I know how to make a plain Bubble shield, But I was wondering, if anyone knew how to make like... a Bubble Shield that has 3 layers? I have been trying to figure out a way to do it myself, but I cant seem to find the solution X-x
Anyone?|||Someone did this a few months ago.
It may have been Seiya.|||BulletMagnet|||Is it possible to just added 2 extra shield meshes in the the code?|||brandon007|||What's your goal with this? Keep in mind that the inner shields will take splash damage from anything that hits the outer shields, making it relatively pointless. If you make the inner shields invulnerable until the outer ones are down, then the unit becomes incredibly overpowered unless you make the shield recharge times extremely long, and at that point, why have a multi-shield anyway?|||Mithy|||I'm just letting you know what others have run into when using units like this, man. Seiya's unit was not a balanced, usable unit, just a proof-of-concept thing. It was basically invincible when he had only the top layer shield vulnerable, and extremely weak with all layers vulnerable at once.
If it's just for fun, then go for it, as long as you're up to the task of writing your own shield management code. It's not that hard, but you have to make your own copy of Unit.CreateShield that can handle multiple shield entities.|||I wanted to use a similar concept with SupCom2. If it's possible in FA it should be possible in SupCom2 as well.
My concept was to have a UEF shield on the bottom and a penetrate-able shield on top.
If the shield on top is 99% penetrate-able it will allow the projectile to pass through.
However, the second layer is the true shield.
The top layer shield is invisible and allows pass through. It goes down automatically when the lower layer of shield goes down.
What this accomplishes is a complex way to 'capture' splash damage for UEF shields.
This is important beecause this is one of the key benefits of shields vs regular health in SupCom.|||I'm not entirely clear on how damage-absorptive shields work in SC2.
If you have say, 4 Adaptor shields, which strip 97.something% damage from the incoming projectile, and the projectile lands and does that remaining ~2% splash damage, does it actually hurt units within its radius that are under the shields?
Do 5 of them actually completely nullify all splash damage done by the projectile, making it so only the shields themselves take damage?
Do the shields themselves take splash damage from landing projectiles (that still have damage left), or do they only take damage when a projectile impacts them directly?|||Mithy|||So a shell that hits an aeon/cybran shield has its splash property stripped completely? So one Adaptor can neutralize something like a Jackhammer shell as long as the shell hits the shield and doesn't directly impact a unit? That doesn't totally jive with what I've seen in videos, but having never played the game, I can't say for sure.
Regardless, stripping splash and making an absorption shield would be simple enough to do in FA.
On the other hand, doing multiple shields on an SC2 unit would probably be at least as difficult as doing it in FA, if not more so - depends on how much of the shield creation code is still in lua, and how much (if any) has been moved to the engine.|||Mithy|||The shield code will be in /lua/shield.lua and the shield management/creation code will be in /lua/sim/Unit.lua (CreateShield and CreatePersonalShield probably).
So shells still have splash when they do impact, but absorption shields don't cause an impact. That makes sense.
And FA shields don't 'absorb' anything, they just cause impacts normally and take damage. If an AE shell hits an FA shield, it still produces full splash damage, and the splash goes through the shield to hurt other shields inside (but not units inside obviously). FA would need a new class of shield that doesn't cause impacts and only strips damage, but that's actually very easy to do based on the existing shield class.|||Mithy|||Obviously, but my point is that units inside a shield do not take damage, where shields inside a shield do. So there's some code in the engine that accounts for this, even though there's no access to it in the lua.|||Mithy|||That's a big can of worms, and would be really, really difficult to coordinate between various units. Reeeealllly difficult.
And I don't think the shield damage within shields is an oversight, I think that's intentional. Could be wrong, but it'd be pretty tough to balance nested bubble shields if you could only ever damage the outer one at any given time.
On the other hand, your shield idea isn't as difficult as you think it might be. When a projectile impacts a shield, before it even registers as an impact, it runs a function on the shield entity called OnCollisionCheck. I would guess that the absorption shields use this to simply modify the damage of the projectile by -85%, and return false, allowing the projectile through. You could make a normal shield do the same damage reduction, but return true, causing an impact anyway.|||Nested shields only get damaged if they are hit with aoe. If you have only non-aoe damage incoming, then you need to go through all of them. And yeah, the layered shield I did was invincible versus certain units (perseuses) and quite vulnerable to aoe or units with a high rate of fire. Mostly, it was done as a proof of concept and because I was bored and the idea sounded interesting. You do have to re-write large chunks of the shield management code though.|||Shield mechanics can be so annoying.... Since there is no penetration on UEF shields, projectiles explode on impact with them, and deal AoE to everything instead of getting weakened. Interesting fact is that UEF shields arent the only ones that take splash. Adaptor shields CAN still take damage. Ground fire a jackhammer next to the adaptors, so that the projetile doesnt hit the shields, but the AoE does. Im sure youll like the result ><|||You could do something simple like stripping the projectile's DamageRadius when it impacts a UEF shield directly, so only the shield takes damage (but takes full damage and stops the projectile, unlike absorption shields). That might take it a little too far in the other direction, though.|||Mithy|||I can't tell you exactly how to do it, because I don't have SC2's shield code. I don't know if there are separate classes for both shield types, nor how the base Unit class handles the adding of shields based on blueprint information or upgrades.|||Mithy|||Bastilean
Monday, April 23, 2012
W.O.F (WIP: FA-4DC)
I'm kicking off a thread for the development of a Weight Of Fire mod for use with FA. While I know there is already one such mod for use with SC1, the functions that enable this ability were disabled with the release of FA.
For those of you not knowing what WOF does... It allows for a large projectile impact to toss about a small unit, along the same vector the instigating projectile was traveling. Thus large weapons will be able to scatter and throw small units a small distance away from the point of impact. I.E. Artillery, TML's, and Experamentals ect...
As you can imagine, this could lead to very realistic game and amusing play being able to blow a unit into the air after being hit by Artillery shell.
Resin_Smoker|||Resin_Smoker|||Neruz|||Yeah, I guess that could work decently. You'll have to make sure the projectile hits the ground before the unit does (adjusting the collision box / attach offset), or it'll look very weird.|||No offense, but i'm not seeing the gameplay advantage of a "Weight of Fire" mod. Is it just for fun?|||As far as I know, virtually every mod brings in worse balance or gameplay than the original game. The point of implementing something like this is to write awesome and challenging code that produces a lols result. Who gives a **** if it doesn't make the game any more fun?|||DeadMG|||was also considering to do W.o.F. at some point.
most of what I did 2010 in FA was for lols only.
anyway, I might be able to offer assistance.
also not to forget collisions on the x/z axis, otherwise the unit might get half stuck in a slope or some hill.|||Ghaleon|||WOOT!!! I am pleased to report that I was able to get a "basic" version of WOF working using a helper projectile to move the impacted units!
Resin|||
BANG!|||Win.|||Now get them to turn and Tujmble while airborn xD
Mike|||Can projectiles have animated bones? If so, that's doable.|||Mithy|||I have a full out working version of this now.... just working out the bugs before I release a beta.
Resin|||I've uploaded a Beta of this mod to the following website:
http://www.rtscommunity.com/mw/download.php?type=modification&game=43
It may take a day or so before it shows up.
Resin|||Here is a video of the current mod.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVqMqz8PgEc
P.S. Thank you Domino for creating the vid !!!
Resin|||That got 17 views while I watched it. Started at 3, refreshed the page by accident when it was over and it was at 20.
Either Google just re-indexed the modding forum, and sent a veritable army of spiders to follow Youtube links, or the FA modding community is not yet dead.|||Depends upon your definition of dead.|||Just a quick question, with any of those unit in flight can you hit track and follow as they go flying through the air to their destruction?
Looks good and very funny. I can almost envision a bulldozer unit that just runs through a formation. "Move bitch, get out of the way!"
|||themak|||I've recently added support for units in transport.... If they die while attached, they'll release and perform WOF. If the transport dies, it will release the attached units, allowing them to fall.|||Just added splash damage to each unit.... As they fall back to earth, the units impacting do thier health value in damage to anything they lands on.|||Hi,
ONE WORD
AWESOME :)
For those of you not knowing what WOF does... It allows for a large projectile impact to toss about a small unit, along the same vector the instigating projectile was traveling. Thus large weapons will be able to scatter and throw small units a small distance away from the point of impact. I.E. Artillery, TML's, and Experamentals ect...
As you can imagine, this could lead to very realistic game and amusing play being able to blow a unit into the air after being hit by Artillery shell.
Resin_Smoker|||Resin_Smoker|||Neruz|||Yeah, I guess that could work decently. You'll have to make sure the projectile hits the ground before the unit does (adjusting the collision box / attach offset), or it'll look very weird.|||No offense, but i'm not seeing the gameplay advantage of a "Weight of Fire" mod. Is it just for fun?|||As far as I know, virtually every mod brings in worse balance or gameplay than the original game. The point of implementing something like this is to write awesome and challenging code that produces a lols result. Who gives a **** if it doesn't make the game any more fun?|||DeadMG|||was also considering to do W.o.F. at some point.
most of what I did 2010 in FA was for lols only.
anyway, I might be able to offer assistance.
also not to forget collisions on the x/z axis, otherwise the unit might get half stuck in a slope or some hill.|||Ghaleon|||WOOT!!! I am pleased to report that I was able to get a "basic" version of WOF working using a helper projectile to move the impacted units!
Resin|||
BANG!|||Win.|||Now get them to turn and Tujmble while airborn xD
Mike|||Can projectiles have animated bones? If so, that's doable.|||Mithy|||I have a full out working version of this now.... just working out the bugs before I release a beta.
Resin|||I've uploaded a Beta of this mod to the following website:
http://www.rtscommunity.com/mw/download.php?type=modification&game=43
It may take a day or so before it shows up.
Resin|||Here is a video of the current mod.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVqMqz8PgEc
P.S. Thank you Domino for creating the vid !!!
Resin|||That got 17 views while I watched it. Started at 3, refreshed the page by accident when it was over and it was at 20.
Either Google just re-indexed the modding forum, and sent a veritable army of spiders to follow Youtube links, or the FA modding community is not yet dead.|||Depends upon your definition of dead.|||Just a quick question, with any of those unit in flight can you hit track and follow as they go flying through the air to their destruction?
Looks good and very funny. I can almost envision a bulldozer unit that just runs through a formation. "Move bitch, get out of the way!"
|||themak|||I've recently added support for units in transport.... If they die while attached, they'll release and perform WOF. If the transport dies, it will release the attached units, allowing them to fall.|||Just added splash damage to each unit.... As they fall back to earth, the units impacting do thier health value in damage to anything they lands on.|||Hi, ONE WORD
AWESOME :)
[FA] Checking weapon enabled status
Is there a function for being able to check a weapon's enabled status? Looking through the LUADOC I haven't been able to find one and I've pawed through the code some to no luck.
Failing that, I had decided to try sticking a value into the SetWeaponEnabled function that would be set true/false depending on what happened in there, but then I discovered that this function isn't called when a weapon is created.
Does anyone know of someplace in the code where I can accurately set this up other than in the unit's code? I need it for dynamic compatibility with other mods.|||FuryoftheStars
Failing that, I had decided to try sticking a value into the SetWeaponEnabled function that would be set true/false depending on what happened in there, but then I discovered that this function isn't called when a weapon is created.
Does anyone know of someplace in the code where I can accurately set this up other than in the unit's code? I need it for dynamic compatibility with other mods.|||FuryoftheStars
[SC2] New Faction Modding
There are mods for SupCom units in SupCom2, but so far I haven't seen the Seraphim. I was wondering if it is possible to add a new faction (specifically the Seraphim).|||We were talking about that on the original Revamp thread by liveordie. I was looking at lua.scd/lua/common/factions.lua and asking the same question. Apparently the UI is hardcoded to prevent additional factions.|||Bastilean|||...coding that we don't have access to.
Unit AnimationWalkRate ?
I'm tiring to fix a few AnimationWalkRates that are off ether to fast or to slow is there any way to get the exact WalkRate for a unit for its UniformScale and MaxSpeed ?|||Trial and Error.
Mike|||OrangeKnight
Mike|||OrangeKnight
[FA][SOLVED] hooking worldview.lua
Hi,
im trying to non destructively hook..
lua/ui/controls/worldview.lua
however every attempt i try is fail... if its possible.. will someone
demostrate how i can hook the HandleEvent function please.. :)
thx :)|||Look at BulletMagnet's one-click-wonder mod. Should be on page 2 or 3 of the mod forum.
There's nothing special about worldview or handleevent though, other than that handleevent has to return false or strange things happen.|||sorted thx pal :)
im trying to non destructively hook..
lua/ui/controls/worldview.lua
however every attempt i try is fail... if its possible.. will someone
demostrate how i can hook the HandleEvent function please.. :)
thx :)|||Look at BulletMagnet's one-click-wonder mod. Should be on page 2 or 3 of the mod forum.
There's nothing special about worldview or handleevent though, other than that handleevent has to return false or strange things happen.|||sorted thx pal :)
[SC2][SOLVED] bp.scd/Units vs lua.scd/Units
Why is a unit's bp located in both bp.scd/Units and lua.scd/Units? From what I've seen, they're exactly the same.|||There are no .bp files in lua.scd, so I'm not really sure what you're talking about?
lua.scd contains scripts, bp.scd contains blueprints.|||hmmm.... just checked with the vanilla scd's and you're right. For some reason liveordie has bp files in lua.scd and scripts in bp.scd so the Unit directories are exactly identicial. I thought they were there by default... thanks.|||madface|||Uncompiled Lua has both Blue Print and Script files in it. It's easy to see how so many of us were confused by this. It's generally where you have to go when you start modding.
If the title was Uncompiled_bp_lua it would be more exact. Now we know.
lua.scd contains scripts, bp.scd contains blueprints.|||hmmm.... just checked with the vanilla scd's and you're right. For some reason liveordie has bp files in lua.scd and scripts in bp.scd so the Unit directories are exactly identicial. I thought they were there by default... thanks.|||madface|||Uncompiled Lua has both Blue Print and Script files in it. It's easy to see how so many of us were confused by this. It's generally where you have to go when you start modding.
If the title was Uncompiled_bp_lua it would be more exact. Now we know.
[SC2] Do Merge Files Just Increase Complexity of Full Mods?
I am considering dropping merge files from my mod and placing my blue prints in a bp.scd file (using over write like other files).
This will reduce the complexity of placing a mod in the gamedata folder (over writing the original files) and removing the mod by then over writing the mod with the original files.
Note: this requires an 'original bp.scd, lua.scd and z_lua_dlc1.scd files' folder to draw from just like your mod.
Over writing is sloppier than moving files around, but it also reduces the complexity drastically down to: I want to play this, so I will drop those files in my gamedata and overwrite whatever used to be there.
It will also cut out the possibility that someone forgets he has a mod file in the game data folder that is stopping him from playing an unmodded game. I had a friend use the steam file fixer, but it does not remove non-original files, and he couldn't figure out on his own specifically how he was crashing (he knew it was mod related).|||Bastilean|||liveordie|||CerusVI has created a mod manager: http://forums.gaspowered.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=50303.
This will reduce the complexity of placing a mod in the gamedata folder (over writing the original files) and removing the mod by then over writing the mod with the original files.
Note: this requires an 'original bp.scd, lua.scd and z_lua_dlc1.scd files' folder to draw from just like your mod.
Over writing is sloppier than moving files around, but it also reduces the complexity drastically down to: I want to play this, so I will drop those files in my gamedata and overwrite whatever used to be there.
It will also cut out the possibility that someone forgets he has a mod file in the game data folder that is stopping him from playing an unmodded game. I had a friend use the steam file fixer, but it does not remove non-original files, and he couldn't figure out on his own specifically how he was crashing (he knew it was mod related).|||Bastilean|||liveordie|||CerusVI has created a mod manager: http://forums.gaspowered.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=50303.
[SC2] Built in Mod Manager?
Supreme Commander allows you to change from SupCom 2 to SupCom2 DLC1 right in the start screen. Can we tap into that?
I mean how do I add another option after DLC 1 to turn another DLC on?
Anyone looked into this?
Note: I realized if you are modding the original units you wouldn't want to use the same system as the DLC1, so this probably doesn't apply to us.
It would still be interesting code to investigate and might have some easter eggs.|||Bastilean|||I *think* the lobby chat functions are still done in Lua (the file that handles them is actually processed both at the main menu and when in game). If we can pass a list of mods to load then we could write a mod-support mod.
Problem is that I don't have anyone to test with, nor would I be willing to buy a second copy of the game.
[PS:] If you put mods into the Sim's __active_mods table as soon as SimInit.lua is run, you can still load mods. The trick is putting mods into that table from the Lobby - which is something the engine does.
IINM, we can read and write files in Sup2 now as well. My idea is that if the host's lobby can send a message to client lobbies, and have them write a list of mods to file, then we can read that file from the Sim when the game starts.|||Loading up multiplayer (not skirmish) while having Revamp installed gives a pop-up that says "mod_detected_warning". Multiplayer obviously still works so there is some kind of mod manager code actively floating around.
But the way mod support in general has been implemented (at least for GPG's purposes) is a bit weird. There are "mod" folders in each of bp.scd, lua.scd, z_dlc1.scd, z_lua_dlc1.scd (all populated with DLC1 stuff). But the Revamp mod has it's own Revamp_Expansion.scd as well, which seems to invoke the "mod_detected_warning".
liveordie: out of curiosity, have you tried to make Revamp follow the "mods" folder structure in the above scd's?|||The mod_detected_warning is nothing more than a mismatch between the *.scd files and the *.enc files.
It's not a mod manager per-say at all. Since the Sim blindly processes all mods that it's told to on blind faith that other Sims will do the same, it relies on the manager to vet what mods everyone has. I expect that if people have two different mods installed, the mod_detected_warning will fire, the game will launch then desync because the mods are different.|||BulletMagnet|||This is why my mod doesnt trigger mod_detected warning =)
BillGates checked for me if this could be done, but his conclusion was indeed that its impossbile/hardcoded.|||Yeah, the engine itself is what handles shadowing etc. You could make a mod folder, have it mounted, insert a mod_info.lua table for it into __active_mods at the beginning of SimInit, but ultimately the engine would ignore your shadow folder, and you wouldn't be able to do anything more than blueprint mods with it anyway.
