|
Wargame: Red Kludge. Seriously dear god looking at this stuff is shutting bits of my brain down. They really need to send you the dev tools. No wonder they want to go to a new game.
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 04:48 |
|
|
De-kludgifying the armory doesn't seem like a monumental task, but the whole wargame series smells strongly of cut corners.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
It really doesn't seem like a ton of work compared to MAOR UNITSS, it positively reeks of penny wise pound foolish. I am so happy I need to know like three fields to search with and three fields to edit that are just numbers.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
Its interesting because Eugen and the Mod Daddies were in communication a bit regarding file structure etc (correct me if Im wrong Hob :P), and to a degree they can help us with stuff like "hey, what would I change to make X behave like Y does?" But that all falls apart when it comes to some more intricate things like "Hey, the call-in point on this map is sorta hosed/assymetric in campaign and leads to bugged starts and improper deployment by the AI. What can I change to reassign ownership?" Because Eugen literally uses spreadsheets for this stuff. Its an Excel sheet and affiliated compiler. A LOT like they used to use in Act of War's mod tools (IIRC). So whlle we can read the same language (Oh, PhysicalDamage? Thats a wepaon's HE value! AP scaling? It starts at 0, 0.5, 0.75, 1! Add 4 for base numbers, and HEAT starts at 34!), we sure as gently caress cant speak/write the same language, if that makes sense.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:Because Eugen literally uses spreadsheets for this stuff. Its an Excel sheet and affiliated compiler. A LOT like they used to use in Act of War's mod tools (IIRC). So whlle we can read the same language (Oh, PhysicalDamage? Thats a wepaon's HE value! AP scaling? It starts at 0, 0.5, 0.75, 1! Add 4 for base numbers, and HEAT starts at 34!), we sure as gently caress cant speak/write the same language, if that makes sense. Well duh, they speak French. Levity aside, I was really hoping I'd be able to mess around with gameplay to a serious degree because it'd be super cool to build other types of wargames. Lol nope. Incidentally do you know anything about models in Wargame, like how they're handled and so on and what it'd take to get one to look at or tweak?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
Okay, looks like it's working. Does anybody know where it keeps the decks so I can swap them out while testing? 
xthetenth fucked around with this message at 08:24 on May 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:They really need to send you the dev tools. The dev tools are literally Excel and a bunch of scripts. You could in theory turn all the stuff in ndfbin back to ndf. Would you like to know more? This is surprisingly accurate: http://actofwar.wikia.com/wiki/Archives/High_Treason_Modding_Wiki Especially this one was a great help: http://actofwar.wikia.com/wiki/Archives/High_Treason_Modding_Wiki/NDF_reference_manual The dev tools are also in many respects worse than what you already have. You can't edit one value quickly with them: you have to compile all the data again. That's why making one trivial change that every modder does in a heartbeat takes them a day. There's five sorts of stuff in Wargame (not counting common shared libraries and stuff like that): Visual C++, which handles the engine. For all practical purposes this is the bit that is out of reach for good. Unfortunately it includes game modes and AI behavior. Python, which pretty much handles nothing anymore. I think there's one file which you have to decompyle, add a line and compile again if you want to add new units into the game. You could edit a new game mode into W:EE, though! NDF which is what you're messing with now. Essentially everything related to the game is written with NDF, which is the main data format. Maps, which use either a format of NDF that we're unfamiliar with or has their own data format. This is known well enough that maps could be edited, at least to an extent. Changing zone placement, sizing and other stuff on the game logic layer would give some extra replayability to maps. Someone would just have to write the tools for it because doing it by hand? No way. Apparently AI uses some sort of points on the map to guide it. Changing these might make campaigns more interesting to play. And graphics. I was never interested in textures so I can't tell you that much about them. Models are made with 3DSMax and imported via a special plugin, which is known. As for help from Eugen, we largely never asked for help with the NDF part. It was much more useful to ask how a certain checksum was calculated, whether we missed any significant datatypes and so on since those took a lot of time to figure out. It was fun to work out the datatypes from scratch back when we did it, as well as try and figure out the structure of the compiled files. Decks are saved in your profile file. So's your stats, by the way, in case you wanted to wipe away all your losses (or disconnections).
