Sitrep scope vs actual message

Problems and solutions for installing or running FreeOrion, including discussion of bugs if needed before posting a bug report. For problems building from source, post in Compile.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
MatGB
Creative Contributor
Posts: 3310
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:45 pm

Sitrep scope vs actual message

#1 Post by MatGB » Tue Aug 16, 2016 2:31 am

Several examples make me think whether or not to generate a sitrep is being decided at the wrong time in the effects processing resolution.

1) A damaged ship travelling through a stargate from a system with a drydock will get a sitrep saying it's been repaired, but will only actually be repaired if the arrival system has a sitrep (this is an old one we've discussed before)
2) The Drydock 'partial repair' sitrep will trigger for ships that are fully repaired by other effects (eg nanorobotic hull, logistics coordinator, damage control techs), even though the partial repair effect is, deliberately, given a the lowest priority of all repair types
3) Dampening Cloud sitreps will regularly inform you that a different ship than the one actually affected has lost its fuel. In the attached, my scout ship has not lost its fuel, the enemy cruiser has:
sitrep-error.png
sitrep-error.png (379.96 KiB) Viewed 492 times
I get the impression that sitreps are being generated in an earlier pass than the actual effects, and definitely aren't taking proper account of priority.
Mat Bowles

Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

dbenage-cx
Programmer
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 12:08 am

Re: Sitrep scope vs actual message

#2 Post by dbenage-cx » Tue Aug 16, 2016 3:01 am

MatGB wrote:2) The Drydock 'partial repair' sitrep will trigger for ships that are fully repaired by other effects (eg nanorobotic hull, logistics coordinator, damage control techs), even though the partial repair effect is, deliberately, given a the lowest priority of all repair types
None of these currently share the same stacking group SHIP REPAIR (only logistics coordinator actually has one, FLAGSHIP_EFFECTS_LOGISTICS).
IIRC it was suggested to sync/balance them with drydock once they are reworked.

Could #1 be a priority issue (since the repairs are before default) ?

Edit: Going to need a priority matrix/chart :/

User avatar
MatGB
Creative Contributor
Posts: 3310
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:45 pm

Re: Sitrep scope vs actual message

#3 Post by MatGB » Tue Aug 16, 2016 11:45 pm

1 could be (it's been awhile since it I tested for it), but 3 not, I changed that to Very Late Priority when I was doing other things, partially to stop the sitrep triggering almost constantly and partially so it would try to take into account some other repair effects.
Mat Bowles

Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Post Reply