I haven't looked at the remaining lobby code in depth, but there isn't much of it left, and I'm quite sure that it does not pass an __active_mods to the engine like the FA/Demigod lobbies did. In fact, the game no longer does RuleInit states in the lobby at all, waiting until launch to pre-load blueprints etc, so the only lua state you'd have access to in the lobby is a really limited, probably user-layer state that handles chat and such (as BulletMagnet pointed out).
I mean how do I add another option after DLC 1 to turn another DLC on?
Anyone looked into this?
Note: I realized if you are modding the original units you wouldn't want to use the same system as the DLC1, so this probably doesn't apply to us.
It would still be interesting code to investigate and might have some easter eggs.|||Bastilean|||I *think* the lobby chat functions are still done in Lua (the file that handles them is actually processed both at the main menu and when in game). If we can pass a list of mods to load then we could write a mod-support mod.
Problem is that I don't have anyone to test with, nor would I be willing to buy a second copy of the game.
[PS:] If you put mods into the Sim's __active_mods table as soon as SimInit.lua is run, you can still load mods. The trick is putting mods into that table from the Lobby - which is something the engine does.
IINM, we can read and write files in Sup2 now as well. My idea is that if the host's lobby can send a message to client lobbies, and have them write a list of mods to file, then we can read that file from the Sim when the game starts.|||Loading up multiplayer (not skirmish) while having Revamp installed gives a pop-up that says "mod_detected_warning". Multiplayer obviously still works so there is some kind of mod manager code actively floating around.
But the way mod support in general has been implemented (at least for GPG's purposes) is a bit weird. There are "mod" folders in each of bp.scd, lua.scd, z_dlc1.scd, z_lua_dlc1.scd (all populated with DLC1 stuff). But the Revamp mod has it's own Revamp_Expansion.scd as well, which seems to invoke the "mod_detected_warning".
liveordie: out of curiosity, have you tried to make Revamp follow the "mods" folder structure in the above scd's?|||The mod_detected_warning is nothing more than a mismatch between the *.scd files and the *.enc files.
It's not a mod manager per-say at all. Since the Sim blindly processes all mods that it's told to on blind faith that other Sims will do the same, it relies on the manager to vet what mods everyone has. I expect that if people have two different mods installed, the mod_detected_warning will fire, the game will launch then desync because the mods are different.|||BulletMagnet|||This is why my mod doesnt trigger mod_detected warning =)
BillGates checked for me if this could be done, but his conclusion was indeed that its impossbile/hardcoded.|||Yeah, the engine itself is what handles shadowing etc. You could make a mod folder, have it mounted, insert a mod_info.lua table for it into __active_mods at the beginning of SimInit, but ultimately the engine would ignore your shadow folder, and you wouldn't be able to do anything more than blueprint mods with it anyway.
I haven't looked at the remaining lobby code in depth, but there isn't much of it left, and I'm quite sure that it does not pass an __active_mods to the engine like the FA/Demigod lobbies did. In fact, the game no longer does RuleInit states in the lobby at all, waiting until launch to pre-load blueprints etc, so the only lua state you'd have access to in the lobby is a really limited, probably user-layer state that handles chat and such (as BulletMagnet pointed out).
[SC2] JTAG 360 modding!!
Yes, it's me again. well my iso modding didn't go so well,alot of crashing,freezes, and invisible units,lol.
well i had an old xenon, and jtaged it.now i will mod this game! any useful info would be much apreciated. Thanx. also,ill keep you guys posted on any findings.|||Considering that I'm confident in saying that I'm the only modder on here who has used a JTAG before, I feel that I'm justified in saying that you won't find much help from us.
You'll get a lot of interest from me however. This is something I want to see.|||Look at the blueprint merging thread I just posted, and start with that. You'll only need one .bp file in one folder (with an .scd extension) to start making changes.
Since I assume there's no DLC for the 360 version, put the .bp file inside a folder called e.g. gamedata\mymod.scd\units\, and that will let you make changes to any and all unit blueprints. No need to compress it into an .scd, just naming a folder with .scd is good enough.
Begin with a test change, like reducing the starting health of the UEF ACU, so you can jump right into a skirmish and make sure the file is being used.|||BulletMagnet|||You don't actually need to replace/copy any files to mod. It might help to have an extracted copy of uncompiled_lua.scd on your desktop for reference, but any unit and ability changes that don't require entirely new scripting can be done with a small added blueprint merge file.|||Mithy|||You probably don't need bp.scd because you can't read the files if the JTAG is anything like the PC.
I would start by picking one unit to modify. Go ahead and reply with that unit and I will tell you what I would do with the pc file. You can tell me us if it works.|||damusolja
well i had an old xenon, and jtaged it.now i will mod this game! any useful info would be much apreciated. Thanx. also,ill keep you guys posted on any findings.|||Considering that I'm confident in saying that I'm the only modder on here who has used a JTAG before, I feel that I'm justified in saying that you won't find much help from us.
You'll get a lot of interest from me however. This is something I want to see.|||Look at the blueprint merging thread I just posted, and start with that. You'll only need one .bp file in one folder (with an .scd extension) to start making changes.
Since I assume there's no DLC for the 360 version, put the .bp file inside a folder called e.g. gamedata\mymod.scd\units\, and that will let you make changes to any and all unit blueprints. No need to compress it into an .scd, just naming a folder with .scd is good enough.
Begin with a test change, like reducing the starting health of the UEF ACU, so you can jump right into a skirmish and make sure the file is being used.|||BulletMagnet|||You don't actually need to replace/copy any files to mod. It might help to have an extracted copy of uncompiled_lua.scd on your desktop for reference, but any unit and ability changes that don't require entirely new scripting can be done with a small added blueprint merge file.|||Mithy|||You probably don't need bp.scd because you can't read the files if the JTAG is anything like the PC.
I would start by picking one unit to modify. Go ahead and reply with that unit and I will tell you what I would do with the pc file. You can tell me us if it works.|||damusolja
[FA][SOLVED] MiddleMouse Detection?
Hi,
im trying to detect if the middle mouse button is pressed.. what would be the token for the middle mouse any one know?
i thought it was MBUTTON but its not..
thx :)|||I suggest looking at the template rotate mod, as this has the middle-mouse button as it's trigger.|||Hi,
LOL, yeah that had the answer... :)
Cool thx :)
im trying to detect if the middle mouse button is pressed.. what would be the token for the middle mouse any one know?
i thought it was MBUTTON but its not..
thx :)|||I suggest looking at the template rotate mod, as this has the middle-mouse button as it's trigger.|||Hi,
LOL, yeah that had the answer... :)
Cool thx :)
[SC2][SOLVED] Conflict DLC Base + Shadow when using merge bp
Going over both the base files and shadow units i come across what i would think would be a conflict, Unit UCX0103 Bomb Bouncer has 2 bp files with in the DLC one in the base and one in the shadow with would be a mistake on GPG half.|||It's deeper than that:
- bp.scd/Units/Cybran also has UCX0103
- bp.scd/mods/DLC1/base/Units/Cybran also has UCX0103
- bp.scd/mods/DLC1/shadow/Units/Cybran also has UCX0103
- lua.scd/Units/Cybran also has UCX0103
- lua.scd/mods/DLC1/base/Units/Cybran also has UCX0103
BUT
- lua.scd/mods/DLC1/shadow/Units/Cybran does NOT have UCX0103|||madface|||It's likely an error in DLC.
But are you sure that "mods" is not read/used in bp.scd and lua.scd? The files in the "mods" folder in these scd's are not exactly identical between each other. For example, bp.scd/mods/DLC1/shadow/lua only has a directory for ai and nothing for common, sim, or ui as in lua.scd/mods/DLC1/shadow/lua.|||It might be an 'error', but it isn't really relevant to anything. The blueprint that is being used is the one that loads last, which would be /mods/DLC1/shadow/Units/Cybran/UCX0103/UCX0103_unit.bp.
The only difference between this one and the one within /base is the path to the mesh and walk animation.
The only difference between the one in /units and the two in /mods is the LifeBarOffset (increased so that it's higher), and the fact that it has SHIELD category. These two things were likely bugfixes done in the DLC. Why they weren't done to the copy in the base game, I do not know, but it doesn't much matter one way or another.
The script is not shadowed in /mods/DLC1, therefore the original within /units is the one being used. Again, non-relevant, because the scripts are identical.
Edit: The scripts are only identical in uncompiled_lua.scd. The compiled script in /mods/DLC1/base is different in size from the one in /units, although it's impossible to tell why since it's compiled. It still doesn't matter, because as I understand it, scripts for units in /mods/DLC1/base that already exist in /units are not going to be run, and the original in /units will be used unless it is directly shadowed.
Also, stop comparing bp.scd and lua.scd as though they're different versions of the same thing. bp.scd contains blueprints, while lua.scd contains lua scripts. Of course they have different paths, and of course both of them will be used.|||madface|||liveordie|||Mithy|||Actually, I tried creating a z_ -named scd to override files from lua.scd, and didn't have any luck at all, so I'm not really sure what determines the mount order. Like I've said in other threads, I have a sneaking suspicion that the game 'knows' about certain scd names when doing its file mounting and prefers files from those, because the only way to directly override files in lua.scd or z_lua_dlc1.scd is to put them straight inside those files.|||Mithy|||liveordie|||Mithy|||Maybe they're trying to discourage modding by making it as confusing and annoying as possible to work with game files.
Too bad there are ways around that. >_>|||Mithy
- bp.scd/Units/Cybran also has UCX0103
- bp.scd/mods/DLC1/base/Units/Cybran also has UCX0103
- bp.scd/mods/DLC1/shadow/Units/Cybran also has UCX0103
- lua.scd/Units/Cybran also has UCX0103
- lua.scd/mods/DLC1/base/Units/Cybran also has UCX0103
BUT
- lua.scd/mods/DLC1/shadow/Units/Cybran does NOT have UCX0103|||madface|||It's likely an error in DLC.
But are you sure that "mods" is not read/used in bp.scd and lua.scd? The files in the "mods" folder in these scd's are not exactly identical between each other. For example, bp.scd/mods/DLC1/shadow/lua only has a directory for ai and nothing for common, sim, or ui as in lua.scd/mods/DLC1/shadow/lua.|||It might be an 'error', but it isn't really relevant to anything. The blueprint that is being used is the one that loads last, which would be /mods/DLC1/shadow/Units/Cybran/UCX0103/UCX0103_unit.bp.
The only difference between this one and the one within /base is the path to the mesh and walk animation.
The only difference between the one in /units and the two in /mods is the LifeBarOffset (increased so that it's higher), and the fact that it has SHIELD category. These two things were likely bugfixes done in the DLC. Why they weren't done to the copy in the base game, I do not know, but it doesn't much matter one way or another.
The script is not shadowed in /mods/DLC1, therefore the original within /units is the one being used. Again, non-relevant, because the scripts are identical.
Edit: The scripts are only identical in uncompiled_lua.scd. The compiled script in /mods/DLC1/base is different in size from the one in /units, although it's impossible to tell why since it's compiled. It still doesn't matter, because as I understand it, scripts for units in /mods/DLC1/base that already exist in /units are not going to be run, and the original in /units will be used unless it is directly shadowed.
Also, stop comparing bp.scd and lua.scd as though they're different versions of the same thing. bp.scd contains blueprints, while lua.scd contains lua scripts. Of course they have different paths, and of course both of them will be used.|||madface|||liveordie|||Mithy|||Actually, I tried creating a z_ -named scd to override files from lua.scd, and didn't have any luck at all, so I'm not really sure what determines the mount order. Like I've said in other threads, I have a sneaking suspicion that the game 'knows' about certain scd names when doing its file mounting and prefers files from those, because the only way to directly override files in lua.scd or z_lua_dlc1.scd is to put them straight inside those files.|||Mithy|||liveordie|||Mithy|||Maybe they're trying to discourage modding by making it as confusing and annoying as possible to work with game files.
Too bad there are ways around that. >_>|||Mithy
[SUPCOM 1-NEED HELP]Engineers Constructing Engineers
So I modified the code in engineers so that they have their current tech level of engineer in their build tab as well as the engineer of one tech level up.
Example: A T1 Engineer could build T1s and T2s of itself.
However, there is one problem. The game does not recognize them as structures, so I cannot do a "place and click" build order for them, as they are normally made in factories.
How do I get Sup Com 1 to recognize Engineers as buildings for dragging and dropping?
I think it is possible (In the Blackops: Unleashed mod, the UEF had a heavy assault T3 unit of some sort in the structures tab) But I also want Engineers to still have the ability to be produced at a factory.
(Oh, and by the way, I'm not technically making a mod, just rewriting some lines of code in a copy of the units.scd file, and then replacing the current units.scd with the modded one. Don't worry, original is backed up!)
EDIT:
Okay, I've figured it out.
I've put the attributes
'DRAGBUILD',
'NEEDMOBILEBUILD',
In my Engineers' codes. Now they can be built by engineers.
However, when I build them at a factory they act like structures!(Example: I have to "place" one right by the factory to get it to build one ) How
do I get the game to recognize them as a "normal build" when made at factories
and a
'DRAGBUILD',
'NEEDMOBILEBUILD',
when built by engineers?
Oh, and by the way, I just thought of something else:
What piece of code makes structures amphibious?
EDIT: Just had another question. Should I start new topics for new questions or continue in this topic?
Help would be appreciated,
Helios|||First things First, amke sure you post in teh correct forum, Moid Dev Support is for asking questions about the making of mods, while mod talk is for talking about Mods themselves.
Thread Moved.
Mike|||OrangeKnight|||CommanderHelios|||There is no way to make a unit both mobile-buildable and factory-buildable without the side effect of having to place them at the factory.
There is a workaround that involves making a completely new dummy unit that uses the same blueprint and mesh as the actual unit, and in its script's OnStopBeingBuilt, it creates one of the actual unit in its place, and destroys itself. The process appears more or less seamless, and factories still build the original unit (which doesn't have NEEDMOBILEBUILD), while engineers can build the dummy unit.
The dummy unit's categories would need to be adjusted so that NEEDMOBILEBUILD and DRAGBUILD are added, and BUILTBYTIER1/2/3FACTORY is removed and replaced by BUILTBYTIER1/2/3ENGINEER and/or BUILTBYTIER1/2/3COMMANDER as appropriate to make it buildable by engineers/ACUs.
Are you doing this as a merge mod, or just overwriting blueprints?|||Mithy|||CommanderHelios|||Mithy
Example: A T1 Engineer could build T1s and T2s of itself.
However, there is one problem. The game does not recognize them as structures, so I cannot do a "place and click" build order for them, as they are normally made in factories.
How do I get Sup Com 1 to recognize Engineers as buildings for dragging and dropping?
I think it is possible (In the Blackops: Unleashed mod, the UEF had a heavy assault T3 unit of some sort in the structures tab) But I also want Engineers to still have the ability to be produced at a factory.
(Oh, and by the way, I'm not technically making a mod, just rewriting some lines of code in a copy of the units.scd file, and then replacing the current units.scd with the modded one. Don't worry, original is backed up!)
EDIT:
Okay, I've figured it out.
I've put the attributes
'DRAGBUILD',
'NEEDMOBILEBUILD',
In my Engineers' codes. Now they can be built by engineers.
However, when I build them at a factory they act like structures!(Example: I have to "place" one right by the factory to get it to build one ) How
do I get the game to recognize them as a "normal build" when made at factories
and a
'DRAGBUILD',
'NEEDMOBILEBUILD',
when built by engineers?
Oh, and by the way, I just thought of something else:
What piece of code makes structures amphibious?
EDIT: Just had another question. Should I start new topics for new questions or continue in this topic?
Help would be appreciated,
Helios|||First things First, amke sure you post in teh correct forum, Moid Dev Support is for asking questions about the making of mods, while mod talk is for talking about Mods themselves.
Thread Moved.
Mike|||OrangeKnight|||CommanderHelios|||There is no way to make a unit both mobile-buildable and factory-buildable without the side effect of having to place them at the factory.
There is a workaround that involves making a completely new dummy unit that uses the same blueprint and mesh as the actual unit, and in its script's OnStopBeingBuilt, it creates one of the actual unit in its place, and destroys itself. The process appears more or less seamless, and factories still build the original unit (which doesn't have NEEDMOBILEBUILD), while engineers can build the dummy unit.
The dummy unit's categories would need to be adjusted so that NEEDMOBILEBUILD and DRAGBUILD are added, and BUILTBYTIER1/2/3FACTORY is removed and replaced by BUILTBYTIER1/2/3ENGINEER and/or BUILTBYTIER1/2/3COMMANDER as appropriate to make it buildable by engineers/ACUs.
Are you doing this as a merge mod, or just overwriting blueprints?|||Mithy|||CommanderHelios|||Mithy
[FA] FPS Weirdness
Hi,
ive noticed something weird regarding the games fps..
Try this..
start a skirmish with no mods..
press the numpad slash (/) to show the games FPS
now when the commander warps in.. my fps are at 40fps check yours.. (top left of screen)
i have disabled intel/militery range rings on selected units.. and only show them on mouseover.. set this.. important..
when these are set... zoom all the way into the commander.. note your FPS
now carefully use the mouse wheel to zoom out 7 clicks..
note your fps..
now hover your mouse over the commander..
when the range rings appear when the mouse hovers over the commander my FPS DOUBLE and shoot upto 80
ive tried this with split screen also.. the default double split..
the exact same thing happens.. with 2 splits..
now thats weird.. if anything the fps should go down.. NOT up..
anyone now why this is?|||That sounds pretty weird. I don't have an explanation- the range rings are notoriously inefficient.|||Hi,
It could be a fps disply bug, because i have since tested this with fraps..
when the com warps in my fps in fraps says 100fps, when i zoom move around ect..
it goes down to 90 or so for a second then back to 100..
when i do what i posted in the op, fraps says my fps is 85fps when the mouse is hovered over the com showing range rings..
this is prolly a better indication of what is going on.. using fraps..
its a pity we dont have someone to recode the shaders for the range rings..
so that they are NOT so graphicly intensive.. using only a single pass..
why they didnt do those better is beyond beleif.. :/|||We there is that issue and...
Problems with the intel.
Problems with the AI.
Problems with the UI.
Problems with the SIM.
