Topic: minor bug with deleting

Checked it and this happens also when removing other resources, e.g. removing coal removes also water.

Wrote a bug report. Which widelands version are you running?

Thanks for reporting

Top

Quote

Contrary to this finding, I found that bug helpful when I did fine tuning of my last map. So I didn't consider it a bug.

Top

Quote

Trying to look into it I noticed a few things. Please correct me if I am wrong: I am new to the code:

1. Each field can only have one resource. This seems to be true for all resources, so you can only have water OR fish (which by itself sounds a bit strange).
2. Fields on the coast can in principle hold water and fish, but because of 1., it is actually water or fish.
3. editor/tools/set_resources_tool.cc calls map->initialize_resources(mr.location(), args->current_resource, amount); with the currently selected resource

4. What 3. does is

   • set the resource type of that field to the new type
   • set the amounts to the wanted amount

   So, in the end, this does not only remove the currently selected resource, but it also changes the resource type to the currently selected one (if valid on that field).

Whether this is a bug or a feature is now largely a matter of expectations. Consider a field which currently holds resource A, but could also hold resource B instead. Now you tell the editor to set the amount of resource B on that field to some non-zero value. You could

1. go ahead: remove resource A and set B accordingly, or
2. ignore, as resource A is already set

Here, I tend towards 1.

Now consider the same situation, but you tell the editor to set the amount of resource B to 0. Again, you could

1. go ahead: remove resource A and set B to 0, or
2. ignore, as there is already nothing of resource B on that field.

Here, I tend towards 2 (but the editor seems to do 1.)

What we could (and in my opinion, should) do, is to make sure that setting resource B to 0 does not affect resource A if B is already at 0 (resource A is currently set).

I am not sure if this solves the described problem, but it seems to me that it does, and it might be not so difficult to implement (but I have not tried). What do you think?

Top

Quote

regarding water and fish. from a ressources point of view water means Ground water (for building wells).

Top

Quote

knarf wrote:

kaputtnik wrote:

One can expect that a node can hold both water and fish. But what about other resources like coal and iron? I think no one would expect that a node can hold iron and coal (plus gold?) simultaneously.

Why not? I wondered whether that is the case, actually. There is not really a logical reason why a mountain could not contain both.

Sorry, real world explanation: The genesis of coal is totally different from the genesis of iron, gold, or stone. If you hear something about a mine you will ever hear "The coal mine, the iron mine, the gold mine, the diamond mine" So from a human perspective there are only mines of one type. Yeah, widelands is not the real world, but it should not be too different, imho.

What if I want the opposite: how do I remove resources from the default amounts if I don't see them in the first place?

You might want to read this discussion

But to come back to the original problem of this thread: here, removing one resource seems to remove another, which sounds like something that is not wanted and which we could improve upon.

Yes, definitely. Maybe there can be some rule, e.g.

• "If a node where one adjacent field is water terrain, prevent placing water here.", this keeps fish
• "If a node where one adjacent field is mountain terrain prevent placing water here", keeps mountain resources

So water can't be placed directly at the border of water terrains and can't be placed at the border of mountain terrains. I think this would not change any game mechanics and would not have an effect on game play.

Top

Quote