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 12:46
|
|
|
Easy for me to say this but given the devs are not moving on to another game and the patch rate will eventually slow down then hopefully we will end up with a somewhat stable platform and some of the weird poo poo can be unravelled.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 14:09
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:REDFOR is pushing into a BLUEFOR spawn, and the line of attack helicopters is slaughtering REDFOR tanks because my AA was all wrecked by 4 SEAD planes. This reminded me of the argument I had back in WEE. I said tanks didn't see enough use, someone said they used a lot of tanks. They sent a replay to prove their point. http://cloud-3.steampowered.com/ugc/594741209269479312/266A3908AF0983FFCDE20B480B213FB38A692617/
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:And graphics. I was never interested in textures so I can't tell you that much about them. Models are made with 3DSMax and imported via a special plugin, which is known. What plugin is this? Someone I know was curious about models for this game but I could only tell him that I had no idea. While I'm here, where are the unit deck icons kept (the things you see in the armory list)? I can't seem to find them in any of the data files so I assume I'm just missing something obvious.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
You guys need to convince them to release everything they realistically can, because a good mod scene for this game would sell a poo poo load of additional copies. A good Warhammer or WW2 mod alone would see a ton of new interest. Mazz fucked around with this message at 16:55 on May 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
power crystals posted:What plugin is this? Someone I know was curious about models for this game but I could only tell him that I had no idea. Custom, to convert the models into a format the Iriszoom engine understands. No idea if it can handle the conversion back. I'm not familiar enough with 3DSMax to tell you anything more about its inner workings. You'll have to ask Eugen for the plugin since it's their property. Mazz posted:You guys need to convince them to release everything they realistically can, because a good mod scene for this game would sell a poo poo load of additional copies. I think we've done about as much as a handful of people can. As far as I know there were 3 people digging into the guts of Wargame, 4 if you count power crystals. Without coding effort the tools won't get done and editing via direct hex changes is far too tedious for anything even slightly complex (I should know, I repriced and -availed all tanks in ALB via hex editor and rebuilt the archive file manually). It's a numbers game; convince Eugen they'll make more money with release of the toolsets and they will. They've decided not to release anything officially for the foreseeable future, or at least that's how I interpreted the messages MadMat wrote on the official forums.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:Custom, to convert the models into a format the Iriszoom engine understands. No idea if it can handle the conversion back. I'm not familiar enough with 3DSMax to tell you anything more about its inner workings. You'll have to ask Eugen for the plugin since it's their property. Oh, drat, I thought you meant someone actually had the plugin. If we know the format writing the converter shouldn't be that hard, though I've never actually used 3DSMax because my modelling ability ends somewhere just shy of "box". Hob_Gadling posted:I think we've done about as much as a handful of people can. As far as I know there were 3 people digging into the guts of Wargame, 4 if you count power crystals. Without coding effort the tools won't get done and editing via direct hex changes is far too tedious for anything even slightly complex (I should know, I repriced and -availed all tanks in ALB via hex editor and rebuilt the archive file manually). It's a numbers game; convince Eugen they'll make more money with release of the toolsets and they will. They've decided not to release anything officially for the foreseeable future, or at least that's how I interpreted the messages MadMat wrote on the official forums. Who are/were the others then, out of curiosity? Enohka for the mod tools but who else? I've occasionally given thought to redoing the mod tools based on the existing ones into something that actually understands separation of view from content (the fact that the "model" in the existing set depends on the view layer irritates me to no end and is why I ship an exe with the stuff I've written) and then trying an actual proper unit editor instead of just a table editor, but that's a ton of effort and there's this whole having a job thing that keeps getting in my way. Such is life I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