In many respects, it seams as if the folks at GPG aimed very high but were cut off or instructed to wrap things up to box up a finished product. Despite this FA ended u[ being a far better game then SC or SC2.
Resin|||Except that SC2's engine doesn't actually have any of the problem's that FA's does, other than sim speed slowdown with ultra-colossal numbers of objects being simulated.
Cloaking, target tracking, pathfinding, AI, range ring rendering, and UI hitches are all fixed or much better in SC2, and it has a reasonably higher threshold for sim complexity, AND runs better on older systems. I too would like a mod manager, but to say that the game isn't massively improved on a really basic level is misguided at best.
Domino, I would guess that the in-game frame counter is showing something weird like UI update rate, and not actual render framerate. Why showing a range ring would affect that, I do not know, but it would explain the huge gap between in-game and FRAPS.|||Beta 3603 patch also shows some changes related to FPS being shown..If you have a chance, you can check that out too..My rig is not good enuff to help you test
|||Hi,
Thx for the comments guys :) it is prolly a ui bug, so ill take it as busted :/
this is off topic.. but..
i reckon i could get the mod man working in sc2 i mean the modman ui showing like in fa, to what end i do not know.. as far as i know hooking dont work.. so loading a mod would be a futile attemp no?
i reckon i could get the mod man working and showing in game within a week.
but if the mods arent actually loaded.. or are not possible to be loaded there is no point wasting my time doing it is there?|||Have you actually looked in depth at the SC2 UI? Most of it isn't exactly accessible.
Hooking shouldn't be a problem, I found a workaround for that that just needs some multiplayer issues ironed out. But passing a list of mods to the sim is a problem, since it's the engine or compiled UI/lobby code doing that. Even if you can get a makeshift UI going in the lobby state, how would you pass the list of mods to the sim and/or UI?
Even if you edit simInit.lua and stuff mod tables into __active_mods, that doesn't make the engine do anything with those mods. It would let e.g. my hooking script iterate __active_mods and look for hooks, but getting that information into the sim except via an external mod manager is basically impossible. And I can already use some kind of makeshift mod_info.lua system to set up fake mod folders anyway.|||Hi,
i briefly looked,
thats what i meant.. getting the modman to show could be done.. but then what happens after that is exactly what im talking about..
Domino
ive noticed something weird regarding the games fps..
Try this..
start a skirmish with no mods..
press the numpad slash (/) to show the games FPS
now when the commander warps in.. my fps are at 40fps check yours.. (top left of screen)
i have disabled intel/militery range rings on selected units.. and only show them on mouseover.. set this.. important..
when these are set... zoom all the way into the commander.. note your FPS
now carefully use the mouse wheel to zoom out 7 clicks..
note your fps..
now hover your mouse over the commander..
when the range rings appear when the mouse hovers over the commander my FPS DOUBLE and shoot upto 80
ive tried this with split screen also.. the default double split..
the exact same thing happens.. with 2 splits..
now thats weird.. if anything the fps should go down.. NOT up..
anyone now why this is?|||That sounds pretty weird. I don't have an explanation- the range rings are notoriously inefficient.|||Hi,
It could be a fps disply bug, because i have since tested this with fraps..
when the com warps in my fps in fraps says 100fps, when i zoom move around ect..
it goes down to 90 or so for a second then back to 100..
when i do what i posted in the op, fraps says my fps is 85fps when the mouse is hovered over the com showing range rings..
this is prolly a better indication of what is going on.. using fraps..
its a pity we dont have someone to recode the shaders for the range rings..
so that they are NOT so graphicly intensive.. using only a single pass..
why they didnt do those better is beyond beleif.. :/|||We there is that issue and...
Problems with the intel.
Problems with the AI.
Problems with the UI.
Problems with the SIM.
In many respects, it seams as if the folks at GPG aimed very high but were cut off or instructed to wrap things up to box up a finished product. Despite this FA ended u[ being a far better game then SC or SC2.
Resin|||Except that SC2's engine doesn't actually have any of the problem's that FA's does, other than sim speed slowdown with ultra-colossal numbers of objects being simulated.
Cloaking, target tracking, pathfinding, AI, range ring rendering, and UI hitches are all fixed or much better in SC2, and it has a reasonably higher threshold for sim complexity, AND runs better on older systems. I too would like a mod manager, but to say that the game isn't massively improved on a really basic level is misguided at best.
Domino, I would guess that the in-game frame counter is showing something weird like UI update rate, and not actual render framerate. Why showing a range ring would affect that, I do not know, but it would explain the huge gap between in-game and FRAPS.|||Beta 3603 patch also shows some changes related to FPS being shown..If you have a chance, you can check that out too..My rig is not good enuff to help you test
|||Hi, Thx for the comments guys :) it is prolly a ui bug, so ill take it as busted :/
this is off topic.. but..
i reckon i could get the mod man working in sc2 i mean the modman ui showing like in fa, to what end i do not know.. as far as i know hooking dont work.. so loading a mod would be a futile attemp no?
i reckon i could get the mod man working and showing in game within a week.
but if the mods arent actually loaded.. or are not possible to be loaded there is no point wasting my time doing it is there?|||Have you actually looked in depth at the SC2 UI? Most of it isn't exactly accessible.
Hooking shouldn't be a problem, I found a workaround for that that just needs some multiplayer issues ironed out. But passing a list of mods to the sim is a problem, since it's the engine or compiled UI/lobby code doing that. Even if you can get a makeshift UI going in the lobby state, how would you pass the list of mods to the sim and/or UI?
Even if you edit simInit.lua and stuff mod tables into __active_mods, that doesn't make the engine do anything with those mods. It would let e.g. my hooking script iterate __active_mods and look for hooks, but getting that information into the sim except via an external mod manager is basically impossible. And I can already use some kind of makeshift mod_info.lua system to set up fake mod folders anyway.|||Hi,
i briefly looked,
thats what i meant.. getting the modman to show could be done.. but then what happens after that is exactly what im talking about..
Domino
[SC2] Assisted Building
I think assisted building might actually be possible to implement. Using All Factions mod, you can successfully have all 3 ACUs simultaneously target structures to assist in building. There is also a noticeable change in building rates when done so. I'm thinking that this should also be possible to implement with engineers.
But I'm not sure if this is an on/off feature or if it's possible to define per structure how many assisted builders are permissible. I would really like to be able to set how many builders can assist via a function, ex., something like a/(a+b) so that as b increases the added contribution of assisting builders approaches 0, i.e., to avoid infinite build assistance. 'a' would be unique to each structure/unit.|||Currently the assistance is 1, 1/3, 1/9, etc. At least that is what I have been told by a GPG member, and I have no reason to doubt it. Any assistance past the first is highly unnoticeable.
I am surprised you saw a noticeable affect from the 2nd and third ACU. Maybe the system is more complicated than we were lead to believe.|||Assist building isn't possible but assisting factory's when there building has always been there.|||If ACUs can assist each others' building, then it is possible, but it might have significant side effects. But it's probably not possible to change the diminishing returns.
But I'm not sure if this is an on/off feature or if it's possible to define per structure how many assisted builders are permissible. I would really like to be able to set how many builders can assist via a function, ex., something like a/(a+b) so that as b increases the added contribution of assisting builders approaches 0, i.e., to avoid infinite build assistance. 'a' would be unique to each structure/unit.|||Currently the assistance is 1, 1/3, 1/9, etc. At least that is what I have been told by a GPG member, and I have no reason to doubt it. Any assistance past the first is highly unnoticeable.
I am surprised you saw a noticeable affect from the 2nd and third ACU. Maybe the system is more complicated than we were lead to believe.|||Assist building isn't possible but assisting factory's when there building has always been there.|||If ACUs can assist each others' building, then it is possible, but it might have significant side effects. But it's probably not possible to change the diminishing returns.
Missile Error (FA)
Ello, I have been spending over an hour trying to fix this error myself, and nothings clicking T_T can anyone please help me?
Error: http://pastebin.com/0JNvcnMA
Missile_Proj BP: http://pastebin.com/gTK7EMfk|||That's not caused by the BP. Is this the same missile you wanted to scale up? It probably means you're not including the offset value in the script. Post the script.|||Nah, Its not the same Missile. The Missile I was fiddeling with was Cybran... This one is for Aeon =p
Script: http://pastebin.com/n7rRh5bb|||The answer to the problem is in the same place as the code you got for the other missile, which is exactly where the error log is pointing.
You're missing a table in the projectile's class, the contents of which OffsetEmitter is using as a number (thus the error).|||Mithy
Error: http://pastebin.com/0JNvcnMA
Missile_Proj BP: http://pastebin.com/gTK7EMfk|||That's not caused by the BP. Is this the same missile you wanted to scale up? It probably means you're not including the offset value in the script. Post the script.|||Nah, Its not the same Missile. The Missile I was fiddeling with was Cybran... This one is for Aeon =p
Script: http://pastebin.com/n7rRh5bb|||The answer to the problem is in the same place as the code you got for the other missile, which is exactly where the error log is pointing.
You're missing a table in the projectile's class, the contents of which OffsetEmitter is using as a number (thus the error).|||Mithy
[SC2] Mithy's TMD Fix Plan
Mithy|||That wasn't meant to be a 'plan', just try it out and see if it works.
The AA weapon is non-relevant to the problem, because it uses seeking missiles that cannot miss once they've been fired, where the TMD weapon uses a beam that can easily miss. The beam is not having trouble firing, only hitting and/or doing enough damage. In addition, air targets operate at altitudes of 15-20, not 50+ as missiles do, making the angles involved much less steep for the AA weapon.
Using missiles for the TMD is not a good idea for a variety of reasons. The TMD has and needs a very high ROF to (theoretically) deal with the volume of incoming missiles. There would be extremely severe overkill issues if you switched the TMD weapon to a missile, making it even less effective than it is now. Additionally, you'd be significantly increasing the CPU burden of a tactical missile-heavy battle (30-100+ projectiles every 0.3 seconds is an order of magnitude more sim-intensive than that many beams).
And no, the Adaptor is the only Cybran TMD.|||Did someone say Overkill... lol|||Aeon SMD doesnt have TMD, does it?
Furthermore, wasnt the plan just to give missiles bigger hit spheres?|||I tested the exact changes in my post last night, including the 90 TurretPitchRange. It works extremely well, and Adaptors almost never miss.
The missile collision size increase solves 90% of the problem, and the TurretYaw/PitchSpeed solves another 9%. The remaining 1% is caused by the 0.2 FiringTolerance, which makes the beam occasionally miss its first shot because it fires prematurely while initially zeroing in on the missile.
With all three fixes together, a group of 20 adaptors will handily deal with 4-5 TMLs firing at them, although the TMD weapon's DPS is so low that when there are 20-30 incoming missiles at once, they'll still fail to kill every last one before they hit, just because it takes each Adaptor several seconds to kill each missile.
I'll toy around some more with a continuous beam setup as well, to moderate their DPS around ~5 instead of ~3.34, but that has some odd side effects, like the beam getting left on for 0.2-0.4s after they're done firing. This mostly just looks funny, but occasionally they will shoot each other and/or other nearby friendlies when the turret comes down to rest with the beam still on. :X|||Nephylim|||You cannot use splash damage with anti-missile weapons. Missiles have the NOSPLASHDAMAGE category, which makes them ignore all damage whose source has splash. That means that even if the anti-missile beam or projectile impacts them directly, it still only does splash damage, and therefore zero damage to missiles.
The hit sphere size + turret range/speed + firingtolerance solution works 100%, and needs no additions (other than maybe a bit more DPS, but that's difficult to do moderately with the rates of fire involved). I haven't looked in depth at how the other TMD function, but if they use projectiles, then they should already have their own advantages (higher dps, perfect accuracy) and disadvantages (overkill, response time), and if any use beams, they'll work considerably better with the new missile hit spheres.
Bastilean|||Mithy|||Likely none. That flag makes the unit move to within attack range of that weapon (or I assume the shortest range weapon if multiple have it) when it's on patrol as opposed to just zooming by. This is done via the attack manager, using some kind of attack order. Unless SC2 has been changed to allow projectiles to be targets for a unit's attack manager, it wouldn't have any affect for a TMD weapon.
Both the Sharpshooter and the Sliptack have the same beam and weapon settings as the Adaptor (360 turret speed, 0.2 firingtolerance) but do 6.67dps. So setting the Adaptor to 5dps would probably not be balanced, and these two units at least need their FiringTolerance eliminated. The missile hit sphere size should take care of the rest.|||Agreed. Change one TMD, change them all. I like changing the RoF more because it gives all the TMD an equal boost. Doubling the DPS would put UEF and Aeon TMD in the overkill area much more.|||3.34 to 5 IS changing the ROF.
Remember that this game operates on tenths of a second - 3 ROF is 3 times per second, or 1 second / 3 shots (0.3333_), rounded to the nearest tenth = 0.3s between shots, or 3.34 shots per second. The next increase in ROF is 0.2s between shots, or 1 / 0.2 = 5, for 5dps.
I'm against a DPS boost at this point. I'd rather moderate the hitpoints of tactical missiles in a more meaningful way, so that the spammable MML missiles are much more easily shot down by TMD than the more expensive and stationary factory/SML tactical missiles.
Say, 2-4hp for MML missiles, and 6-8 for structure and ACU missiles. Right now it's all over the place: Illuminate missiles are all 6, Cybran are 2-8, and UEF are mostly 4 (with one 2 I think).
Related to this, TMLs really, really, really need better target priorities. Right now, all three factory TMLs have 'LAND MOBILE' at the top of their priority list, which is simply the dumbest thing I can possibly imagine for a weapon that can't hit moving targets. I cannot in fact form words to describe just how stupid that is. Agh. At least it looks like the SML TMLs have 'STRUCTURE' at the top.|||Mithy|||The other option is to cut the missiles in half that the MML fire and double the dps. It sounds like the TML missiles would match the MML missiles better this way.
I believe these can be adjusted in the Blue Prints.
This is trickier than I originally conceived, because the units have racks, and I don't want to turn off firing points.
We can also improve the target priorities in the Blue Prints while we are at it.
Question:
Where did you come up with 3.32? I see the RoF = 3.
Do you mean to add the ROF upgrade 3 * 1/0.85 = 3.53?
Also, a 'beam' would do damage 10 times every second rather than 3 times like we have currently, right?
Is there a maximum rate of fire?|||Bastilean|||Why would you like a 'continuous beam' rather than a RoF of 10?
Also, all the MML I checked have STRUCTURE as their primary target. Will fix the Factory TMLs.
ROF, you are saying that the game just rounds and is done with it. It doesn't make up the lost ROF or gained ROF later on in the shooting?|||Continuous beams execute a lot less code at the same ROF. They skip virtually all of the .lua-based weapon code while they're operating, only using the lua for starting and stopping. They're also capable of staying active between ROF events and continuing to hit things while switching targets.
So there would be slight functionality and CPU performance benefits to a continuous 5-pulse-per-second beam, over a standard 5 ROF weapon. But it looks a bit funny when they're done firing (beam stays on too long), and I don't think the Adaptor needs an ROF boost.
Reducing MML firing amounts might be a good idea. I'll take a look at their muzzle setups. I'm guessing they all have a MuzzleSalvoDelay + MuzzleSalvoSize, and aren't actually using x number of muzzles for x number of missiles, but we'll see.
Yes, MML targeting is fine. So is SML-silo TML targeting. But all three factory addon TMLs are preferring mobile targets, which is just, ugh.
Bastilean|||Mithy|||Bastilean|||Mithy|||No, if you change that, its arms won't move forward and it won't be able to fire its beams at all.
The Kraken's weapon setup is odd, because it has a complex, multi-weapon deploy animation. It uses a dummy weapon for aiming and deployment, and the other weapons are only enabled when the deploy animation is completely finished. The details of this are in the script, if you're interested.
Long story short, there is no good way to make the Kraken fire while moving without making a completely new animation for movement while deployed, and doing all of the support coding to make sure this new animation plays whenever it's deployed and starts to move. Otherwise it will just stay in its deployed animation, and awkwardly slide around without any of the usual swimming movement.
A better solution would be to up the unit's beam DPS to a point where it's actually worth deploying, and increasing its torpedo DPS to where it can fight off a few subs and actually contribute to a naval battle (since its main guns CANNOT hit naval targets that do not want to be hit).
While we're on the topic of Cybran navy, the Executioner's surface guns are just as bad, and desperately need their muzzle velocity at least doubled.|||Mithy
The AA weapon is non-relevant to the problem, because it uses seeking missiles that cannot miss once they've been fired, where the TMD weapon uses a beam that can easily miss. The beam is not having trouble firing, only hitting and/or doing enough damage. In addition, air targets operate at altitudes of 15-20, not 50+ as missiles do, making the angles involved much less steep for the AA weapon.
Using missiles for the TMD is not a good idea for a variety of reasons. The TMD has and needs a very high ROF to (theoretically) deal with the volume of incoming missiles. There would be extremely severe overkill issues if you switched the TMD weapon to a missile, making it even less effective than it is now. Additionally, you'd be significantly increasing the CPU burden of a tactical missile-heavy battle (30-100+ projectiles every 0.3 seconds is an order of magnitude more sim-intensive than that many beams).
And no, the Adaptor is the only Cybran TMD.|||Did someone say Overkill... lol|||Aeon SMD doesnt have TMD, does it?
Furthermore, wasnt the plan just to give missiles bigger hit spheres?|||I tested the exact changes in my post last night, including the 90 TurretPitchRange. It works extremely well, and Adaptors almost never miss.
The missile collision size increase solves 90% of the problem, and the TurretYaw/PitchSpeed solves another 9%. The remaining 1% is caused by the 0.2 FiringTolerance, which makes the beam occasionally miss its first shot because it fires prematurely while initially zeroing in on the missile.
With all three fixes together, a group of 20 adaptors will handily deal with 4-5 TMLs firing at them, although the TMD weapon's DPS is so low that when there are 20-30 incoming missiles at once, they'll still fail to kill every last one before they hit, just because it takes each Adaptor several seconds to kill each missile.
