by Sphagne » Thu May 12, 2005 5:33 pm
Hey, Graf thanks for the help, it seems that it was only my previous style and atitude, that you disliked, sorry that I misjudged you.
As for the floting point problem, I do not think that would chenge the logic so much that would affect this part of the code, but the final reintegration of the new logic to the new code might require a bit more of work.
As for the list, well, none of "Look for" codes would require it, but all the attack initialization codes would need this, and all the chases and walkes, if they want to decide for an attack on the target (or heal it in the case of ArchVile), and also all the refire codes.
We can add another bool parameter to the P_CheckSight function that would trigger the additional stealth check, and this would automatically force the compiler to show us all the places that the function is used.
We can check the place and decide if we want the additional sight check at that place or not, and if not then we would pass the function a "False" value.
But if we want the check, then we would pass the new CVar or'ed with the bool value initialized via MAPINFO, and that would do the job.
OK, that's great, but the important question is, "Who would decide to do the job?", any volunteers?
P.S. Tormentor667, Maybe you are not a programmer, but you are definitely a good level designer, so you may have some good ideas, to add to the bunch, so don't leave us.
Hey, Graf thanks for the help, it seems that it was only my previous style and atitude, that you disliked, sorry that I misjudged you. :smile:
As for the floting point problem, I do not think that would chenge the logic so much that would affect this part of the code, but the final reintegration of the new logic to the new code might require a bit more of work.
As for the list, well, none of "Look for" codes would require it, but all the attack initialization codes would need this, and all the chases and walkes, if they want to decide for an attack on the target (or heal it in the case of ArchVile), and also all the refire codes.
We can add another bool parameter to the P_CheckSight function that would trigger the additional stealth check, and this would automatically force the compiler to show us all the places that the function is used.
We can check the place and decide if we want the additional sight check at that place or not, and if not then we would pass the function a "False" value.
But if we want the check, then we would pass the new CVar or'ed with the bool value initialized via MAPINFO, and that would do the job.
OK, that's great, but the important question is, "Who would decide to do the job?", any volunteers? :wink:
P.S. Tormentor667, Maybe you are not a programmer, but you are definitely a good level designer, so you may have some good ideas, to add to the bunch, so don't leave us.