power crystals posted:Oh, drat, I thought you meant someone actually had the plugin. Someone has, it's just not getting handed out until Eugen gives the permission. You can probably guess why. quote:Who are/were the others then, out of curiosity? Enohka for the mod tools but who else? Me for figuring out the format in the first place and a lot of it afterwards and Gronank for figuring out a lot of map-related stuff. Map stuff would need to be built into tools for it to be of any use. I made this just to check that it works: http://cloud-4.steampowered.com/ugc/616175794059105987/FB717C2BABE180C1737E782173D38B251F5CF78D/ quote:Such is life I guess. Yes, it is.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Mazz posted:A good Warhammer or WW2 mod alone would see a ton of new interest. Warhammer is actually what a friend was trying to prod me into doing. It'd be fun to design since it would allow a different interesting take on a lot of gameplay mechanics. It doesn't look like it'd be fun to make at all, though. When a proper first step is better tools, that starts being a serious undertaking.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Warhammer is actually what a friend was trying to prod me into doing. It'd be fun to design since it would allow a different interesting take on a lot of gameplay mechanics. It doesn't look like it'd be fun to make at all, though. When a proper first step is better tools, that starts being a serious undertaking. Heavy Bolters with AP 4 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Space marines with hp on the ship scale (If I could duplicate the 5 teukjeonsa with 10 hp bug) Just being able to go all out and do crazy stuff would be pretty awesome. Superheavy tanks that take serious work to wear down, and all sorts of other cool stuff would be a lot of fun to make.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:Custom, to convert the models into a format the Iriszoom engine understands. No idea if it can handle the conversion back. I'm not familiar enough with 3DSMax to tell you anything more about its inner workings. You'll have to ask Eugen for the plugin since it's their property. Yeah I understand, and I applaud the work you guys have been able to do. It's a shame Eugen doesn't see the benefits in sales of something like that though, it worked so well for games like BF1942 (not necessarily the open tools, but the ability to mod in such drastic changes, DC being the biggest example). Facilitating that seems like a no brainer given the pure power of this engine to produce some groundbreaking RTS gameplay styles if given the chance. I'm sure a lot of it has to do with it being an in-house engine and everything too though, not real keen on opening the floodgates when you still have internal stuff to do with it.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
I wrote some partial unit lists for a present day Wargame involving the US, "Europe" (combo Britain/France/Germany), Russia, and China, with no prototypes or units no longer in service. The idea is you'd rebalance it completely so things like M1A2s or whatever the top tank is is 20 FAV/20AP again and work your way down, instead of doing the power creep thing RD did. It hopefully wouldn't require that many new models because obviously a lot of stuff from the Cold War is still in service everywhere. Incidentally, adding towed AA and artillery would make a ton of factions in any timeframe way more viable. I would buy the poo poo out of a wh40k wargame.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Mazz posted:It's a shame Eugen doesn't see the benefits in sales of something like that though, I find it really odd they have no interest in making some of the simpler stuff happen. Mod installation could be made trivial with their help, as that seems to be one of the major hurdles. I asked for a "TModded" class which would contain a couple things (is this modded, what's the mods name, wargame .exe version number) since replays have all the required functionality otherwise but looks like that isn't happening. Simplified map editor could probably be done without help. A complex one might also be possible if someone wants a second job that doesn't pay. e: xthetenth, did the tank pricing work out?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:I find it really odd they have no interest in making some of the simpler stuff happen. Mod installation could be made trivial with their help, as that seems to be one of the major hurdles. I asked for a "TModded" class which would contain a couple things (is this modded, what's the mods name, wargame .exe version number) since replays have all the required functionality otherwise but looks like that isn't happening. First test seemed good. Absolute top end tanks beat up on the old top end hard enough to warrant the price gap and so on down the line, the food chain overall seems to work. It seems like a good sliding scale between ability to support stuff and beat up on progressively more tanks. There's a few bits that I think are based on old stats (the T-64BM getting its AP bumped by two), but other than that the gradient seems good, and there seems to not be ridiculous overlapping like there were worries about. Armor decks, let alone more than two or three cards of tanks are actually tempting too, which is cool.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:There's a few bits that I think are based on old stats Blame Xerxes, I didn't know the tanks stats when I suggested prices for them. 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Incidentally, adding towed AA and artillery would make a ton of factions in any timeframe way more viable. I'm honestly curious why there aren't more psuedo-real units where a towed unit is given a basic truck (or M113 or whatever) base to make up for the lack of support for towed things. To my knowledge nobody complains about the fact that things like tracked I-HAWKs weren't actually in service, what's wrong with doing it for other AA weapons and some light artillery? Also, is there anything to 'merge' changes in NDFs? Like if I have a file that says "set M1IP price to 200 points" has anyone made a thing that will take an existing .DAT, merge that, and spit out a modded one? If not, would this be something people want?