I'll toy around some more with a continuous beam setup as well, to moderate their DPS around ~5 instead of ~3.34, but that has some odd side effects, like the beam getting left on for 0.2-0.4s after they're done firing. This mostly just looks funny, but occasionally they will shoot each other and/or other nearby friendlies when the turret comes down to rest with the beam still on. :X|||Nephylim|||You cannot use splash damage with anti-missile weapons. Missiles have the NOSPLASHDAMAGE category, which makes them ignore all damage whose source has splash. That means that even if the anti-missile beam or projectile impacts them directly, it still only does splash damage, and therefore zero damage to missiles.
The hit sphere size + turret range/speed + firingtolerance solution works 100%, and needs no additions (other than maybe a bit more DPS, but that's difficult to do moderately with the rates of fire involved). I haven't looked in depth at how the other TMD function, but if they use projectiles, then they should already have their own advantages (higher dps, perfect accuracy) and disadvantages (overkill, response time), and if any use beams, they'll work considerably better with the new missile hit spheres.
Bastilean|||Mithy|||Likely none. That flag makes the unit move to within attack range of that weapon (or I assume the shortest range weapon if multiple have it) when it's on patrol as opposed to just zooming by. This is done via the attack manager, using some kind of attack order. Unless SC2 has been changed to allow projectiles to be targets for a unit's attack manager, it wouldn't have any affect for a TMD weapon.
Both the Sharpshooter and the Sliptack have the same beam and weapon settings as the Adaptor (360 turret speed, 0.2 firingtolerance) but do 6.67dps. So setting the Adaptor to 5dps would probably not be balanced, and these two units at least need their FiringTolerance eliminated. The missile hit sphere size should take care of the rest.|||Agreed. Change one TMD, change them all. I like changing the RoF more because it gives all the TMD an equal boost. Doubling the DPS would put UEF and Aeon TMD in the overkill area much more.|||3.34 to 5 IS changing the ROF.
Remember that this game operates on tenths of a second - 3 ROF is 3 times per second, or 1 second / 3 shots (0.3333_), rounded to the nearest tenth = 0.3s between shots, or 3.34 shots per second. The next increase in ROF is 0.2s between shots, or 1 / 0.2 = 5, for 5dps.
I'm against a DPS boost at this point. I'd rather moderate the hitpoints of tactical missiles in a more meaningful way, so that the spammable MML missiles are much more easily shot down by TMD than the more expensive and stationary factory/SML tactical missiles.
Say, 2-4hp for MML missiles, and 6-8 for structure and ACU missiles. Right now it's all over the place: Illuminate missiles are all 6, Cybran are 2-8, and UEF are mostly 4 (with one 2 I think).
Related to this, TMLs really, really, really need better target priorities. Right now, all three factory TMLs have 'LAND MOBILE' at the top of their priority list, which is simply the dumbest thing I can possibly imagine for a weapon that can't hit moving targets. I cannot in fact form words to describe just how stupid that is. Agh. At least it looks like the SML TMLs have 'STRUCTURE' at the top.|||Mithy|||The other option is to cut the missiles in half that the MML fire and double the dps. It sounds like the TML missiles would match the MML missiles better this way.
I believe these can be adjusted in the Blue Prints.
This is trickier than I originally conceived, because the units have racks, and I don't want to turn off firing points.
We can also improve the target priorities in the Blue Prints while we are at it.
Question:
Where did you come up with 3.32? I see the RoF = 3.
Do you mean to add the ROF upgrade 3 * 1/0.85 = 3.53?
Also, a 'beam' would do damage 10 times every second rather than 3 times like we have currently, right?
Is there a maximum rate of fire?|||Bastilean|||Why would you like a 'continuous beam' rather than a RoF of 10?
Also, all the MML I checked have STRUCTURE as their primary target. Will fix the Factory TMLs.
ROF, you are saying that the game just rounds and is done with it. It doesn't make up the lost ROF or gained ROF later on in the shooting?|||Continuous beams execute a lot less code at the same ROF. They skip virtually all of the .lua-based weapon code while they're operating, only using the lua for starting and stopping. They're also capable of staying active between ROF events and continuing to hit things while switching targets.
So there would be slight functionality and CPU performance benefits to a continuous 5-pulse-per-second beam, over a standard 5 ROF weapon. But it looks a bit funny when they're done firing (beam stays on too long), and I don't think the Adaptor needs an ROF boost.
Reducing MML firing amounts might be a good idea. I'll take a look at their muzzle setups. I'm guessing they all have a MuzzleSalvoDelay + MuzzleSalvoSize, and aren't actually using x number of muzzles for x number of missiles, but we'll see.
Yes, MML targeting is fine. So is SML-silo TML targeting. But all three factory addon TMLs are preferring mobile targets, which is just, ugh.
Bastilean|||Mithy|||Bastilean|||Mithy|||No, if you change that, its arms won't move forward and it won't be able to fire its beams at all.
The Kraken's weapon setup is odd, because it has a complex, multi-weapon deploy animation. It uses a dummy weapon for aiming and deployment, and the other weapons are only enabled when the deploy animation is completely finished. The details of this are in the script, if you're interested.
Long story short, there is no good way to make the Kraken fire while moving without making a completely new animation for movement while deployed, and doing all of the support coding to make sure this new animation plays whenever it's deployed and starts to move. Otherwise it will just stay in its deployed animation, and awkwardly slide around without any of the usual swimming movement.
A better solution would be to up the unit's beam DPS to a point where it's actually worth deploying, and increasing its torpedo DPS to where it can fight off a few subs and actually contribute to a naval battle (since its main guns CANNOT hit naval targets that do not want to be hit).
While we're on the topic of Cybran navy, the Executioner's surface guns are just as bad, and desperately need their muzzle velocity at least doubled.|||Mithy
[SC2] Net Energy / Mass Rate
I'm playing around with ProductionPerSecondEnergy in bp files. I'm finding that the in-game UI doesn't display negative values if there is net loss, but the value is stored correctly. For example, I changed the land factory value from 1 to -10 (just for testing purposes). The game begins with +5, then I build a land factory and the rate is displayed in the UI as 0 (should be -5). But then if I build an energy generator, it shows +1. If I build another generator, it goes to +7. So, it is storing the correct net value. Is there any way to get the UI to represent negative values?|||Look at theshadowlord's mod. He was running into this same problem, so if he couldn't find a way around it, that probably means this part of the UI is not accessible to lua. I briefly looked through the UI lua, and didn't see anything for economy display, so you're probably SOL.|||Just tried it with 0.94B and it still only displays 0. |||madface
|||madface
(FA) Transport/Factory/Carrier question
Ello again. I am trying to make a Experimental Transport, which can build small aircraft as its AA Defense. However, I cant seem to make the factory part of the unit tell the difference between the Ground unit attach points (AttachPoint01~19) and the Air Unit Attach points (AirAttach01~03)
Any idea how to make the unit only set built/Docked Air units to the AirAttach points and not touch the regular attachpoints?|||Well nothing else already in the game does this so your going to have to create a work around to trick the engine into allowing it to happen.
Resin|||Some units have drones, like the UEF ACU's shoulder build-drones, could you maybe look into that?|||Sam37|||You never stop to think there might be a connection? After all the ACU drones are technically aircraft.
Just because its not exactly what you need doesn't mean there aren't connections or clues to be had.
Mike|||Hi,
OrangeKnight|||I'm not sure what your goals are. Do you want the aircraft to be 'linked' to the unit, and have a limit on how many each one can construct and manage? In other words, drones.
Or do you want them to be normal aircraft? In which case, they can't use attach points for any purpose other than refueling (and you probably won't be able to control which attachpoints they use for refueling).|||I was hoping for it to be like the Czar, only with Ground transportation capabilities. But since there is no way to designate Factory functions to certain attachpoints, I think I might go with Drones...|||Yeah, I don't think you can assign specific attachpoints for air units / air storage. You may run into the same problem with drones, though - drones will use any available attachpoint, rather than just the one they were created at. I'm not sure if you can specifically designate an attachpoint as unusable to transported units, either, so units may get attached to the drone attachpoints.
There are reasons that there weren't any combined units like this in FA...|||ok then, Thanks for all the help everyone... Ill have to redesign the unit to use AA Turrets instead XD|||brandon007|||OrangeKnight
Any idea how to make the unit only set built/Docked Air units to the AirAttach points and not touch the regular attachpoints?|||Well nothing else already in the game does this so your going to have to create a work around to trick the engine into allowing it to happen.
Resin|||Some units have drones, like the UEF ACU's shoulder build-drones, could you maybe look into that?|||Sam37|||You never stop to think there might be a connection? After all the ACU drones are technically aircraft.
Just because its not exactly what you need doesn't mean there aren't connections or clues to be had.
Mike|||Hi,
OrangeKnight|||I'm not sure what your goals are. Do you want the aircraft to be 'linked' to the unit, and have a limit on how many each one can construct and manage? In other words, drones.
Or do you want them to be normal aircraft? In which case, they can't use attach points for any purpose other than refueling (and you probably won't be able to control which attachpoints they use for refueling).|||I was hoping for it to be like the Czar, only with Ground transportation capabilities. But since there is no way to designate Factory functions to certain attachpoints, I think I might go with Drones...|||Yeah, I don't think you can assign specific attachpoints for air units / air storage. You may run into the same problem with drones, though - drones will use any available attachpoint, rather than just the one they were created at. I'm not sure if you can specifically designate an attachpoint as unusable to transported units, either, so units may get attached to the drone attachpoints.
There are reasons that there weren't any combined units like this in FA...|||ok then, Thanks for all the help everyone... Ill have to redesign the unit to use AA Turrets instead XD|||brandon007|||OrangeKnight
Thursday, April 19, 2012
[SUPCOM-FA] Structure with transport ability?
EXPLAINED, Above my skill level for now
First, let me set up my situation: I am attempting to create an experimental, heavily armored "ACU Protection Facility" unit. I have gotten the basics together, it is well armored, has a shield, everything I want, except for one thing: I want to make it to where the ACU (Or any other unit you want, but mostly the ACU )can reside within it by using the transport clamp feature used for air transports. I've gotten the button to show up, but I cannot get it to hold units.
The original structure I am basing this unit off of is URC1902-Cybran Network Node.
Does the unit need a special Bone somewhere for a transport clamp to be recognized?
Do I need to modify the script? I've looked through the script for transports, but it mostly seems to focus on the destruction of carried units, not the Carrying of them in itself.
Should I be basing this off of Air Staging instead of transports? (Since Air Staging is immobile and can hold units, I thought it might work. However, since it only seems to work on aircraft, and automatically releases them after repairing/refueling, I'm stumped with it)
Is it even possible for a non-mobile land unit to have the transport (a land unit) ability?|||Good luck.|||Quote:|||Exavier Macbeth|||The transport system is very hacked together, written partly in Lua, partly in C++, and none of it flexible. You will need an awful lot of luck and hacks to make such a thing work- the existing system is predicated on the assumption that one or both of the units involved are aerial.
First, let me set up my situation: I am attempting to create an experimental, heavily armored "ACU Protection Facility" unit. I have gotten the basics together, it is well armored, has a shield, everything I want, except for one thing: I want to make it to where the ACU (Or any other unit you want, but mostly the ACU )can reside within it by using the transport clamp feature used for air transports. I've gotten the button to show up, but I cannot get it to hold units.
The original structure I am basing this unit off of is URC1902-Cybran Network Node.
Does the unit need a special Bone somewhere for a transport clamp to be recognized?
Do I need to modify the script? I've looked through the script for transports, but it mostly seems to focus on the destruction of carried units, not the Carrying of them in itself.
Should I be basing this off of Air Staging instead of transports? (Since Air Staging is immobile and can hold units, I thought it might work. However, since it only seems to work on aircraft, and automatically releases them after repairing/refueling, I'm stumped with it)
Is it even possible for a non-mobile land unit to have the transport (a land unit) ability?|||Good luck.|||Quote:|||Exavier Macbeth|||The transport system is very hacked together, written partly in Lua, partly in C++, and none of it flexible. You will need an awful lot of luck and hacks to make such a thing work- the existing system is predicated on the assumption that one or both of the units involved are aerial.
[Fa] unit pass through structure
Hi,
Has anyone figured out how to make a unit pass through a structure?
**EDIT**
i ask becuase ummm ive figured it out..
not only can a unit pass through a structure... but also they can pass through each other.. as demonstrated in this video..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwAt_duBlBQ
so has anyone EVER done this before?|||I can definetly say that it's not been done.... not at all.
Resin|||It's a footprint thing- if you set the unit footprint to a certain size.|||if i altered the footprint they wouldnt go into formation like they do... it would be wider to reflect the footprint size..|||land transport anyone?|||It looks liek then they pass through other units as well, if you can make it so it only works on buildings....
Mike|||Hi,
OrangeKnight|||ahh yeah for dmg, the structure isnt letting the unit pass through it.. its the other way round.. thats a bog standard land fac... the unit is passing through it.. its the unit that is changed.. not the structure.. units dont have footprints so to speak..
they have sizes wqhich in essance is the footprint.. however what im getting at is that the structure is unchanged :)|||looking forward to this with great interest!|||Hi,
Guttied, sad news..
sadly we wont be able to toggle this ability off.. once a unit has it, it will have to do it until it is dead.. i was hoping something could be done.. but thats not the case..
the good news is that, even though a unit can pass through structures...
it is ABLE to still take damage from incomming fire.. hitboxes can be retained..
but also on another plus we can turn the hitbox off so not only does the unit
pass through structures... it also will pass through projectiles and hence not get damaged..
so on the cards still is the land transport, also for phasing and holo units this will be brilliant.. other people will prolly think of other uses for it.. ill just speak to resin about what were going to next regarding this, so stay tuned!
just a quick question.. when setmesh(blah, true ) is used does this only swap out the mesh for the new one.. or does it completely replace the old unit. ie when used does it use the new mesh bp or old units?|||SetMesh is a complete change of mesh.... nothing of the old unit mesh remains. The "true" flag just carries over the last position for all known animators. Hence if you have a unit thats shielding while moving the animation doesnt break because the units mesh was reset. Be aware that this is only possible if both the old and the new meshes are identical. (just swapping out textures an stuff)|||ahh kk thx.. :)|||Hi,
just another quick video showing a unit going up a raised platform and down the other side.. it also rests on the top of the platform..
there is nothing specail about the land fac..
i think this is another good find to the unit actually passing through other units..
as it demonstrates that units can indeed go up and down raised platforms..
more investigation needed on this matter also..
heres the vid, check it out!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JT1DyXF1JX4|||Just curious, from the last position of the T1 engineer in the video, in front of the factory; if you clicked a move command on the factory, would the unit go to a side and climb up or will it climb up the front of the factory in a straight line path (or is that something you are trying to implement)?|||it would just jump straight into the fact from its position not go up the side
however its position once inside the facr would be level with the platform..
ie it jumps up or snaps level with the platform
Has anyone figured out how to make a unit pass through a structure?
**EDIT**
i ask becuase ummm ive figured it out..
not only can a unit pass through a structure... but also they can pass through each other.. as demonstrated in this video..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwAt_duBlBQ
so has anyone EVER done this before?|||I can definetly say that it's not been done.... not at all.
Resin|||It's a footprint thing- if you set the unit footprint to a certain size.|||if i altered the footprint they wouldnt go into formation like they do... it would be wider to reflect the footprint size..|||land transport anyone?|||It looks liek then they pass through other units as well, if you can make it so it only works on buildings....
Mike|||Hi,
OrangeKnight|||ahh yeah for dmg, the structure isnt letting the unit pass through it.. its the other way round.. thats a bog standard land fac... the unit is passing through it.. its the unit that is changed.. not the structure.. units dont have footprints so to speak..
they have sizes wqhich in essance is the footprint.. however what im getting at is that the structure is unchanged :)|||looking forward to this with great interest!|||Hi,
Guttied, sad news..
sadly we wont be able to toggle this ability off.. once a unit has it, it will have to do it until it is dead.. i was hoping something could be done.. but thats not the case..
the good news is that, even though a unit can pass through structures...
it is ABLE to still take damage from incomming fire.. hitboxes can be retained..
but also on another plus we can turn the hitbox off so not only does the unit
pass through structures... it also will pass through projectiles and hence not get damaged..
so on the cards still is the land transport, also for phasing and holo units this will be brilliant.. other people will prolly think of other uses for it.. ill just speak to resin about what were going to next regarding this, so stay tuned!
just a quick question.. when setmesh(blah, true ) is used does this only swap out the mesh for the new one.. or does it completely replace the old unit. ie when used does it use the new mesh bp or old units?|||SetMesh is a complete change of mesh.... nothing of the old unit mesh remains. The "true" flag just carries over the last position for all known animators. Hence if you have a unit thats shielding while moving the animation doesnt break because the units mesh was reset. Be aware that this is only possible if both the old and the new meshes are identical. (just swapping out textures an stuff)|||ahh kk thx.. :)|||Hi,
just another quick video showing a unit going up a raised platform and down the other side.. it also rests on the top of the platform..
there is nothing specail about the land fac..
i think this is another good find to the unit actually passing through other units..
as it demonstrates that units can indeed go up and down raised platforms..
more investigation needed on this matter also..
heres the vid, check it out!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JT1DyXF1JX4|||Just curious, from the last position of the T1 engineer in the video, in front of the factory; if you clicked a move command on the factory, would the unit go to a side and climb up or will it climb up the front of the factory in a straight line path (or is that something you are trying to implement)?|||it would just jump straight into the fact from its position not go up the side
however its position once inside the facr would be level with the platform..
ie it jumps up or snaps level with the platform
[FA] WaitTicks in the sim?
Hi,
kinda feel stupid for asking this BUT...
In the sim (unit scripts) how can i induce a WaitTicks(3) ect without forkthreading.. ?
im wanting a function to wait for a duration before continuing how can i acheive this?|||You cannot wait without forking a thread.|||Hi,
DeadMG|||There should not be any reason to wait without being able to fork a thread. What use case do you have in mind for this?|||Hi,
its ok pal, ive umm done it a different way.. all will become clear in my land transports thread soon :)|||You can wait without forking a thread if the function you're waiting in wasn't called directly by a C function. Which, uh means it was forked at some point in the stack. But whatever, ~~technicalities.
kinda feel stupid for asking this BUT...
