correct, but then of course Ctrl+Sht+F said "nope.")  Do you understand?  At the time I had to make my decisions on defense and such with Jess, my only permissible way to judge the info I needed was by eyeballing it.  My eyeballing it turned out to be correct; but the "official" VASSAL ruling was wrong.

So, to restate, VASSAL games could allow either:

(1) Checking Ctrl+Sht+F early when a decision like this needs to be made, or

(2) Create a new command that doesn't give all the info Ctrl+Sht+F gives, but simply returns a binary "Ship X is in-arc.  Ship Z is in-arc."  And allow use of this command when a decision based on a close arc needs to be made.

A binary yes/no is often all you need to know when checking for arc, isn't it?

How do you decide when it is a close arc without actually checking arc? Ask 10 players and you get the figurative 11 answers whether it is close+in, close+out, clearly in, or clearly out. And half of them will be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GreenDragoon said:

How do you decide when it is a close arc without actually checking arc? Ask 10 players and you get the figurative 11 answers whether it is close+in, close+out, clearly in, or clearly out. And half of them will be wrong.

It's a good question.  VASSAL finds a way.  How did players agree on placement after a collision, before auto-collision was implemented?

Again, it seems to me a truism that "more information is better than false information."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Again, it's better to give a little more information than it is to give wrong information.  That seems like a truism to me, but I'm positive there are somehow people who'd take issue with it.

 

6 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Again, it seems to me a truism that "more information is better than false information."

In a game where misjudgements are an integral part? Seems a bit simplistic to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GreenDragoon said:

In a game where misjudgements are an integral part? Seems a bit simplistic to me.

 ... but you have no real  issue with accurate judgments being called wrong by VASSAL?  I mean, okay, but if we accept that making the arcs match is somehow more trouble than it's worth, I think you kinda have your priorities backward.  You're effectively saying, "It's better to punish the people who make the correct judgment, because we don't want to risk someone not being able to make a misjudgment."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jeff Wilder said:

 ... but you have no real  issue with accurate judgments being called wrong by VASSAL?  I mean, okay, but if we accept that making the arcs match is somehow more trouble than it's worth, I think you kinda have your priorities backward.  You're effectively saying, "It's better to punish the people who make the correct judgment, because we don't want to risk someone not being able to make a misjudgment."

I would have offered you some more straw if you just asked, but seems you had enough for a nice strawman.

No, that is not what I am saying.

Outside of your extreme case, vassal is very accurate. The accuracy of the autorange finder and the displayed arc is far above shaky hands, bumps, nudges, parallax effects, and what have you on a table. The rare case where a vassal judgement is wrong is not only less frequent than mistakes by human judges, but also rare in an absolute sense. All while it is a hobby project. notabene. We're talking 0.35mm if my conversion of 4cm to 113 pixel is correct.

It's entirely acceptable to punish a correct judgement once in a blue moon - as long as these events are as rare as they apparently are right now. Show me that they are more frequent and I change my view. I do not understand why you build your hill on a single case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

It's entirely acceptable to punish a correct judgement once in a blue moon - as long as these events are as rare as they apparently are right now. Show me that they are more frequent and I change my view.

Yeah, because God knows, it sure is easy for someone to get people to take instances of VASSAL being wrong seriously.  Doesn't take any effort at all ... so much support from the community!  I can't imagine that most people wouldn't consider it worthwhile.

Also, by all means, let's keep saying it's okay to "punish a correct judgment," while simultaneously -- somehow -- praising VASSAL for its precision.

C'mon, man.  Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Also, by all means, let's keep saying it's okay to "punish a correct judgment," while simultaneously -- somehow -- praising VASSAL for its precision.

You seriously think those are at odds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GreenDragoon said:

You seriously think those are at odds?

You seriously don't?

Again, "precision" is not inherently a good thing.  A precise inaccuracy means that the inaccuracy results in that measurement always being wrong.  VASSAL's Small ship arcs are always wrong.  They are simultaneously always precise.

Yeah, I think praising precision there is pretty ridiculous.

BTW, something I haven't brought up before, but it's worth mentioning: most people apparently had no idea that the acrs are wrong.  MegaSilver, who runs the VASSAL tournament himself, did not know.