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:Blame Xerxes, I didn't know the tanks stats when I suggested prices for them. I'm pretty sure that was a change from like two patches ago. Oh, the M8 AGS doesn't have a price. I'm leaning towards the 40-45 range. They seemed pretty reasonable in ALB at 45 points, and their stats got increased in RD (range bracket bump mostly but 2 side armor as well), which means 35 is probably on the low end. There's also a need to figure out tank-like vehicles such as the Norov, but most of them shouldn't be too hard. power crystals posted:I'm honestly curious why there aren't more psuedo-real units where a towed unit is given a basic truck (or M113 or whatever) base to make up for the lack of support for towed things. To my knowledge nobody complains about the fact that things like tracked I-HAWKs weren't actually in service, what's wrong with doing it for other AA weapons and some light artillery? So compare the changes in both of them to what's in a base version and put the changes between those two NDFs into a third NDF that contains all changes from baseline? It'd be cool to have for collaborative work, but I don't really have a big need for it because I don't think I'm going to be roping people into helping me who aren't in a different time zone. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 21:08 on May 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
power crystals posted:I'm honestly curious why there aren't more psuedo-real units where a towed unit is given a basic truck (or M113 or whatever) base to make up for the lack of support for towed things. RUSE did that and it worked quite well.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:So compare the changes in both of them to what's in a base version and put the changes between those two NDFs into a third NDF that contains all changes from baseline? It'd be cool to have for collaborative work, but I don't really have a big need for it because I don't think I'm going to be roping people into helping me who aren't in a different time zone. Not exactly what I had in mind. I was imagining more of "some new mod source file format I will invent" + game NDF -> modded NDF, so that you wouldn't need to re-edit by hand whenever a new game version came out. It'd also make applying multiple of those things fairly easy if you were so inclined.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
power crystals posted:I'm honestly curious why there aren't more psuedo-real units where a towed unit is given a basic truck (or M113 or whatever) base to make up for the lack of support for towed things. To my knowledge nobody complains about the fact that things like tracked I-HAWKs weren't actually in service, what's wrong with doing it for other AA weapons and some light artillery? Honestly I would be happy with them loading and unloading from transports like infantry. That's a much simpler way of handling it, and you can even mimick helicopter sling-loaded howitzers and AA pieces that way. xthetenth posted:Oh, the M8 AGS doesn't have a price. I'm leaning towards the 40-45 range. They seemed pretty reasonable in ALB at 45 points, and their stats got increased in RD (range bracket bump mostly but 2 side armor as well), which means 35 is probably on the low end. There's also a need to figure out tank-like vehicles such as the Norov, but most of them shouldn't be too hard. I would put the M8 AGS at 35 or 40 points. Its tank score would put it at 30 or 35, but the rate of fire bumps it up a notch. I think it's worth about 5 points more than the Sheridan. Mortabis fucked around with this message at 21:17 on May 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
power crystals posted:I'm honestly curious why there aren't more psuedo-real units where a towed unit is given a basic truck (or M113 or whatever) base to make up for the lack of support for towed things. To my knowledge nobody complains about the fact that things like tracked I-HAWKs weren't actually in service, what's wrong with doing it for other AA weapons and some light artillery? Better yet, since vehicles can transport vehicles why not just make the goddamn towed weapons? quote:Also, is there anything to 'merge' changes in NDFs? Like if I have a file that says "set M1IP price to 200 points" has anyone made a thing that will take an existing .DAT, merge that, and spit out a modded one? If not, would this be something people want? This is probably one of the top three most asked for features. A few things it's wanted for: - produce a comprehensive changelog between patches - move some or all modded changes from one game version to another without overwriting Eugen-made patch changes - allow someone to write changes into an Excel, which is then written out into a format the mod tool understands, which is then compiled into NDF (where have I seen this before?) Since instance ID numbers change between patches (they're created dynamically when NDF is compiled) you'd have to do some sort of comparison of instances first. 100% matches are easy, the trick is in handling instances that match somewhat confidently. There may be problems with other parts of the file structure if the engine is changed (bug fixes, new features etc).