In the sim (unit scripts) how can i induce a WaitTicks(3) ect without forkthreading.. ?
im wanting a function to wait for a duration before continuing how can i acheive this?|||You cannot wait without forking a thread.|||Hi,
DeadMG|||There should not be any reason to wait without being able to fork a thread. What use case do you have in mind for this?|||Hi,
its ok pal, ive umm done it a different way.. all will become clear in my land transports thread soon :)|||You can wait without forking a thread if the function you're waiting in wasn't called directly by a C function. Which, uh means it was forked at some point in the stack. But whatever, ~~technicalities.
[SC2] z_lua_dlc1.scd and DefaultBuildRestrictions.lua
Just came across some more weird restricted behaviour of z_lua_dlc1.scd: it appears that DefaultBuildRestrictions.lua can only read the standard Cybran, Illuminate, and UEF folders for units. It completely ignores LoD's GlobalUpgrades folder. In order to disable the TECHUPGRADE unit, I had to shadow DefaultBuildRestrictions via Mithy's modhook approach.|||Maybe you can make a tutorial on this. I am just cutting my teeth on adding FA units, and I want them all to be restricted to research unlocks, so this would be a big help to me. :)|||I'm going to update my tutorial soon, once i get a bit more time.
About adding the FA units, all I need left to do is make individual research items for the illuminate experimentals. other than that, i have all units and structures in the research tree all ready and set to go. Give me a couple of days and i'll finish off illuminate and send you the files. it'll save you a lot of time from creating each individual entry, since that's basically what i've been spending my time doing.|||Bastilean|||Sweet! I don't know how functional revamp expansion will be with regular supcom, but it would be fun to try it. Maybe, with LoDs permision, I can make a mod for revamp expansion to make it compatible with SupCom2 scale. Dunno
It's always nice to see how something is done.
About adding the FA units, all I need left to do is make individual research items for the illuminate experimentals. other than that, i have all units and structures in the research tree all ready and set to go. Give me a couple of days and i'll finish off illuminate and send you the files. it'll save you a lot of time from creating each individual entry, since that's basically what i've been spending my time doing.|||Bastilean|||Sweet! I don't know how functional revamp expansion will be with regular supcom, but it would be fun to try it. Maybe, with LoDs permision, I can make a mod for revamp expansion to make it compatible with SupCom2 scale. Dunno
It's always nice to see how something is done.
My first Subcom Mod
First I would like to thank everyone who helped me get interested in modding for Subcom. Special shout out to Mithys and Michael Urbon for your assistance. Without such I might have let my desire to mod this game die.
That said I will say that I'm not a scripter, and I can't program an "ok" button in visual basic. I am self taught and can only do basic editing. But I am learning how to mod some of the statistics of Subcom units and just slowly going over every unit and changing them to give the game a more unique feel.
But before I go any further I will state the purpose of this thread. Essentially I was going to ask how hard one my ideas would be to implement. What I want to do is add two new values to Subcom, one value (called "Uplink Nodes") would signify how many units your supreme commander can control (and be very closely related to the "unit cap", perhaps I could just mod how that variable acts?). E.G. I have 100 Uplink Nodes total, I want to build an Air Scout and he requires at least 10 Uplink Nodes, whereas land units in general only require 1. Also this variable would be upgradable through the Supreme Commander upgrades, raising the max (in this case from say 100 to 200).
The other variable I want to work much the same way, but call it Processing Power. This variable would be a much larger pool and it would just be another variable I could link different type units up (so say an Air Scout uses little processing power to operate, having no guns and would take up 10 of 1000 processing power etc.).
My question, is this a possible idea to code into the game? If it is I will try to learn how to do it. Thanks for your input.
Unrelated to the above paragraphs I will describe my mod, offer your opinion if you so desire. I am looking to purport greater differences between the four races in Subcom. Also I am trying to further alienate land, sea and air from one another and make their role stand out more (one way I would like to do this is through the two new variables mentioned above).
Cybran will have the fastest units, and most will be faster than others overall. Also they will be 'kings of land'.
UEF will have the most robust and hardy units, but a bit slower than other races. They will also be 'kings of sea/water'.
Aeon will have the most fragile units, but their units will also deal good damage (glass cannon style). They will be 'kings of air'.
Seraphim will be strong on all fronts, to balance this I will make their units cost much more and take longer to build.
After balancing those changes I would like to point out that some races might naturally be better to play with an ally, or be vulnerable to attack in a certain area. To avoid rock/paper/scissor fights I will try to make the game as tactical and strategically viable as possible and avoid the one trick pony approach, while still keeping the racial differences clear.
I welcome all experienced modders opinions!
Cheers,
-Seven|||Mod Talk is for talking about mods that are either released or WIP.
Mod Dev Support is for asking or talking about the making of mods.
Thread Moved.
Mike|||OrangeKnight|||Hi and welcome..
i take it your an avid star trek fan :) cool beans..
i just want to comment on your uplink nodes and processing power surgestions..
these 2 "variables" are completely possible pal, but would require a little investigation
and coding.. it wouldnt be to hard to implement a system like this..
That said I will say that I'm not a scripter, and I can't program an "ok" button in visual basic. I am self taught and can only do basic editing. But I am learning how to mod some of the statistics of Subcom units and just slowly going over every unit and changing them to give the game a more unique feel.
But before I go any further I will state the purpose of this thread. Essentially I was going to ask how hard one my ideas would be to implement. What I want to do is add two new values to Subcom, one value (called "Uplink Nodes") would signify how many units your supreme commander can control (and be very closely related to the "unit cap", perhaps I could just mod how that variable acts?). E.G. I have 100 Uplink Nodes total, I want to build an Air Scout and he requires at least 10 Uplink Nodes, whereas land units in general only require 1. Also this variable would be upgradable through the Supreme Commander upgrades, raising the max (in this case from say 100 to 200).
The other variable I want to work much the same way, but call it Processing Power. This variable would be a much larger pool and it would just be another variable I could link different type units up (so say an Air Scout uses little processing power to operate, having no guns and would take up 10 of 1000 processing power etc.).
My question, is this a possible idea to code into the game? If it is I will try to learn how to do it. Thanks for your input.
Unrelated to the above paragraphs I will describe my mod, offer your opinion if you so desire. I am looking to purport greater differences between the four races in Subcom. Also I am trying to further alienate land, sea and air from one another and make their role stand out more (one way I would like to do this is through the two new variables mentioned above).
Cybran will have the fastest units, and most will be faster than others overall. Also they will be 'kings of land'.
UEF will have the most robust and hardy units, but a bit slower than other races. They will also be 'kings of sea/water'.
Aeon will have the most fragile units, but their units will also deal good damage (glass cannon style). They will be 'kings of air'.
Seraphim will be strong on all fronts, to balance this I will make their units cost much more and take longer to build.
After balancing those changes I would like to point out that some races might naturally be better to play with an ally, or be vulnerable to attack in a certain area. To avoid rock/paper/scissor fights I will try to make the game as tactical and strategically viable as possible and avoid the one trick pony approach, while still keeping the racial differences clear.
I welcome all experienced modders opinions!
Cheers,
-Seven|||Mod Talk is for talking about mods that are either released or WIP.
Mod Dev Support is for asking or talking about the making of mods.
Thread Moved.
Mike|||OrangeKnight|||Hi and welcome..
i take it your an avid star trek fan :) cool beans..
i just want to comment on your uplink nodes and processing power surgestions..
these 2 "variables" are completely possible pal, but would require a little investigation
and coding.. it wouldnt be to hard to implement a system like this..
[SC2] UCA0021
uca0021 are the little bots that fly around when building structures, but why is the script of TypeClass = UCA0103?|||GPG didn't bother to change it lol just left over code.|||Doesn't hurt anything, just looks confusing. For per-unit scripts, the game doesn't look at the name of the class, it looks at the contents of TypeClass.
So you can technically have a class that's named something totally different than the file, and you can technically even have a bunch of unit scripts that all use the same class name (which happened with some Cybran projectiles in FA). It's bad practice, but it still works.
This only applies to per-unit scripts with TypeClass, of course, and if you tried to 'rename' the Unit class in Unit.lua, your changes would be ignored because all of the other lua scripts that import /lua/sim/Unit.lua.Unit would see the old version referenced by 'Unit'.
Edit: The reason different scripts can use the same variable names is because every import()ed script is doscripted into its own global environment within __modules, and has a custom metatable that redirects all failed global variable accesses within that environment to the lua state's global environment.
So you can technically have a class that's named something totally different than the file, and you can technically even have a bunch of unit scripts that all use the same class name (which happened with some Cybran projectiles in FA). It's bad practice, but it still works.
This only applies to per-unit scripts with TypeClass, of course, and if you tried to 'rename' the Unit class in Unit.lua, your changes would be ignored because all of the other lua scripts that import /lua/sim/Unit.lua.Unit would see the old version referenced by 'Unit'.
Edit: The reason different scripts can use the same variable names is because every import()ed script is doscripted into its own global environment within __modules, and has a custom metatable that redirects all failed global variable accesses within that environment to the lua state's global environment.
[FA][Video] Land Transports
Hi,
without any shinanigans ive done this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlr3OfplvD0
i dont see any major problems with it.. appearing...
there are no errors, the unit picks up the units and transports them.. it also drops them off at the destinations either signle drops or drop all..
i used the light air transport model and gave all of a land units attributes..
in essance making it a land transport..
so the question is... what is the problems people usually have with land transports.. ?
i notice one thing... ferry point doesnt work.. the order wont activate, however... this is scriptable.. using a custom toggle.. i could do this..
is there anything else that could go wrong.. ?|||well, as you stated, the general problem is that ferry doesn't work, units sometimes refuse to go to the transport to load up, and occasionally the units get unloaded "under" the map and die. at least in my experience that has been the general problem|||Hi,
ill try and re-create some of those problems and address them..
i wouldnt mind a land transport.
a fatboy with transport slots... that would be quite good..|||Indeed - an interesting approach - perhaps think of it more as a hovercraft unit - less vulnerable than air transport and capable of ferrying sizable loads of non-amphib units across water. There are plenty of present day examples.|||indeed..
i didnt show it in that video .. but it does travel across water.. on the top.. like and engi.|||Well, me and Hawk have already done it technically, its not that its impossible, we just didn't feel the logistics of the model itself nor the quality were sufficient for proper release.
Mike|||Hover transport like that has already been done.|||its not a hover unit.|||ok little more testing,
progress is being made.. good progress so far.. :)|||DeadMG|||quick update...
ive gotten the ferry command 50% working
the units plants its beacon and sets the destination to ferry to..
i can then spawn in some test units, select them and click the beacon..
the units LOAD ONTO THE TRANSPORT and the transport moves to the destination..
however.. when it reaches the destination it turns round and goes and drops the units off at the BEACON lol..
im not able to use the engine code to do this.. im havingt o script it myself..
its going well.. in the end i dont think it will work 100% like the normal ferry..
because there seems to be a block on the ferry command to not issue this order to land units.. UNLESS im doing something wrong.. there are no errors ;/
an so dat is it padawans!
more updates later..|||Hi,
Video update time,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g70A-zkfhs8
ok i havent seen the units get dispatched underground yet...
however... as you can see fromt he video i set a ferry point and the transport moves the units once loaded to the destination as denoted by the flashing red beacon..
now this transport is indeed for a real a proper land unit.. its mesh is that of the t1 light air transport.. (for ease of use and fast testing) i modified it to become a land unit...
in the video the ferry point is set and the gfx for the start of the ferry is laid down..
notice how i click the units to load onto the ferry point icon and they load onto the transport.. when the transport is full or there are no more units to load it transports them to the destination and them moves back to the start destination..
thats about how far i have got upto now..
things still to add..
when a ferry point is set and the distance to the transport is greater than x.. i want the transport to move closer to the units..
also.. when there are more than 6 units the transports doesnt pick up the remaining units after it has transported the first load.. (i can fix this.. but i may need help)
the ummm cursor gfx when setting a ferry point.. absolutely no idea how to change this atm to the ferry icon.. as im not using the conventional way of ferry units.. its all scripted.. so this many not be possible.. (no big deal right, as long as ferry works?)
thats all i can think of right now..
coments welcome..|||How hard would it be to put neutral (they would pick up and transport anything that chooses to ride) transports in the game with preset ferrying points that were map specific? Possibly they could follow tracks on the map or have stations they go to.
You could make them invulnerable and very fast.|||Bastilean|||Cant beleive i dont get atleast some kudos or comments for figuring out the land transport ferry point stuff.. :/
also no one seemed to have picked up on what i did with the mouse in the video..
i clicked the transport and then clicked a order button.. AND THEN clicked the map
for the location of the transport.. which then set the destination for the ferry...
geees.. come on.. name one other mod that lets you do this? if there is one... i wouldnt mind seeing it.. just think what you can do with this with your own units..
your able to order it to do virtually anything at the location you click..
this is defined by a BP abilties entry.... NOW i know... this in the past was impossible.. adding CUSTOM abilities via a units blueprint.. the path to sim/scripttask/ is hard coded.. i found away around it.. so units can have there own abilities via there own mods folder.. :/ .. for the ppl that now what im going on about.. come on.. this is a break through.. :/
now im not wanting a big head however.. i wouldnt mind some positive feedback.. :/
it took me along time to reverse engineer this stuff and figure it out.. :/
and ill freely disclose it to anyone that wants to know :/|||just gotta say, that is some nice work you've done there, as for units going under the map, it was very rare when it happened to be honest. the main reason we ended up not wanting to do our land transports was because for some reason, was very cumbersome(units wouldn't load up and whatnot) plus the occasional unloading under the map deal.
but i must say very nice job.|||Lt_hawkeye|||Domino|||ok IM NOT going to make this mod, however thinking about it...
This could be done... butwhy use trains or a varient... it could be quantum gates.. or some kinda teleporter.. BUT why even go there... bases would be huge by the time forces start coming through and get polverised instantly as soon as you send units through the gate lol.. players would know where the gates are.. and just make a base there with many defense :/ ... seriously no real need for a system like this in a real game... but for fun and to prove it can be done..|||It's true that gateways would also work here. Are there maps like that?
It would be important to place the stations in such a way as to not be easily fortified by the enemy. Or put a lot of stations down, so that there would be a lot of locations to defend. If there are enough trains to deliver 20+ units quickly even a fortified area might be up for grabs.
Might make for an interesting game. As far as maps go, most of their features are for the kicks in the first place. I wouldn't say the volcano in the middle of the Seraphim Isles map is more than an interesting feature.|||Hi,
nice work - but i think the reason for the few comments is, a land transport (as in the thread title say) is not realy needed ....
I can only imagine this usefull for VERY large and slow land units - and so it needs an very big transport unit - and the unit should look good ... to much work for the few moments a land transport is better than transporting the units the default way over land ...
I am more interestet in an Sea transport - and here on :
a, very large sea tranport unit to bring massive amount of units over water .. and
b, submarine transports to bringe hiden units closer to enemy ....
Regards
R-TEAM|||Hi,
using the same method ive used a sea transport is 100% possible.. INFACT the unit in the video already does it.. i gave it the motionType amphibiousfloating its able to cross the water like the uef engi.. with or without cargo, they can very easly be made to travel under the water also basicly any unit TYPE can be a transport AND set ferry points.|||Main problem i see with this is that the transport is still considered an "AIR" unit and is still held on the "AIR" layer... Most land units would not be able to fire on it and air units would have one hell of a time as well. Idealy it would be best if this unit was considered "Hover" so it would be on the correct layer for it's motion type.
Resin|||Hi,
Resin, that unit is a land unit... i know im using the t1 light air transport as the test model..(only because its already set up as a transport) however it isnt in the air layer.. ive changed the bp so it is a land unit.. i could easly change it to a hover type..
in the video it looks like it is "in the air" slightly... because that is where the units pivot is in Y in the 3d program .. ie it isnt resting on the ground in Y ..
this wont be the model for the transport.. i dont think ill even do one.. im just sorting the code so they are possible "IF SOME ONE ELSE" wanted this ability on there own unit..
dont get confused by the air transport model.. it is a land unit in its bp and script file.. im just using the transports mesh.. if i lowered it in a 3d program and gave it some tracks/wheels.. you would see its a land unit then.. i just havent done this lol.. im just usingt he mesh as is..
any unit that can target land units can target this transport. quite honestly.. its perfectly fine.. regards gettting attacked and which layer it resides on.. or what type of motion it has.. its truely is a transport of any unit type.. no sh!t|||the only way i guess to prove its a land unit is to show you this..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqyhRvB3ryo
its amphibious.. land to water and back again..
without any shinanigans ive done this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlr3OfplvD0
i dont see any major problems with it.. appearing...
there are no errors, the unit picks up the units and transports them.. it also drops them off at the destinations either signle drops or drop all..
i used the light air transport model and gave all of a land units attributes..
in essance making it a land transport..
so the question is... what is the problems people usually have with land transports.. ?
i notice one thing... ferry point doesnt work.. the order wont activate, however... this is scriptable.. using a custom toggle.. i could do this..
is there anything else that could go wrong.. ?|||well, as you stated, the general problem is that ferry doesn't work, units sometimes refuse to go to the transport to load up, and occasionally the units get unloaded "under" the map and die. at least in my experience that has been the general problem|||Hi,
ill try and re-create some of those problems and address them..
i wouldnt mind a land transport.
a fatboy with transport slots... that would be quite good..|||Indeed - an interesting approach - perhaps think of it more as a hovercraft unit - less vulnerable than air transport and capable of ferrying sizable loads of non-amphib units across water. There are plenty of present day examples.|||indeed..
i didnt show it in that video .. but it does travel across water.. on the top.. like and engi.|||Well, me and Hawk have already done it technically, its not that its impossible, we just didn't feel the logistics of the model itself nor the quality were sufficient for proper release.