I'm not sure what your impetus is for so valiantly fighting against some method -- any method? -- to end, or mitigate, the arcs being wrong in VASSAL, but it's very strange to me, and doesn't comport at all with the inclination toward fairness and rightness that I've come to expect from you.  So, at this point, feel free to have the last word, because I'm not interested in burning the bridge between us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I'm not sure what your impetus is for so valiantly fighting against some method -- any method? -- to end, or mitigate, the arcs being wrong in VASSAL, but it's very strange to me, and doesn't comport at all with the inclination toward fairness and rightness that I've come to expect from you.  So, at this point, feel free to have the last word, because I'm not interested in burning the bridge between us.

You keep misrepresenting what I'm saying. If you're so surprised, did it cross your mind that you might misunderstand something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Episode 71 of Wide World of Wargaming (X-Wing) is now available.  We recorded this episode on June 23rd, 2020.

https://wwwargaming.podbean.com/e/wide-world-of-wargaming-x-wing-episode-71-thats-not-good-enough/

Frankly, not a whole lot to this one.  It's me responding, in depth, to @Mu0n729's response (and the responses of others) to me highlighting the (apparently known to some) problems with VASSAL Small-ship arcs.

Totally as an aside, Vince and I played a game on Saturday, and the exact same thing happened to him -- his ship clearly had arc on mine, VASSAL said it did not, and the ol' sheet of paper test said it did.  By a lot.  I don't think this is as rare as everyone thinks.  Especially as side arcs begin to get more design space.

In addition to that, Vince and I talk about why "expected value" does not mean "this is the number you should always expect."  He didn't completely grok it, but he absorbed enough, and trusted me enough, to back off on some wacky dice claims he was making against TTS.  (I mean, TTS sucks for a multitude of reasons ... it doesn't need anybody citing unfair ones.)

Y'all have a good week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Browse within the 2830 files inside the vassal module to find the small base arc line graphic: 10 minutes (didn't find it)

Navigate the Autospawn2e code file (and its many side code files referenced by it) to find the spot where a ship is constructed element by element to find which image references the arc line: 40 minutes (didn't find it)

Remember that those ship base images are constructed only if 1) they're not already generated and present in the module 2) as part as the Content Checker's many tasks and locate the exact file name reference for the arc line element: 30 minutes (found old, faction specific versions from 3 years ago, didn't match the color)

Re-browse the 2830 files inside the module to find the exact file again: 10 minutes (found it)

Recombine a collage of layers in Gimp and reconstruct a white line arc: 5 minutes

 

 2020-06-30_04-08-04

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to jump in here so it doesn't seem like this is a personal vendetta from Jeff. I decide on what content we use for the show, I decided that this was worth pursuing because, at least for American players, this is an issue that is going to continue being relevant for the foreseeable future due to COVID complications. 
 

GreenDragoon, we revisited this topic because someone reached out to us directly with an explanation and we felt it only proper to re-address the issue since it came up multiple times again in games between Jeff and myself. 

Suffice to say, it seems to have been corrected and we look forward to continuing our support of VASSAL. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

@Mu0n729, I don't even know what process or change or whatever you're illustrating in the above posts.

Pic 1: vassal only keeps a few template types of unspecified ship base: small, medium, large, small with single turret arc, small with double turret, etc. When autospawn is invoked, the module build file is modified during runtime to fetch the right arc toggle graphic image file, the shaded regions on the ship base in the right faction color, the pilot name, etc. This is necessary because the old way was to define 1 new object per ship. When you reach 40+ of these, redefining a key property in all of these becomes extremely tedious, mind numbing, error prone and sucks the fun completely out of dealing with vassal x-wing. 

In 2017, with the help of Mike Murphy, we went hardcore generalist mode with autospawn and how new content would be managed without a module update (the content checker) whenever possible (spoiler: often not possible).

 

In 2018, I had to completely redo this insane push so that it could comply with 2nd edition's realities. So many things were changed or completely new so it was a swamp to waddle through. 

Pic 1 is me manually constructing a ship base like the content checker is doing after it notices there's a new ship online, fetched a small empty base with the arc lines and starts getting the ship image in my online repo and such. I've only shown it partially here (no ship image) because I'm concentrating on the white arc lines matching the arc toggle graphic. What you're seeing is a redrawing of these lines using a 1 pixel width with antialiasing (if I turn it off, it looks like crap) using Gimp's path tool, carefully selecting where the arc lines cross the base. Since it dithers, it's a pixelated image rather than a vector one, so it'll always be imperfect, but it's way better than before. I'm happy with it, so should you. 

 

Video 1:toggles the before and after the change. The new version is a bit narrower by 1 degree or such

 

Pic 2: in action after I've wiped out all ship base graphics in the module and let the content checker rebuild all those graphics during runtime. 

 

Edited by Mu0n729

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...