If I remove the lion it's fine?

@Stan?

Probably, though scaffolds that are much too large or too small don't look too good either.

Shouldn't it be *_a_01.* rather than *_01_a.*?

Removing scaffoldings would be a regression IMHO.

Also 01 not 1

Yes, I understand that, though that's not what I meant.
The number of foundations is much larger than the number of scaffolds, which means most foundations don't have scaffolding or use scaffolds of a smaller foundation. I wonder whether it wouldn't be more consistent to omit scaffolds from foundation actors altogether.
And another thing, some art/actors/props/structures/construction/ files (1x1.xml, 1x1_t.xml, etc.) appear to be unused and visibly use a different (and older?) design than the scaf_*.xml; shouldn't they be deleted?

• clean up animal sounds per @Freagarach

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Missing file 'art/textures/skins/skeletal/celt_linothorax_03.png' referenced by: 'public/art/actors/units/gauls/cavalry_spearman_c_r.xml', 'public/art/actors/units/gauls/infantry_swordsman_c.xml', 'public/art/actors/units/gauls/infantry_swordsman_c.xml', 'public/art/actors/units/gauls/infantry_swordsman_e.xml', 'public/art/actors/units/ptolemies/infantry_swordsman_e.xml'
Missing file 'art/textures/skins/skeletal/celt_linothorax_03_b.png' referenced by: 'public/art/actors/units/gauls/cavalry_spearman_c_r.xml', 'public/art/actors/units/gauls/infantry_swordsman_c.xml', 'public/art/actors/units/gauls/infantry_swordsman_e.xml', 'public/art/actors/units/ptolemies/infantry_swordsman_e.xml'
Missing file 'art/textures/skins/skeletal/celt_linothorax_03_c.png' referenced by: 'public/art/actors/units/gauls/cavalry_spearman_c_r.xml', 'public/art/actors/units/gauls/infantry_swordsman_c.xml', 'public/art/actors/units/gauls/infantry_swordsman_e.xml', 'public/art/actors/units/ptolemies/infantry_swordsman_e.xml'
Missing file 'art/textures/skins/skeletal/celt_linothorax_03_d.png' referenced by: 'public/art/actors/units/gauls/cavalry_spearman_c_r.xml', 'public/art/actors/units/gauls/infantry_swordsman_c.xml', 'public/art/actors/units/gauls/infantry_swordsman_e.xml', 'public/art/actors/units/ptolemies/infantry_swordsman_e.xml'

• rephrase timestamp string
• remove a few incorrect hyphens

itf -> iid.

Comment changes.

• Works as advertised.
• Code looks good.
• Nice change :)

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

In D2855#132194, @Freagarach wrote:

Idem for the infant elephant and domestic cattle.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

reload gpuskinning from config when disabled and enabling preferglsl

Playtesting reveals no oddities.

About the revision demanded by @wraitii, I think we have the simpler log-ram available so is the revision still a necessity? The simpler log-ram should be addressed in another diff I think.

Sure, no problem! Please don't feel pushed by me, I'm just pinging every now and then ;)

Do you guys think OnValueModification is where the problem would be? Isn't that what is called whenever the population bonus value is updated?

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Translations in JSON.

To me it seems logical to define the whole SE in a JSON, just like auras. That way one can easily apply them also beyond attacking (refs rotting carcasses).

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Add regression test for above mentioned behaviour.

@lonehawk No rushes, but how are things going? The patch is nigh finished and I'm eager to get your first contribution in ;)

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Update, for some reason I got confused. Now works with @bb's suggestion

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Revert the changes of order, as it belongs to another patch (Discussed with @vladislavbelov) the change has too many implications. Will commit it after build

In D2423#132496, @Angen wrote:

so you suggest to add variable to keep track if gpu skinning was disabled or to write custom getter for gpuskinning and disable it silently?

These Width == 0 checks are nagging me a bit, they seem to have some undefined behaviour.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Better noWrap handling

Yea, was messing up stuff

@bb did you revert it intentionally?

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Some stylistic fixes

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

no_text_wrap => text_nowrap
initialize lastTextSize per elexis request
Fix allignment issue

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Fix notes

Maybe text_nowrap to match the others? On the web it's actually whitespace: nowrap. But since we have text_* and text* variants of properties I'm not sure.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Years

Patch is alright logically. But syntactically, I am not so sure.

Do we have deceleration as well?

Comments by: elexis, Polakrity, smiley, Stan

*Patch By

Needs rebase, but why not just do that and commit it.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Fix OOS noticed by Freagarach

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

The Upgrade setupButton was broken in so many ways I couldn't break my head round leaving it like that, or explaining what needs to change. Changing it here.

I really fail to see how you want to find a typo in a name automically.

There's automatically and then there's "easily". We could detect close-names (such as capitalized/uncapitalized versions of the same string) quite easily with a script, and likewise typos aren't too complicated. Simply outputting all "known" status effect node-names would make it obvious if there are duplicates, and that's not extremely difficult to do.

This patch has maximal gameplay impact and minimal fixed compared to D2837, D2913 and D3021

In D3021#132508, @Freagarach wrote:

Also chasing is beyond broken

I actually find it a tad easier to hunt now, since the hunt does not speed away ^^

Have you tried attacking an infantry unit which is walking away with melee cav?

In D2808#132511, @wraitii wrote:

I somewhat disagree with @bb -> we have people looking at our templates quite closely,

Currently maybe, but we can't know if that is sustainable.

and we're supposed to test things,

I really fail to see how you want to find a typo in a name automically. It is more that plausible that the codes defer by 1 character and such and not all templates need to define everything.

and it's really just not that hard to make sure there are no typos.

It actually is, since the codes can be almost identical (1 character difference is enough, say a Cap vs lower case), so getting it from the template will be hard. And ingame one would need to look extremely closely too see if the resistance is applied (see the hero garrison aura not being applied for a long time, before we found out).

Forcing template writers to make JSON files isn't an improvement to me.

We already do for Auras and technologies.

In D2808#132510, @Freagarach wrote:

That is also the case for damage types, right?

That is also the case for damage types, right?
If you would require SE to have JSONs the templates could be simplified as well (no need for the translatable names in there I guess?).

Also chasing is beyond broken

I actually find it a tad easier to hunt now, since the hunt does not speed away ^^

What gives me a bit of a stomachache is the fact the codes of the statuseffects can be completely arbitrary, but still need to match for resistances to apply. 1 typo in the resistance and the resistance will silently not work. Imho all statusEffects should have an json and give a big fat error otherwise.