Mike|||Hover transport like that has already been done.|||its not a hover unit.|||ok little more testing,
progress is being made.. good progress so far.. :)|||DeadMG|||quick update...
ive gotten the ferry command 50% working
the units plants its beacon and sets the destination to ferry to..
i can then spawn in some test units, select them and click the beacon..
the units LOAD ONTO THE TRANSPORT and the transport moves to the destination..
however.. when it reaches the destination it turns round and goes and drops the units off at the BEACON lol..
im not able to use the engine code to do this.. im havingt o script it myself..
its going well.. in the end i dont think it will work 100% like the normal ferry..
because there seems to be a block on the ferry command to not issue this order to land units.. UNLESS im doing something wrong.. there are no errors ;/
an so dat is it padawans!
more updates later..|||Hi,
Video update time,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g70A-zkfhs8
ok i havent seen the units get dispatched underground yet...
however... as you can see fromt he video i set a ferry point and the transport moves the units once loaded to the destination as denoted by the flashing red beacon..
now this transport is indeed for a real a proper land unit.. its mesh is that of the t1 light air transport.. (for ease of use and fast testing) i modified it to become a land unit...
in the video the ferry point is set and the gfx for the start of the ferry is laid down..
notice how i click the units to load onto the ferry point icon and they load onto the transport.. when the transport is full or there are no more units to load it transports them to the destination and them moves back to the start destination..
thats about how far i have got upto now..
things still to add..
when a ferry point is set and the distance to the transport is greater than x.. i want the transport to move closer to the units..
also.. when there are more than 6 units the transports doesnt pick up the remaining units after it has transported the first load.. (i can fix this.. but i may need help)
the ummm cursor gfx when setting a ferry point.. absolutely no idea how to change this atm to the ferry icon.. as im not using the conventional way of ferry units.. its all scripted.. so this many not be possible.. (no big deal right, as long as ferry works?)
thats all i can think of right now..
coments welcome..|||How hard would it be to put neutral (they would pick up and transport anything that chooses to ride) transports in the game with preset ferrying points that were map specific? Possibly they could follow tracks on the map or have stations they go to.
You could make them invulnerable and very fast.|||Bastilean|||Cant beleive i dont get atleast some kudos or comments for figuring out the land transport ferry point stuff.. :/
also no one seemed to have picked up on what i did with the mouse in the video..
i clicked the transport and then clicked a order button.. AND THEN clicked the map
for the location of the transport.. which then set the destination for the ferry...
geees.. come on.. name one other mod that lets you do this? if there is one... i wouldnt mind seeing it.. just think what you can do with this with your own units..
your able to order it to do virtually anything at the location you click..
this is defined by a BP abilties entry.... NOW i know... this in the past was impossible.. adding CUSTOM abilities via a units blueprint.. the path to sim/scripttask/ is hard coded.. i found away around it.. so units can have there own abilities via there own mods folder.. :/ .. for the ppl that now what im going on about.. come on.. this is a break through.. :/
now im not wanting a big head however.. i wouldnt mind some positive feedback.. :/
it took me along time to reverse engineer this stuff and figure it out.. :/
and ill freely disclose it to anyone that wants to know :/|||just gotta say, that is some nice work you've done there, as for units going under the map, it was very rare when it happened to be honest. the main reason we ended up not wanting to do our land transports was because for some reason, was very cumbersome(units wouldn't load up and whatnot) plus the occasional unloading under the map deal.
but i must say very nice job.|||Lt_hawkeye|||Domino|||ok IM NOT going to make this mod, however thinking about it...
This could be done... butwhy use trains or a varient... it could be quantum gates.. or some kinda teleporter.. BUT why even go there... bases would be huge by the time forces start coming through and get polverised instantly as soon as you send units through the gate lol.. players would know where the gates are.. and just make a base there with many defense :/ ... seriously no real need for a system like this in a real game... but for fun and to prove it can be done..|||It's true that gateways would also work here. Are there maps like that?
It would be important to place the stations in such a way as to not be easily fortified by the enemy. Or put a lot of stations down, so that there would be a lot of locations to defend. If there are enough trains to deliver 20+ units quickly even a fortified area might be up for grabs.
Might make for an interesting game. As far as maps go, most of their features are for the kicks in the first place. I wouldn't say the volcano in the middle of the Seraphim Isles map is more than an interesting feature.|||Hi,
nice work - but i think the reason for the few comments is, a land transport (as in the thread title say) is not realy needed ....
I can only imagine this usefull for VERY large and slow land units - and so it needs an very big transport unit - and the unit should look good ... to much work for the few moments a land transport is better than transporting the units the default way over land ...
I am more interestet in an Sea transport - and here on :
a, very large sea tranport unit to bring massive amount of units over water .. and
b, submarine transports to bringe hiden units closer to enemy ....
Regards
R-TEAM|||Hi,
using the same method ive used a sea transport is 100% possible.. INFACT the unit in the video already does it.. i gave it the motionType amphibiousfloating its able to cross the water like the uef engi.. with or without cargo, they can very easly be made to travel under the water also basicly any unit TYPE can be a transport AND set ferry points.|||Main problem i see with this is that the transport is still considered an "AIR" unit and is still held on the "AIR" layer... Most land units would not be able to fire on it and air units would have one hell of a time as well. Idealy it would be best if this unit was considered "Hover" so it would be on the correct layer for it's motion type.
Resin|||Hi,
Resin, that unit is a land unit... i know im using the t1 light air transport as the test model..(only because its already set up as a transport) however it isnt in the air layer.. ive changed the bp so it is a land unit.. i could easly change it to a hover type..
in the video it looks like it is "in the air" slightly... because that is where the units pivot is in Y in the 3d program .. ie it isnt resting on the ground in Y ..
this wont be the model for the transport.. i dont think ill even do one.. im just sorting the code so they are possible "IF SOME ONE ELSE" wanted this ability on there own unit..
dont get confused by the air transport model.. it is a land unit in its bp and script file.. im just using the transports mesh.. if i lowered it in a 3d program and gave it some tracks/wheels.. you would see its a land unit then.. i just havent done this lol.. im just usingt he mesh as is..
any unit that can target land units can target this transport. quite honestly.. its perfectly fine.. regards gettting attacked and which layer it resides on.. or what type of motion it has.. its truely is a transport of any unit type.. no sh!t|||the only way i guess to prove its a land unit is to show you this..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqyhRvB3ryo
its amphibious.. land to water and back again..
[FA Beta] Land Transports..
Hi,
Ok im just putting this on the forum for other modders to see..
http://www.mediafire.com/?yrbl9v0clbmubsv
To use this mod you will also need my support mod (DMS - domino mod support) V3 available on moho mod talk.
What is this mod i hear you mutter...
ok as some of you know already ive been toying with land transports, ferrypoints and changing the way units get loaded onto transports..
with this in mind.. here is what i have so far...
THIS MOD IS NOT FOR GENERAL GAME USE
So i took the uef t1 light air transport and made it into a land unit..
then i scripted some ferry support for this unit.. via a custom toggle.
i then changed the way units load onto transports.. (bugs)
units are teleported onto the transport.. (from any range lol)
setting a ferry point works perfectly (as far as i can tell)
the unit is indeed a land transport..
sadly i dont think i will keep that the transport teleports its cargo into position..
i would love this but i think in the long run it will be to difficult to control from the sim.
im just putting this beta out in its current form so that other modders can see what i have done.. and maybe learn something from it.. im not going to work on it for a few weeks now.. as im going to be concentrating on 4dc content.. i jst thought some of you might like to see this in action.. or see the code :)
comments welcome... good or bad.. :)
Ok im just putting this on the forum for other modders to see..
http://www.mediafire.com/?yrbl9v0clbmubsv
To use this mod you will also need my support mod (DMS - domino mod support) V3 available on moho mod talk.
What is this mod i hear you mutter...
ok as some of you know already ive been toying with land transports, ferrypoints and changing the way units get loaded onto transports..
with this in mind.. here is what i have so far...
THIS MOD IS NOT FOR GENERAL GAME USE
So i took the uef t1 light air transport and made it into a land unit..
then i scripted some ferry support for this unit.. via a custom toggle.
i then changed the way units load onto transports.. (bugs)
units are teleported onto the transport.. (from any range lol)
setting a ferry point works perfectly (as far as i can tell)
the unit is indeed a land transport..
sadly i dont think i will keep that the transport teleports its cargo into position..
i would love this but i think in the long run it will be to difficult to control from the sim.
im just putting this beta out in its current form so that other modders can see what i have done.. and maybe learn something from it.. im not going to work on it for a few weeks now.. as im going to be concentrating on 4dc content.. i jst thought some of you might like to see this in action.. or see the code :)
comments welcome... good or bad.. :)
[FA-SOLVED] pardon my noob (hooking issues)
hokay, I've been re-reading this for hours and I still can't make heads or tails of what I'm supposed to do to get the hooking to work.
I've set up a test mod for learning that has a copy of the T2 aeon shieldgen (separate from my other mod, which has much more in it [which I haven't been able to test properly because of this])
I can't even get the thing to show up in the mod-manager....
I just know that when someone tells me what the issue is I'm going to repeatedly smack myself with my keyboard, but it's driving me nuts and is preventing me from balance-testing new stuff.
edit:
problem solved!
thanks Mithy!|||Upload what you have online somewhere (I recommend GoogleCode, or dropbox) and someone will have a look for you.
Simply saying "Help. My mod won't work, and I don't know why." isn't very productive. We don't know what's wrong with it either.|||Oh, you misunderstand (probably because I didn't explain for S&^$ in the first post)
I'm not asking 'I have a problem with an existing thing,'
I'm asking 'I can't find a half-decent source of information (IE one that is well-explained in a way my non-coder self will be able to understand) on how this is done, can somebody walk me through it?'
and I've got Exavier's tutorial thingy, and I've been looking at the wiki.
I'm afraid I simply don't get what I'm supposed to do in the lua code.
anyone want to write/link some detailed information about the subject?|||http://forums.gaspowered.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2318|||Download a mod that you know works. The simpler, the better.
Copy its folder structure. Copy its mod_info.lua, and change the UID, name, clear out any requirement/conflict tables.
There, you have a working mod. Blueprint files can go anywhere in your mod folder, new units go in \units, and hooks of existing scripts go in \hook, with the same path as the original file (e.g. \hook\lua\sim\Unit.lua to hook /lua/sim/Unit.lua). I still start mods this way (although I do it from a known-working blank template folder) because it's faster than trying to write a mod_info.lua from scratch every time.
The fastest way to learn modding is always to look through a working mod, preferably one that's simple and well-commented.|||It works now! Oh joy!
Thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou!
COOKIES FOR ALL!
(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)
I've set up a test mod for learning that has a copy of the T2 aeon shieldgen (separate from my other mod, which has much more in it [which I haven't been able to test properly because of this])
I can't even get the thing to show up in the mod-manager....
I just know that when someone tells me what the issue is I'm going to repeatedly smack myself with my keyboard, but it's driving me nuts and is preventing me from balance-testing new stuff.
edit:
problem solved!
thanks Mithy!|||Upload what you have online somewhere (I recommend GoogleCode, or dropbox) and someone will have a look for you.
Simply saying "Help. My mod won't work, and I don't know why." isn't very productive. We don't know what's wrong with it either.|||Oh, you misunderstand (probably because I didn't explain for S&^$ in the first post)
I'm not asking 'I have a problem with an existing thing,'
I'm asking 'I can't find a half-decent source of information (IE one that is well-explained in a way my non-coder self will be able to understand) on how this is done, can somebody walk me through it?'
and I've got Exavier's tutorial thingy, and I've been looking at the wiki.
I'm afraid I simply don't get what I'm supposed to do in the lua code.
anyone want to write/link some detailed information about the subject?|||http://forums.gaspowered.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2318|||Download a mod that you know works. The simpler, the better.
Copy its folder structure. Copy its mod_info.lua, and change the UID, name, clear out any requirement/conflict tables.
There, you have a working mod. Blueprint files can go anywhere in your mod folder, new units go in \units, and hooks of existing scripts go in \hook, with the same path as the original file (e.g. \hook\lua\sim\Unit.lua to hook /lua/sim/Unit.lua). I still start mods this way (although I do it from a known-working blank template folder) because it's faster than trying to write a mod_info.lua from scratch every time.
The fastest way to learn modding is always to look through a working mod, preferably one that's simple and well-commented.|||It works now! Oh joy!
Thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou!
COOKIES FOR ALL!
(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)(::)
CreateSlider
I've noticed that when create slider is used on a unit thats Orientation has been altered, the slider will move along the axis of orientation.
Example: a unit is laid on it's side, it's sider is told to move "down" and instead of moving down it moves horizontaly.
Anyone know of a way to prevent this or is CreateSlider fix to a units orientation?
Resin|||Sliders are meant to be used to manipulate parts of units or units attached to units, so this is probably intended behavior.
If the unit isn't currently rotating at the time the slider is applied, you could take the unit's orientation into account when calculating a goal for the slider. I couldn't tell you exactly how to do that, but it's definitely possible.|||Mithy|||in doubt you could always just set the orientation to your liking.
Example: a unit is laid on it's side, it's sider is told to move "down" and instead of moving down it moves horizontaly.
Anyone know of a way to prevent this or is CreateSlider fix to a units orientation?
Resin|||Sliders are meant to be used to manipulate parts of units or units attached to units, so this is probably intended behavior.
If the unit isn't currently rotating at the time the slider is applied, you could take the unit's orientation into account when calculating a goal for the slider. I couldn't tell you exactly how to do that, but it's definitely possible.|||Mithy|||in doubt you could always just set the orientation to your liking.
Sound Help (FA)
Ello, Im trying my hand at adding new sounds to FA with the help of this tutorial: Link
I did everything as it had told me, but I get this error ingame: http://pastebin.com/Wk6TC1Uy
Now the Tutorial says I need 'November 2007 SDK' for Xact, however I am using the 'June 2010' version'.
Can anyone please help?|||Use the November 2007 version. The file format is not guaranteed to be compatible between versions, which is why I mentioned the specific versions that worked in the linked thread. You are getting the "invalid data" message because the file format has been changed since the November 2007 version of the SDK.|||Armoured Fish|||Whew, too bad there wasnt a feature which lets you set multiple categories at once XD
I did everything as it had told me, but I get this error ingame: http://pastebin.com/Wk6TC1Uy
Now the Tutorial says I need 'November 2007 SDK' for Xact, however I am using the 'June 2010' version'.
Can anyone please help?|||Use the November 2007 version. The file format is not guaranteed to be compatible between versions, which is why I mentioned the specific versions that worked in the linked thread. You are getting the "invalid data" message because the file format has been changed since the November 2007 version of the SDK.|||Armoured Fish|||Whew, too bad there wasnt a feature which lets you set multiple categories at once XD
[SC2][SOLVED] DLC icons
Where are the DLC icons as referenced by research_layout.lua??? For example, the icon corresponding to the Monkeylord:
/textures/ui/common/icons/hud/units/ucx0117d1.dds
is not actually there. Yet, the game correctly displays the icon. I haven't been able to locate this, or any other DLC, file in any of the game's scd files.|||Just found them:
z_diff1.scd/textures/ui/common/icons/hud/units
/textures/ui/common/icons/hud/units/ucx0117d1.dds
is not actually there. Yet, the game correctly displays the icon. I haven't been able to locate this, or any other DLC, file in any of the game's scd files.|||Just found them:
z_diff1.scd/textures/ui/common/icons/hud/units
Modding
ok i have downloaded some mods, but i cannot find the folder to put them in, ive searched up the folders, but nothing shows up, please help, its pissing me off|||Eugene|||Yes, what Brandon said is right.
In case it helps here's the file path I have:
C:\Users\Sam\Documents\My Games\Gas Powered Games\Supreme Commander Forged Alliance\mods|||Well, It actually depends. If the mod is in a .SCD file, then it goes into your gamedata folder.|||brandon007|||Theres a Handy Stickied thread in Moho Mod Talk Titled [Guide] How to install mods
Then most quality mods should also have installation instructions in Read-mes or in thier thread.
Mike
In case it helps here's the file path I have:
C:\Users\Sam\Documents\My Games\Gas Powered Games\Supreme Commander Forged Alliance\mods|||Well, It actually depends. If the mod is in a .SCD file, then it goes into your gamedata folder.|||brandon007|||Theres a Handy Stickied thread in Moho Mod Talk Titled [Guide] How to install mods
Then most quality mods should also have installation instructions in Read-mes or in thier thread.
Mike
Universal Collossus problem (FA)
Im having a difficult problem with my universal colossus script. It keeps replenishing units HP to the max whenever it gets damaged, effectively making surrounding units invincible. Anyone know how to prevent this, and just have the HP boost?
UC Script: http://pastebin.com/8A1Cuj0W|||FA's buff system is a wreck. It wasn't really meant to be used for temporary buffs, and barely works for permanent ones like veterancy.
You can try adding DoNoFill = true, to your buff's Affects table, but it's only a partial solution. HP will still be added, and not removed properly every time the buff refreshes. The buff calculations for max health in FA are really terrible.|||Mithy
UC Script: http://pastebin.com/8A1Cuj0W|||FA's buff system is a wreck. It wasn't really meant to be used for temporary buffs, and barely works for permanent ones like veterancy.
You can try adding DoNoFill = true, to your buff's Affects table, but it's only a partial solution. HP will still be added, and not removed properly every time the buff refreshes. The buff calculations for max health in FA are really terrible.|||Mithy
Darkenoid Error
Ellos, I am trying to remake the Darkenoid Saucer, and Im having trouble with the script. The Script makes the game do a hard crash, and the log doesnt really turn up anything...
Any ideas?
Script: http://pastebin.com/C3it8XKv
Log: http://pastebin.com/Jei5hfdw|||Since the log stops at AQuantumBeamGenerator, make sure that file is working first.
[EDIT:] That's one of GPG's files, I think it's safe to assume it's working lol.|||BulletMagnet|||Hang on, hang on. I am mistaken; the log stops on wyvern1defaultcollisionbeams.lua
Make sure that file works.|||BulletMagnet
Any ideas?
Script: http://pastebin.com/C3it8XKv
Log: http://pastebin.com/Jei5hfdw|||Since the log stops at AQuantumBeamGenerator, make sure that file is working first.
[EDIT:] That's one of GPG's files, I think it's safe to assume it's working lol.|||BulletMagnet|||Hang on, hang on. I am mistaken; the log stops on wyvern1defaultcollisionbeams.lua
Make sure that file works.|||BulletMagnet
Looking for Coders. Details within. (FA)
Greetings all. I am looking for a couple Experienced coders for a very special project. FA ACU Enhancment Trees =p
I know how to do Actual ACU enhancment coding, but Im lookin for someone who can do the rest =p The Actual Tree itself.
Anyone interested?