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Honestly I would be happy with them loading and unloading from transports like infantry. That's a much simpler way of handling it, and you can even mimick helicopter sling-loaded howitzers and AA pieces that way. Hob_Gadling posted:Better yet, since vehicles can transport vehicles why not just make the goddamn towed weapons? Or that  Hob_Gadling posted:This is probably one of the top three most asked for features. A few things it's wanted for: Surely most of what you're going to actually care about is TUniteAuSolDescriptor and TAmmunition (the rest doesn't change that much, and you could probably figure it out manually if you need to) and on those you could match on ClassNameForDebug or even the localization hash ID? Localization IDs appear to remain the same based on my totally scientific sample size of 1. For people who just want to mess with unit stats, this would probably get you close enough to do just fine.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
power crystals posted:Surely most of what you're going to actually care about is TUniteAuSolDescriptor and TAmmunition In practice doing this would cut of most of the work Wargame: 1984 did. You can do a ton of things with the tools if you take your time to figure out what classes contain what info. Even the units themselves contain a ton of references to other classes. Hob_Gadling fucked around with this message at 21:33 on May 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
power crystals posted:Not exactly what I had in mind. I was imagining more of "some new mod source file format I will invent" + game NDF -> modded NDF, so that you wouldn't need to re-edit by hand whenever a new game version came out. It'd also make applying multiple of those things fairly easy if you were so inclined. Oh. yes. Wouldn't that also make it easier to make the editing tools work in a way that allows much better ease of use, since the new mod source file format can be a comparatively more sane one? Mortabis posted:Honestly I would be happy with them loading and unloading from transports like infantry. That's a much simpler way of handling it, and you can even mimick helicopter sling-loaded howitzers and AA pieces that way. Yeah. What is the formula you're using to go between tank score and points? Also, calculating tank score when taking range into account. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 21:39 on May 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Actually the towed howitzer talk gave me an idea. You know how artillery right now is kind of too powerful and has been since closed beta, but Eugen likes it that way? Well, suppose we nerfed artillery's killing power back to what it was in Airland Battle with commensurate buffs to aim time, but added in dirt loving cheap towed howitzers that come with high availability. The towed howitzers, en masse, get similar killing power to current howitzers, along with their extended aim time. But they also have minimal mobility, making them vulnerable to counter-battery from the more expensive and less numerous self propelled guns.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:In practice doing this would cut of most of the work Wargame: 1984 did. You can do a ton of things with the tools if you take your time to figure out what classes contain what info. Even the units themselves contain a ton of references to other classes. Oh I know, my point is more that someone who wants to just make a basic attempt at a first mod is probably not going to concern themselves with movement handlers and will just adjust the AP value of their favorite tank's gun or something. I will happily admit I'm not very familiar with how most of the more detailed stuff actually works, though. I just like trying to solve these kinds of problems v  v
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
power crystals posted:Oh I know, my point is more that someone who wants to just make a basic attempt at a first mod is probably not going to concern themselves with movement handlers and will just adjust the AP value of their favorite tank's gun or something. That guy will do some random changes to see how stuff works out and discard the changes. You wouldn't be helping him too much. Dandywalken on the other hand is working on a campaign mod which does quite extensive changes. Being able to move the changes from this version to a non-bugged campaign version (because the bug was noticed too late) would save him a ton of work. Same for Soundwolf, who made Wargame: 1984 and can't start modding RD until there's either a stable version or a way to apply the modded changes on a fresh patch.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
 (I went for a higher vet/lower availability per card and two cards for the M8 because ~*para decks*~ and because it's probably a better pick for light tanks, since they really want to get the first shot off, like the BMP-685 is set up as)
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Actually the towed howitzer talk gave me an idea. You know how artillery right now is kind of too powerful and has been since closed beta, but Eugen likes it that way? Well, suppose we nerfed artillery's killing power back to what it was in Airland Battle with commensurate buffs to aim time, but added in dirt loving cheap towed howitzers that come with high availability. The towed howitzers, en masse, get similar killing power to current howitzers, along with their extended aim time. But they also have minimal mobility, making them vulnerable to counter-battery from the more expensive and less numerous self propelled guns. This just sounds like you end up with either throwaway howitzers or more micro.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
