 |
|  |
 |
|
Mark_Everson
|
 |
Canton, MI
Jan 1970 time: 00:16
|
|
NOTICE:
We have decided to call the forthcoming demo (formerly called 5.1) Demo 6! This will cause some confusion in the threads for a bit, but I think its the rational thing to do in the long run. The reasoning is that since we don't have version numbers (FE V 0.31) that we might as well have a new release every time we have "enough" new features, and these should just be integers per Clash tradition. Sorry for any confusion.
BTW, I am assuming that since we don't have a GUI for ship boarding that this feature will be bumped to D7. Is my assumption correct according to those in the know? Gary and Laurent?
Last edited by Mark_Everson on 13-12-2001 at 05:48
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Gary Thomas
|
 |
New Zealand
Mar 2001 time: 17:16
|
|
quote: We have decided to call the forthcoming demo (formerly called 5.1) Demo 6! This will cause some confusion in the threads for a bit, but I think its the rational thing to do in the long run. The reasoning is that since we don't have version numbers (FE V 0.31) that we might as well have a new release every time we have "enough" new features, and these should just be integers per Clash tradition. Sorry for any confusion. |
This was actually my idea. It wasn't that I was giving up decimal increments, simply that D5.1 has so many new features that I felt that it deserved a full version number on its own. D5.1 was supposed to be a small increment, with, say, just roads added. In fact, it turned out to be much more than that!
So I would still anticipate that the next release will be D6.1, unless it has some really significant improvements (which I think D5.1 aka D6 does have).
quote: BTW, I am assuming that since we don't have a GUI for ship boarding that this feature will be bumped to D7. Is my assumption correct according to those in the know? Gary and Laurent? |
This, too, is my fault. Laurent explained the requirements to me. My problem is that units can only be loaded onto carriers in ADJACENT squares. My order system cannot handle that. Nor do I think it is a good idea. The implication is of a 100km gangplank.
On the other hand, if we reject the adjacent square approach, we have to deal with the concept of ships in land squares. This gets back to my original arguments for rivers and coastlines to be in land squares (and beaches and ports also). This is the wrong thread to extend this discussion - but at least I have explained the reason for the delay.
Cheers.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16. Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|