Heres an Example of what I had in mind that I have recently made:
|||good luck with that brandon, i doubt anyone in there right mind would help you do that.
now im sorry to be negative.. BUT,
why even try bringing the tech tree to fa.. the tech tree blows.. and doesnt fit with fa at all.. i dont see the point in trying to make fa into sc2, why bring half arsed ideas from that game.. a better idea is to think of something original for fa THAT ISNT in sc2, i could make the tech tree but im not going to.. because i like original ideas..
why try re-inventing the wheel..
you can mod what you want, however i think you should come up with better ideas, rather than trying to copy things from sc2.|||I'm not sure I get the point of this, Brandon. I think it's a common agreement that SC2 has the better engine (minus modding)... so why are you trying to bring SC2 content over to an older engine?|||FuryoftheStars|||I thought part of the point with the FA upgrade system was that you couldn't get every upgrade.
I just don't think that teh SC2 style tree will be liked by many of those playing FA, part of hte reason they are most likely still playing FA is because they prefer it over SupCom2 after all...
Mike|||OrangeKnight|||I like the looks of it. It does not have to lead to just one final upgrade, but could fork into specialized trees. Nicely done Brandon.
But alas, I'm busy coding, I can give you a few pointers here and there.
On Supcom2, I dislike the lack of modding/lan, steam(drm), and the lack of scale. I'd love to see its codebase used to do a full scale, FA style game, with tons of units, tech levels and modding/mapping comfortably possible.|||Ghaleon|||You'd need to add simcallbacks to the buttons onclick functions.
Laying out and arranging a ui display is fairly tedious imo, but you have done a nice job there, so the hardest part is done.
Coding the simside enhancement can be time consuming, depending on what you want to do there.|||Ghaleon|||aw, dang, really.
In my experience working on UI isn't that hard, you just need to be alert and willing to put up with writing and maintaining dependencies.
Taking stock game code is the start, shrinking it to get something to work on the next, and then the real fun starts, putting tons of things into it.
I know how to do Actual ACU enhancment coding, but Im lookin for someone who can do the rest =p The Actual Tree itself.
Anyone interested?
Heres an Example of what I had in mind that I have recently made:
|||good luck with that brandon, i doubt anyone in there right mind would help you do that.now im sorry to be negative.. BUT,
why even try bringing the tech tree to fa.. the tech tree blows.. and doesnt fit with fa at all.. i dont see the point in trying to make fa into sc2, why bring half arsed ideas from that game.. a better idea is to think of something original for fa THAT ISNT in sc2, i could make the tech tree but im not going to.. because i like original ideas..
why try re-inventing the wheel..
you can mod what you want, however i think you should come up with better ideas, rather than trying to copy things from sc2.|||I'm not sure I get the point of this, Brandon. I think it's a common agreement that SC2 has the better engine (minus modding)... so why are you trying to bring SC2 content over to an older engine?|||FuryoftheStars|||I thought part of the point with the FA upgrade system was that you couldn't get every upgrade.
I just don't think that teh SC2 style tree will be liked by many of those playing FA, part of hte reason they are most likely still playing FA is because they prefer it over SupCom2 after all...
Mike|||OrangeKnight|||I like the looks of it. It does not have to lead to just one final upgrade, but could fork into specialized trees. Nicely done Brandon.
But alas, I'm busy coding, I can give you a few pointers here and there.
On Supcom2, I dislike the lack of modding/lan, steam(drm), and the lack of scale. I'd love to see its codebase used to do a full scale, FA style game, with tons of units, tech levels and modding/mapping comfortably possible.|||Ghaleon|||You'd need to add simcallbacks to the buttons onclick functions.
Laying out and arranging a ui display is fairly tedious imo, but you have done a nice job there, so the hardest part is done.
Coding the simside enhancement can be time consuming, depending on what you want to do there.|||Ghaleon|||aw, dang, really.
In my experience working on UI isn't that hard, you just need to be alert and willing to put up with writing and maintaining dependencies.
Taking stock game code is the start, shrinking it to get something to work on the next, and then the real fun starts, putting tons of things into it.
(FA) Question about the Cooper torpedo boat categories
To set it up: I am currently working on a UEF T3 Anti-torpedo structure, and decided to use the anti torpedo weapon from the Cooper torpedo boat.
While looking through the categories, I found this:
'BUILTBYEXPERIMENTALSUB',
Does anyone know why this is there? Was GPG planning to give the UEF an experimental
naval construction sub? Because it makes me think of the Tempest, but since that's Aeon it didn't make since for that to be in a UEF unit's categories.
EDIT: Strange...It seems that all new-for-FA T2 boats have the
Builtbyexperimentalsub
category.|||Most likely an oversight - there's more than a few spread across the units in FA. You can safely remove it.|||Probably how they were originally going to have the Tempest construct them, but they went with normal T2 naval factory BuildableCategory entries in the Tempest's bp.
Edit: Whoops, this is the UEF boat. No idea then. More leftovers.
While looking through the categories, I found this:
'BUILTBYEXPERIMENTALSUB',
Does anyone know why this is there? Was GPG planning to give the UEF an experimental
naval construction sub? Because it makes me think of the Tempest, but since that's Aeon it didn't make since for that to be in a UEF unit's categories.
EDIT: Strange...It seems that all new-for-FA T2 boats have the
Builtbyexperimentalsub
category.|||Most likely an oversight - there's more than a few spread across the units in FA. You can safely remove it.|||Probably how they were originally going to have the Tempest construct them, but they went with normal T2 naval factory BuildableCategory entries in the Tempest's bp.
Edit: Whoops, this is the UEF boat. No idea then. More leftovers.
[SC2] toc.win.bdf? whats inside?
Im just curious as to what this file consist of. As you guys may or may not know im on a mission to mod supcom 2 for 360. Although ive made some progress, there is still alot of work at hand.
The main reason im interested in this file in particular is because the 360 version of supcom2 has a file similar: toc.x360.bdf.
I replaced the 360 bdf with the pc bdf and nothing happend, game crashed. So i decided to do a lil name swapping, and bam! it loaded up to the main menu. funny thing is when i try to go to skirmish or campign the game crashes.
So i did a little bit of unit swapping from a uncompiled_lua.scd file to the 360 bp.scd file, and the lua as well.
To my astonishment the game ran!! what gives?|||bdf files are encrypted and that's where all the ui and map-related stuff is (for example, take a look at maps.scd). We don't have direct access to modding any of that, but we're trying: http://forums.gaspowered.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=44061.
As for toc, I think that stands for table of contents, but I could be completely wrong. It's a small file and could just be references.|||madface
The main reason im interested in this file in particular is because the 360 version of supcom2 has a file similar: toc.x360.bdf.
I replaced the 360 bdf with the pc bdf and nothing happend, game crashed. So i decided to do a lil name swapping, and bam! it loaded up to the main menu. funny thing is when i try to go to skirmish or campign the game crashes.
So i did a little bit of unit swapping from a uncompiled_lua.scd file to the 360 bp.scd file, and the lua as well.
To my astonishment the game ran!! what gives?|||bdf files are encrypted and that's where all the ui and map-related stuff is (for example, take a look at maps.scd). We don't have direct access to modding any of that, but we're trying: http://forums.gaspowered.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=44061.
As for toc, I think that stands for table of contents, but I could be completely wrong. It's a small file and could just be references.|||madface
Tweaking Enhancments. (FA)
Ellos, I was wondering, you know that when you have an Enhancment and switch to another one (Going from Cooling Upgrade, to the T2/T3 Contruction upgrade) You have to replace one, with the other instead of stacking them?
I was wondering, if there was a way to disable that. So you can have more then just 1 Upgrade for each slot. Like say, For the Cybran ACU, On LCH, theres the T2/T3 Upgrades, as well as the cooling Upgrades, how can I get the two to be used at the same time?
This way, The user could get ALL the upgrades on a ACU instead of just 3 seperate kinds...|||Yeah, you can do that. I've seen some code (maybe in Unit.lua) that makes sure the old enhancement is removed. You should be able to replace that function with something simpler and it should work.|||BulletMagnet|||take whatever the code is that checks if there is an existing enhancement and removes it, and then change/remove the code|||I dont even know which parts to remove, and what to change it with X-x|||Dude, quit posting all of these request threads and drop the pretense of being anything but a mashup modder if you're not gonna learn to read and write basic lua. We'll gladly help you out if you try something and it doesn't work, but nobody's interested in doing all the work for you.|||Mithy|||...I think I was just pwned on a epic level...
Im sorry for making so many threads... Its just I got a few things to take care of... And I tried reading over Unit.lua, but most of it doesnt make sense to me...|||Well no ****, it's a 4000 line file that's dependent on or acting as a base for about 500 other files, including every other core global sim file and every other unit script. You can't just look over it once and expect something to click, it takes time to learn how the game's structure all fits together, and to get familiar with the most of the engine methods that the lua calls and what they do and how to use them.
But you have to start somewhere. If you just get frustrated and give up every time it doesn't instantly make sense, of course you'll never get anywhere. Everyone who posts on these forums who knows anything about the game started at zero some time or another. Google search mod support and look at some of the dumb questions myself or DeadMG or BulletMagnet posted 2-3 years ago if you don't believe me.
When you have little existing knowledge about the game, and you want to learn how to do something in it, start with what you do know and work your way out from there by searching the lua for keywords. If you don't understand how the next function or file you come across works any more than the current one, keep going, keep piecing together the chain of calls that makes the thing you're inquiring about happen, until it does start to make sense.
In this case, you (should) know that a function called CreateEnhancement gets run every time an enhancement is added to a unit, because this is what does all of the enhancement-specific work in each unit script. Search for this function in Unit.lua, and see what it does. No, you won't automatically understand it, but it's gonna call some other functions and/or reference some other tables. Search for those in the lua, find where they are, what they do, and so on so forth.
5 minutes ago, this function was really the only part of the enhancement process that I was familiar with. After 5 minutes of searching and tracing, it was pretty easy to account for the entire chain of functioncalls that adding an enhancement takes, as it only really spans about 6 files, 4 of which have any meaningful code:
- /lua/ui/game/construction.lua for the UI portion, which passes a ScriptTask command to the engine
- /lua/sim/tasks/EnhanceTask.lua, which the engine calls on the sim side as a result of the enhancement order. This takes care of the economy portion of the enhancement using Unit.lua.OnWorkBegin, and Unit.lua.WorkingState.OnWorkEnd to finish and call CreateEnhancement.
- /lua/sim/Unit.lua.CreateEnhancement, which you should already know about. This is called by OnWorkEnd in WorkingState, and individual unit scripts use this to do unique work for each enhancement. The Unit.lua instance of the function calls global functions AddUnitEnhancement and RemoveUnitEnhancement in schook SimSync to handle sim-side enhancement tracking.
- /schook/lua/SimSync.lua, which stores the enhancement in a global table keyed by entityid and slot, and passes the new enhancement data into the Sync table so that the UI is informed of the enhancement addition, completing the circle.
From this, I can tell you that it should be possible, but not necessarily simple to make 'slotless' enhancements. You'll need to override the construction.lua portion so it understands that not all enhancements are slot-exclusive, and you'll have to expand the Sim/UserSync tables and functions to key enhancements by something other than slot, so that multiple enhancements in each UI slot can be used at once.|||/me gives milthy a round of applause... now take a bow pal... that was awesome lol.
I was wondering, if there was a way to disable that. So you can have more then just 1 Upgrade for each slot. Like say, For the Cybran ACU, On LCH, theres the T2/T3 Upgrades, as well as the cooling Upgrades, how can I get the two to be used at the same time?
This way, The user could get ALL the upgrades on a ACU instead of just 3 seperate kinds...|||Yeah, you can do that. I've seen some code (maybe in Unit.lua) that makes sure the old enhancement is removed. You should be able to replace that function with something simpler and it should work.|||BulletMagnet|||take whatever the code is that checks if there is an existing enhancement and removes it, and then change/remove the code|||I dont even know which parts to remove, and what to change it with X-x|||Dude, quit posting all of these request threads and drop the pretense of being anything but a mashup modder if you're not gonna learn to read and write basic lua. We'll gladly help you out if you try something and it doesn't work, but nobody's interested in doing all the work for you.|||Mithy|||...I think I was just pwned on a epic level...
Im sorry for making so many threads... Its just I got a few things to take care of... And I tried reading over Unit.lua, but most of it doesnt make sense to me...|||Well no ****, it's a 4000 line file that's dependent on or acting as a base for about 500 other files, including every other core global sim file and every other unit script. You can't just look over it once and expect something to click, it takes time to learn how the game's structure all fits together, and to get familiar with the most of the engine methods that the lua calls and what they do and how to use them.
But you have to start somewhere. If you just get frustrated and give up every time it doesn't instantly make sense, of course you'll never get anywhere. Everyone who posts on these forums who knows anything about the game started at zero some time or another. Google search mod support and look at some of the dumb questions myself or DeadMG or BulletMagnet posted 2-3 years ago if you don't believe me.
When you have little existing knowledge about the game, and you want to learn how to do something in it, start with what you do know and work your way out from there by searching the lua for keywords. If you don't understand how the next function or file you come across works any more than the current one, keep going, keep piecing together the chain of calls that makes the thing you're inquiring about happen, until it does start to make sense.
In this case, you (should) know that a function called CreateEnhancement gets run every time an enhancement is added to a unit, because this is what does all of the enhancement-specific work in each unit script. Search for this function in Unit.lua, and see what it does. No, you won't automatically understand it, but it's gonna call some other functions and/or reference some other tables. Search for those in the lua, find where they are, what they do, and so on so forth.
5 minutes ago, this function was really the only part of the enhancement process that I was familiar with. After 5 minutes of searching and tracing, it was pretty easy to account for the entire chain of functioncalls that adding an enhancement takes, as it only really spans about 6 files, 4 of which have any meaningful code:
- /lua/ui/game/construction.lua for the UI portion, which passes a ScriptTask command to the engine
- /lua/sim/tasks/EnhanceTask.lua, which the engine calls on the sim side as a result of the enhancement order. This takes care of the economy portion of the enhancement using Unit.lua.OnWorkBegin, and Unit.lua.WorkingState.OnWorkEnd to finish and call CreateEnhancement.
- /lua/sim/Unit.lua.CreateEnhancement, which you should already know about. This is called by OnWorkEnd in WorkingState, and individual unit scripts use this to do unique work for each enhancement. The Unit.lua instance of the function calls global functions AddUnitEnhancement and RemoveUnitEnhancement in schook SimSync to handle sim-side enhancement tracking.
- /schook/lua/SimSync.lua, which stores the enhancement in a global table keyed by entityid and slot, and passes the new enhancement data into the Sync table so that the UI is informed of the enhancement addition, completing the circle.
From this, I can tell you that it should be possible, but not necessarily simple to make 'slotless' enhancements. You'll need to override the construction.lua portion so it understands that not all enhancements are slot-exclusive, and you'll have to expand the Sim/UserSync tables and functions to key enhancements by something other than slot, so that multiple enhancements in each UI slot can be used at once.|||/me gives milthy a round of applause... now take a bow pal... that was awesome lol.
[FA] [SOLVED] Strategic Launch Detected... What's that sound
I'm trying to mimic the sound processing on the Strategic Launch Detected voice over for some of my own sounds. I mean, i basically think it's like an echo, but there's something i'm missing. Anyone know/can tell what processing was used on the default voice to give it it's signature "supcom computer" voice effect?|||I think if you play around with a sound recorder, and editor, you can get a exact voice, then you can export it in Xact to get it used in Supcom.|||Well thats the thing, i can get any Text to speech program to make the voice for me, i just don't know WHAT effects to process the voice with to make it sound similar to the voice in supcom, that's the problem. any ideas?|||LogicSequence|||i dont thinkt hey are computer voices pal, they are real peoples voices.. edited in a program before being put into a exact databank.
im not sure though.. you could search the forum for the thread that has the links to the original sound banks.. if you open the exact file in exact.. and find the voice file you want to change that might give you some info on what they used in exact to change the sound... if anything :) thats your only hope im afraid.
i to am working on a mod that changes the default voice overs for the events.. one of them being strat missile detected :)
here is the sample.. :) take a listen its for the cybran :)
http://www.mediafire.com/?mhnkr39i0rl2g3y|||as far as i know that thread only has the link to the original cues, and not the actual waves, unless it's a thread i'm not aware of?|||yeah that link only has the cues... you already have the wav's in the xact sound banks.. if you looking for the actual sound file.. just look at the bank the sound resides in from the trigger and extract that bank.. i think its XGG for those sounds..
im not sure though.. you could search the forum for the thread that has the links to the original sound banks.. if you open the exact file in exact.. and find the voice file you want to change that might give you some info on what they used in exact to change the sound... if anything :) thats your only hope im afraid.
i to am working on a mod that changes the default voice overs for the events.. one of them being strat missile detected :)
here is the sample.. :) take a listen its for the cybran :)
http://www.mediafire.com/?mhnkr39i0rl2g3y|||as far as i know that thread only has the link to the original cues, and not the actual waves, unless it's a thread i'm not aware of?|||yeah that link only has the cues... you already have the wav's in the xact sound banks.. if you looking for the actual sound file.. just look at the bank the sound resides in from the trigger and extract that bank.. i think its XGG for those sounds..
[WIP-SC1/SC2] GUI Editor for Unit Blueprints
Scroll through the database of units and structures and change any stats you want. The necessary (mergeable) bp code will be automatically generated based on your changes.
The background colors for Illuminate and UEF are green and blue.
What the following options mean:
- Multiple Merge: all blueprints marked with this will be combined into a single file
- Individual Merge: all blueprints marked with this will have their own bp file
- No Merge: a fresh bp file (intended for porting or creation of new units/structures where an existing blueprint doesn't exist)
- Edit Code: launches a built-in text editor where you can manually write code based on the above choices
It will be possible to select multiple choices and in the case of Edit Code, up to 3 windows for the same unit could be launched.
Also, the FA icon in the bottom left will switch the generator into FA mode.
NOTE: the 'FA' that you see tagged on at the end of the unit id's is not an amalgamation of SC2 and FA units. They represent the ported units in the Revamp mod. While the digits in a unit's id are the same in FA and SC2 where the same unit exists, the preceding 3-letter code is not.|||Sounds cool. Look forward to seeing what you put together.|||Thanks. The layout is done - just have to finish incorporating all the possible elements in a blueprint into the above GUI, and then can start the actual coding. But the coding should be straightforward, just read of elements and write to a text file. Hope to get a working protoype soon.|||Yes! I can't wait for this to be complete. It would make things a whole lot easier for me to mod units on the 360 version of the game.
