Daybreak, it is true (as wobbly showed to us with the screenshot) that the Pedia is not unambiguous.
Thanks to you we can improve that for others that will came after you. Thank you.
Daybreak wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:49 am
Not you attacking me and I did not mean you - apologise if that is the way it came across.
So, if it is not wobbly, I guess you feel it is me who is attacking you.
Daybreak wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:49 am
and "1 starlane is 1 fuel" or as Oberlus said it "1 starlane costs 1 fuel" still leaves the following two conditions as valid (Even if I now know that #1 condition is not valid)
1. That a ship with one fuel cant jump a starlane if the jump is 1.x away; and
2. That a ship with 2 fuel jumps a 1.x starlane, but only has one fuel deducted.
I guess here is the root of your trouble understanding all this:
There is no such thing as a 1.x starlanes. That is a void concept when you know FO and how it is implemented/programmed.
Each starlane counts as one starlane. One starlane is always one starlane.
A starlane is not a measure of distance, is an object in the galaxy, a line that connects two systems. That line can be longer or shorter, but will still be ONE line. Not 0.7, not 1.48, not 2. Just ONE starlane.
One graphical examples, trying to make sure you really understand, hopefully:
Sys_A <--starlane_A_B_length_50--> Sys_B <---------------------------------------------------------------------starlane_B_C_length_300-------------------------------------------------------------------------> Sys_C
There you have two starlanes. One is connecting systems A and B, and the other is connecting systems B and C.
A ship travelling from A to B will consume 1 fuel, because it is travelling ONE starlane, and will require only one turn to travel it if speed is greater or equal than 50.
A ship travelling from B to C will consume 1 fuel, because it is travelling a single ONE starlane, and will require several turns to travel it because length is huge. But only one fuel.
Daybreak wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:49 am
and I experienced #1 above and that is why I thought that way.
I am going to argue with you here: you never experienced that. Hands down. The code of FreeOrion can't substract more than 1 fuel per jumped starlane, so it is impossible that you saw that. Period. I would me more inclined to believe you saw a flying saucer around Sidney than a ship getting subtracted more than 1 fuel per starlane in your computer.
If me telling you are wrong feels like I am attacking you, it's something I can't help you with, unless I just refrain from addressing you in the future, which would be awkward and a liability to play together. And I am certain it is nothing to apologize. If I am not disrespecting you, which I don't think I am, I can't apologize for being right when trying to help you understand the game when you make questions or suggestions based on false facts.
Daybreak wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:49 am
if I was trying to help why I have to put up with snide comments.
The first time you said it, you were trying to help. After the third time you keep insisting on something you didn't see (you think you saw it, but you have no proofs), you are not trying to help, you are just trying to say quite loud "I am right". Not the case, but also not big deal, Daybreak. I've been wrong many times, and will keep being wrong many more times. The sooner I can rectify, the sooner I can feel OK (because no one likes to be wrong, to commit mistakes, it's understandable that many people react not very kindly when someone else points to them a mistake).
I get you don't like sarcastic comments. I can apologize for that (I do enjoy sarcasm when not trying to make someone feel bad, and that has its perils). But my comments are not intended to be malicious, and my sarcasm doesn't appear in my first or second replies, but after you start with your adamant actitude that, let me tell you this, is a quite annoying actitude.