Power crystals, if you make a file merger so that we can just apply changes to the newest patches you will become the patron saint of WG modding. I will also buy you a suitable Dr. Strangelove avatar E: Thanks xthetenth for doing the work to put my numbers in practice. I should have a go of them! 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
Yeah absolutely. 430000319 is the patch it belongs in, back up NDF_Win.dat and replace it with this beauty (rename it to NDF_Win.dat). By that bunch of numbers I mean F:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\SteamApps\common\Wargame Red Dragon\Data\WARGAME\PC\430000319 where F:\Program Files (x86) is where your steam install is. (And yeah other folks are invited to have a looksee too, that's why the instructions are thorough) It's got USSR, USA and Eurocorps in and doublechecked. All tanks are changed, tank-like vehicles are not. I am actually chilling in mumble for once if you/anyone want to mess around with it.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
So I did a thing It takes a .DAT file as the first argument and a .XML file as the second, and it will produce a "_patched.DAT" file next to the first one. It works for most basic things, but I want to get feedback on how useful this actually is before I do anything more complex. Included is a demonstration and 100% useful patch that gives the Polish KUB 8 cards at $5, sets all tanks to 1940, and gives Moto '90s the fuel truck death blast. Note that it is not fast. There's some reasonably easy things I could do to make it faster with repeated patches of the same table but as above I don't want to bother until I know there's a demand for it. So as to how it actually works: The root is a "wargamepatch" element that contains zero or more "ndfpatch" elements. Each "ndfpatch" requires an "ndf" attribute that is the full path to the ndfbin file, and a "table" element that is the name of the table in the ndfbin file. It can optionally have a "name" attribute; this does nothing on its own but it will show up in the console output so it makes telling them apart easier (if you don't supply a name, it just names them 1, 2, 3...). Each patch can have zero or more match conditions, specified as "matchcondition" elements under the "matchconditions" element. These have a "property" and a "value" attribute. Match conditions are applied in the order listed and will narrow the set of affected objects from everything in the listed table to whatever matches the specified condition. Because the id is determined when the ndfbin is compiled, you need to figure out yourself what to match on. As a last resort, you can use a special "__order" property which is the order in the list of instances (starting at 0). Multiple match conditions are treated as an AND. Each patch will have zero or more changes, as "change" elements under the "changes" element. The value of the change element is the value written to the property. Each change has a "property" attribute which is the property affected by this change. It can also optionally have a "key" attribute, which is either the element number for lists (starting at 0) or the key if the collection is of maps. The key attribute is ignored for non-lists. Changes can also optionally have an "operation" attribute, which defaults to "set" if it is not present. "set" is a straight property set. The only other currently supported value is "reference", which is used for reference values as describing those is more difficult than a single text field can handle. If the operation is set to "reference", the value is a "reference" element with a "table" attribute specifying the table containing the referenced object. The reference element can then contain another "matchconditions" set with the same rules as the ndfpatch element. e: forgot this one: If the value of a property is currently "Unset", the patcher will not be able to determine what type of value to use. In this case, you need to specify a "forcetype" attribute on the change element whose value is whatever the mod tool GUI shows you. If all of that made your head hurt, go look at the xml file included in the download which demonstrates basically everything I just said. Things you cannot do right now include but may not be limited to: - Match based on references, lists or maps - Add or remove elements from lists - Set references in lists - Set things to null - Change the keys of maps - Pretty much anything involving strings - Change any non-NDF files (localization, images, whatever) I am really curious about any feedback on this thing but even if it's the worst thing ever it was at least fun to write so I'm pretty happy. It has reasonable error handling but isn't perfect, so if you get something that isn't descriptive enough show me the patch file you're working with so I can figure out what went wrong. power crystals fucked around with this message at 18:57 on May 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 04:48 |
|
|
You're a god drat hero. This has been a big missing part of modding. The ability to update with new patch releases is a loving godsend. Please, keep up the good work! Dandywalken fucked around with this message at 20:38 on May 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 20:35
|
|