Yes its possible to mod the console version using .bp merging, hooks and (what im currently using) hybrid .bp file.|||Just wanted to add I'm also looking forward to this!|||Thank guys. It's hard for me to predict when I'll be releasing this because I'm splitting my time between this gui and the one for the research tree. I've never programmed in c# before and so I'm developing both in parallel to learn and explore the language. But there is a slightly higher priority to do the research tree as that is what's mostly lacking in the Revamp mod.
However, if you are able to merge, then tell me what sections of the bp you will be modding and I can do those first. I'm guessing it will be the ones relating to balancing and economy.
Again, this is a work-in-progress, so I can't promise that I'll have something out soon. But at the very least I can release something with just the above features that you need once they get implemented.|||@ madface
You are correct, balancing, economy, and (if possible) scale size. I'm new to modding and (Seeing as how im the only 360 modder ) that would be great. I have not implemented the merge technique though, im currently using hybrid bp files, but merging is possible, i'm sure of it.
YOU ARE A GENIUS!! and thank you for this when it comes out.|||What exactly is a hybrid bp file??? Also, please clarify with Mithy and BulletMagnet exactly what kind of merging is possible so I know exactly what code you need generated.
damusolja|||If you need C# help, give me a pm; I know it fairly well.|||madface|||DeadMG|||Hows this turning out? Whats the status? Thanks.|||The gui blueprint generator is currently on hold. My top priority is the gui research tree generator. I started the bp generator first because I never programmed in C# before. Even though it will eventually be finished, I started working on it more as a trial run to learn C# to be able to program the research tree generator since the latter is a bit more complex. I'll come back to this one eventually.
Is there any particular type of bp modding you want to do now? For example, if it's unit balancing, then it's only just a few lines you have to add for each unit. And all these changes can be made without touching the original files and can all be placed in a single centralized file.
The background colors for Illuminate and UEF are green and blue.
What the following options mean:
- Multiple Merge: all blueprints marked with this will be combined into a single file
- Individual Merge: all blueprints marked with this will have their own bp file
- No Merge: a fresh bp file (intended for porting or creation of new units/structures where an existing blueprint doesn't exist)
- Edit Code: launches a built-in text editor where you can manually write code based on the above choices
It will be possible to select multiple choices and in the case of Edit Code, up to 3 windows for the same unit could be launched.
Also, the FA icon in the bottom left will switch the generator into FA mode.
NOTE: the 'FA' that you see tagged on at the end of the unit id's is not an amalgamation of SC2 and FA units. They represent the ported units in the Revamp mod. While the digits in a unit's id are the same in FA and SC2 where the same unit exists, the preceding 3-letter code is not.|||Sounds cool. Look forward to seeing what you put together.|||Thanks. The layout is done - just have to finish incorporating all the possible elements in a blueprint into the above GUI, and then can start the actual coding. But the coding should be straightforward, just read of elements and write to a text file. Hope to get a working protoype soon.|||Yes! I can't wait for this to be complete. It would make things a whole lot easier for me to mod units on the 360 version of the game.
Yes its possible to mod the console version using .bp merging, hooks and (what im currently using) hybrid .bp file.|||Just wanted to add I'm also looking forward to this!|||Thank guys. It's hard for me to predict when I'll be releasing this because I'm splitting my time between this gui and the one for the research tree. I've never programmed in c# before and so I'm developing both in parallel to learn and explore the language. But there is a slightly higher priority to do the research tree as that is what's mostly lacking in the Revamp mod.
However, if you are able to merge, then tell me what sections of the bp you will be modding and I can do those first. I'm guessing it will be the ones relating to balancing and economy.
Again, this is a work-in-progress, so I can't promise that I'll have something out soon. But at the very least I can release something with just the above features that you need once they get implemented.|||@ madface
You are correct, balancing, economy, and (if possible) scale size. I'm new to modding and (Seeing as how im the only 360 modder
) that would be great. I have not implemented the merge technique though, im currently using hybrid bp files, but merging is possible, i'm sure of it.YOU ARE A GENIUS!! and thank you for this when it comes out.|||What exactly is a hybrid bp file??? Also, please clarify with Mithy and BulletMagnet exactly what kind of merging is possible so I know exactly what code you need generated.
damusolja|||If you need C# help, give me a pm; I know it fairly well.|||madface|||DeadMG|||Hows this turning out? Whats the status? Thanks.|||The gui blueprint generator is currently on hold. My top priority is the gui research tree generator. I started the bp generator first because I never programmed in C# before. Even though it will eventually be finished, I started working on it more as a trial run to learn C# to be able to program the research tree generator since the latter is a bit more complex. I'll come back to this one eventually.
Is there any particular type of bp modding you want to do now? For example, if it's unit balancing, then it's only just a few lines you have to add for each unit. And all these changes can be made without touching the original files and can all be placed in a single centralized file.
Sound vs Layers
Anyone know if sound is cut off thru different layers.... Underwater - Surface ?
In some of the tests i have been doing this seams to be the case and I've yet to find a single unit that creates sound FX if below the waterline.
Resin
In some of the tests i have been doing this seams to be the case and I've yet to find a single unit that creates sound FX if below the waterline.
Resin
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
[FA] [SOLVED] Change Blueprint values on the fly in the unit
Is there a way to change unit bp values (for example, elevation or max air speed for air units) on the fly with scripting. I.E. If i wanted to make a custom UI button that changes weapons on a air unit, and changes its elevation, is that possible? (i know how to handle the buttons, it's changing the BP values i don't know how to do)|||You can, but that would just make all future units produced take that change.|||No, you can't. __blueprints is a copy of the actual blueprint table in the engine. The lua has zero write access to blueprints once RuleInit has finished. The exception to this is the engine's blueprint reloading system (/EnableDiskWatch), which is for debugging only, only responds to altered files on disk, and horribly breaks multiplayer. Shift-F6 in debug mode has the same issues (and then some - it also requires cheating to be enabled).
I don't think it's possible to change elevation mid-game, but changing weapons is easy, they just have to be created initially and then disabled in the unit's OnStopBeingBuilt - look at how the ACU script and blueprint handle overcharge.|||Logic your sig says a lot but we didnt see anything from you :) can we say are you gettin ready to surprise us
|||If there isn't an explicit engine function provided for this purpose, then no, you can't alter the blueprint on the fly. Of course, there are explicit functions for many purposes, like enabling/disabling weapons. Arbitrary BP values, no.|||Actually, it is possible to alter air units' elevation on the fly using Gilbot's StatsSlider mod. However, there's some easy coding to do before you get it to work properly.|||Huh, you're right. There are SetElevation and RevertElevation engine methods. I didn't know about those at all.
So yes, you can change both weapons and elevation on the fly in the unit's script, but not via blueprint modification.|||Pyrrha|||Shouldn't that only be the case if it has a CirclingElevationChangeRatio or an AttackElevation in bp.Air?
Regardless, it would still be possible to brute-force it with a thread that runs every ~0.3 seconds and maintains elevation, and it would still be useful for weapons-disable getaway modes that increase or decrease elevation and increase speed, or something like that.|||Mithy|||would it be possible then, to make a script bit that would simply replace the unit with another unit that flies at a higher elevation, and vice versa. wouldn't it then simply float up to the new elevation, and back down when switched again? Only problem would be passing veterency and shield status. dunno how to do that.|||LogicSequence|||Passing orders is much, much more involved yet. It can be done, but not perfectly, and it introduces a lot of performance overhead. A bit overkill for what amounts to a cosmetic change (elevation doesn't really affect anything practical unless you're going for extreme values that the engine wasn't really meant to handle).
I would suggest experimenting with the SetElevation function before you try anything like unit replacement - you might have different results depending on how your unit functionality differs from the unit that Resin was testing it with. It might also be possible to assign the unit a dummy primary weapon that has zero range while at its altered elevation, preventing it from going into a true attack mode while still allowing its other weapons to fire normally.
I don't think it's possible to change elevation mid-game, but changing weapons is easy, they just have to be created initially and then disabled in the unit's OnStopBeingBuilt - look at how the ACU script and blueprint handle overcharge.|||Logic your sig says a lot but we didnt see anything from you :) can we say are you gettin ready to surprise us
|||If there isn't an explicit engine function provided for this purpose, then no, you can't alter the blueprint on the fly. Of course, there are explicit functions for many purposes, like enabling/disabling weapons. Arbitrary BP values, no.|||Actually, it is possible to alter air units' elevation on the fly using Gilbot's StatsSlider mod. However, there's some easy coding to do before you get it to work properly.|||Huh, you're right. There are SetElevation and RevertElevation engine methods. I didn't know about those at all.So yes, you can change both weapons and elevation on the fly in the unit's script, but not via blueprint modification.|||Pyrrha|||Shouldn't that only be the case if it has a CirclingElevationChangeRatio or an AttackElevation in bp.Air?
Regardless, it would still be possible to brute-force it with a thread that runs every ~0.3 seconds and maintains elevation, and it would still be useful for weapons-disable getaway modes that increase or decrease elevation and increase speed, or something like that.|||Mithy|||would it be possible then, to make a script bit that would simply replace the unit with another unit that flies at a higher elevation, and vice versa. wouldn't it then simply float up to the new elevation, and back down when switched again? Only problem would be passing veterency and shield status. dunno how to do that.|||LogicSequence|||Passing orders is much, much more involved yet. It can be done, but not perfectly, and it introduces a lot of performance overhead. A bit overkill for what amounts to a cosmetic change (elevation doesn't really affect anything practical unless you're going for extreme values that the engine wasn't really meant to handle).
I would suggest experimenting with the SetElevation function before you try anything like unit replacement - you might have different results depending on how your unit functionality differs from the unit that Resin was testing it with. It might also be possible to assign the unit a dummy primary weapon that has zero range while at its altered elevation, preventing it from going into a true attack mode while still allowing its other weapons to fire normally.
[SC2]units and there lua file dependencies?
Hello,
I need to know exactly wich lua files the units depend on entirley. The reason I ask is because I keep runnig into lock up issues with my mod for unkown reasons.
Some times i can go through a whole skirmish match with no problems, while other times the game just locks up. I figure it must be the units seeing as how i have'nt tamperd with anything else.
A short list of the exact files i need to alter, or any help would be appreciated.
Thanks.|||damusolja|||How do you even know it's a unit problem if the lockups are random? Regardless, units depend on virtually all of the lua files in /lua/sim, and some in /lua/common.|||Mithy
I need to know exactly wich lua files the units depend on entirley. The reason I ask is because I keep runnig into lock up issues with my mod for unkown reasons.
Some times i can go through a whole skirmish match with no problems, while other times the game just locks up. I figure it must be the units seeing as how i have'nt tamperd with anything else.
A short list of the exact files i need to alter, or any help would be appreciated.
Thanks.|||damusolja|||How do you even know it's a unit problem if the lockups are random? Regardless, units depend on virtually all of the lua files in /lua/sim, and some in /lua/common.|||Mithy
What's the scale of FA.
I'm dumb and I went ahead and forgot what the scale was.
Like 1 equals how many meters.
Thanks.|||19.6, if memory serves correctly.
Just ball-park it to 20 metres per square.|||BulletMagnet
Like 1 equals how many meters.
Thanks.|||19.6, if memory serves correctly.
Just ball-park it to 20 metres per square.|||BulletMagnet
[SC2] help needed to scale down units [xbox360]
Hello,
I was wondering if any one was up to the challenge of scaling down the units for the 360 version.
I know, I know, why not just use the scale down units from the revamp mod right? Well here lies my problem, some of the scripts dont match with some of the core lua files, and no matter how many files i switch out, new problems occur.
In other words, I need the scripts to remain the same, and the bp files changed. If you compare to revamp mod then you will notice slight differences, but those differences are some how crashing the game.
This is why it has to be done from scratch.some units can be ported over with no problems, while others cant.
Here are the needed files, note that these have not been alterd in any way, so they are original, but you can change what ever files need be. reupload and i will test.
http://www.mediafire.com/?3qgw7o7tmth4evu#1
I have already handled scenarioutilities.lua and the maps, costamps and props.
All thats left is the AI (witch will be completed today) and the scale of the units and the mod will be done. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks.|||I don't take very kindly to people that take parts of my mod with out asking, And no one here would suggest ripping of some ones else's mod! If your not looking to change any lua files then your out of luck scaling down units is more than just bp changes also your not going to find any one to do it for you because its not a 5 minutes job also your forgetting about the limitations of xbox 360 scaling down units puts more load on your system being PC or XBOX or what ever, GPGs scaled the units to a size the xbox could handle it was just to bad for the PC end users they got the short end of the stick because of it.
There is also another way to scale down units by using modblueprints function which would by pass any bp or scripts being changed.|||Without detracting to the way LoD feels and his right to feel this way, maybe just a couple of words to provide a bit more context.
damusolja, people on these forums don't take it lightly when other people come by and start using their work for matters it was not intended. Even though the mods are in "opensource" format in that you have access to the source code, it should not be assumed that these mods are under opensource licenses such as the GPL.
While no one is denying you from using and modding Revamp (as an example) for your own private, personal use, several of your post suggest that your mod might contain elements of Revamp should you choose to distribute your mod. If the latter is the case, then I believe that part of the tone from LoD might be coming from the fact that you haven't asked for permission to incorporate Revamp into your modding efforts.|||I apologize to LoD and you guys on the forum for not getting the green light to use the revamp/scale+fa economy mod as a reference.
I guess its a little to late to ask for it now.|||damusolja|||It's totally irrelevant - the chances of translating a mod made for the PC version 1.25 to the console version 1.0 are somewhere near zero. At best, you could copy a few ideas and completely re-implement the whole thing from scratch.
As for scaling, ModBlueprints is your best bet, otherwise you're looking at dozens if not hundreds of hours spent hand-editing blueprints and testing changes. BulletMagnet already posted a half-working scaling system for ModBlueprints that I've been helping liveordie refine - I'm sure he wouldn't mind sharing the progress he's made on it.
If not, I've got a 3/4s finished scaling system that I put together in a half-hour that you're welcome to use if you can slog through the testing it will need.|||Mithy|||Yes, most of the patches to SC2 altered the compiled code as well as the lua. It's possible that some of them changed, added or removed lua-accessible methods, making the patched lua fundamentally incompatible with the unpatched engine. It's impossible to say without full internal changelogs.|||Oh, well LoD was kind enough to lend me a copy of his and bulletmagnets modified bluprints.lua file.
It's working great, other than some adjacency issues and the mass deposits are a little off it runs smoother than the original.
I will post a vid to show you guys what i'm talking about.
[update] here it ishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ew64yU75ObQ
still a few issues, but no lock ups what so ever. Wish i knew of this earlier, would have saved a whole lot of time thanks for the contributions and help.
I was wondering if any one was up to the challenge of scaling down the units for the 360 version.
I know, I know, why not just use the scale down units from the revamp mod right? Well here lies my problem, some of the scripts dont match with some of the core lua files, and no matter how many files i switch out, new problems occur.
In other words, I need the scripts to remain the same, and the bp files changed. If you compare to revamp mod then you will notice slight differences, but those differences are some how crashing the game.
This is why it has to be done from scratch.some units can be ported over with no problems, while others cant.
Here are the needed files, note that these have not been alterd in any way, so they are original, but you can change what ever files need be. reupload and i will test.
http://www.mediafire.com/?3qgw7o7tmth4evu#1
I have already handled scenarioutilities.lua and the maps, costamps and props.
All thats left is the AI (witch will be completed today) and the scale of the units and the mod will be done. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks.|||I don't take very kindly to people that take parts of my mod with out asking, And no one here would suggest ripping of some ones else's mod! If your not looking to change any lua files then your out of luck scaling down units is more than just bp changes also your not going to find any one to do it for you because its not a 5 minutes job also your forgetting about the limitations of xbox 360 scaling down units puts more load on your system being PC or XBOX or what ever, GPGs scaled the units to a size the xbox could handle it was just to bad for the PC end users they got the short end of the stick because of it.
There is also another way to scale down units by using modblueprints function which would by pass any bp or scripts being changed.|||Without detracting to the way LoD feels and his right to feel this way, maybe just a couple of words to provide a bit more context.
damusolja, people on these forums don't take it lightly when other people come by and start using their work for matters it was not intended. Even though the mods are in "opensource" format in that you have access to the source code, it should not be assumed that these mods are under opensource licenses such as the GPL.
While no one is denying you from using and modding Revamp (as an example) for your own private, personal use, several of your post suggest that your mod might contain elements of Revamp should you choose to distribute your mod. If the latter is the case, then I believe that part of the tone from LoD might be coming from the fact that you haven't asked for permission to incorporate Revamp into your modding efforts.|||I apologize to LoD and you guys on the forum for not getting the green light to use the revamp/scale+fa economy mod as a reference.
I guess its a little to late to ask for it now.|||damusolja|||It's totally irrelevant - the chances of translating a mod made for the PC version 1.25 to the console version 1.0 are somewhere near zero. At best, you could copy a few ideas and completely re-implement the whole thing from scratch.
As for scaling, ModBlueprints is your best bet, otherwise you're looking at dozens if not hundreds of hours spent hand-editing blueprints and testing changes. BulletMagnet already posted a half-working scaling system for ModBlueprints that I've been helping liveordie refine - I'm sure he wouldn't mind sharing the progress he's made on it.
If not, I've got a 3/4s finished scaling system that I put together in a half-hour that you're welcome to use if you can slog through the testing it will need.|||Mithy|||Yes, most of the patches to SC2 altered the compiled code as well as the lua. It's possible that some of them changed, added or removed lua-accessible methods, making the patched lua fundamentally incompatible with the unpatched engine. It's impossible to say without full internal changelogs.|||Oh, well LoD was kind enough to lend me a copy of his and bulletmagnets modified bluprints.lua file.
It's working great, other than some adjacency issues and the mass deposits are a little off it runs smoother than the original.
I will post a vid to show you guys what i'm talking about.
[update] here it ishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ew64yU75ObQ
still a few issues, but no lock ups what so ever. Wish i knew of this earlier, would have saved a whole lot of time
thanks for the contributions and help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)