SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   SH4 Mission Designers' Forum (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=222)
-   -   The ME, the unknown being? (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=240382)

Jackdaw 03-23-19 05:17 AM

The ME, the unknown being?
 
Maybe someone can help:


1) The current problem:

I can, if at all (he jerks and twitches) zoom in to a maximum scale of 0-2000 km.
I wrote a complex mission (122 kb). During long processing, there were no problems. After the first short trial it turned out that even small cosmetic changes are required.
The mission continues to run smoothly and can also be accessed and opened in the ME. All functions are so far normal. However, the editor goes crazy that a smooth zooming is not possible and then only up to 2000 km scale is possible. An edit is excluded. Does anyone have any idea what to do?


2) Similar difficulties in the past:
The reason that old or older missions suddenly stopped running and / or could no longer be opened in the ME was often that e.g. during the various changes of FotRS Ultimate 0 ..... 8 changes were made, which made it impossible for the game and the editor to play / show previous works. It would be nice if explicit reference were made to such changes; It would save a lot of laborious search and avoid frustration that some missions are no longer workable. In many cases the cause was found, e.g. in the change of Unit Types or Class Names. But despite rectification and probably freedom from errors, there were several results:

a) The mission reopened and worked in the ME and ran in the game - Juppiduh! [The rarest case!]
b) Both game and ME refused further cooperation.
c) The mission ran in the game but the ME crashed when called.
d) The mission runs (possibly) in the game and can also be called up via ME. The ME though shows only a white screen. Via e.g. Mission \ Triggers are data retrievable but not editable.

And now the variant described above in 1. I hope that someone can help here, as it is not much fun to be allowed to throw away extensive work again and again.


P.S .: The ME is fine. Works flawlessly with other missions. It uses clean version SH4, patch 1.4 with UBM and FotRS Ultimate 0.8 with two other small mods that do not matter for the problem and my own Commands.cfg.

propbeanie 03-23-19 11:46 AM

Specific references are made with each release of FotRSU: "This version is NOT compatible with previous releases. You must empty your Save folder and install on a fresh copy of FotRSU."

That said, it is relatively easy to make edits to missions from previous versions. All of the changes are documented in s7rikeback's excellent XLS spreadsheets of the available assets in the game, along with their Type= numbers and Class= names. The Type= is the biggie usually, though we have changed Classes of ships more than once through the life of the mod. Look in the Support folder of the old v0.80 for "Equipment & Unit list for FotrsU.xlsx", and it will get you most of the way there. You can sometimes use the Mission Editor's error messages that pop-up as your mission loads, but you won't always get an error message except maybe 10% of the time. The only ways you know a mission doesn't work is by opening it in the editor and trying to zoom-in, or move around the globe. If the screen goes white, or the Editor bombs in other inappropriate manners (there are many), then you know the mission does not match the mod. The other way to find out is to play the mission. Either you'll CTD, or things will be very different from what you intended...

What you need to do, is open your MIS file in a good text editor. MS Notepad works, but can be fidgety, wanting to rename your files with a dot txt extension (use the "Save as... All Types" drop-down in the Save dialog under your file name) - Notepad++ is an excellent freeware choice, and the 010 Editor is even better, especially for complex "Search and Replace" tasks, but it does cost $50 US to purchase the application. Well worth the investment if you do much programming / editing / scripting. Once you're in the text editor of your choice, you'll want to "Find" or "Search" on a particular ship class, and double-check its Type= line, and make certain that they match what the game calls for. This may well take a while. I have to do this every time we've made edits to the mod, and it can be quite time-consuming. I do have scripts that I can run to help, but a lot of the issue is still human-eye-to-brain recognition.

Open the Data / Roster folder, and the Names.cfg file. You'll see listings toward the top of the file of the ClassNames used. Below those sections are the Sections for the naming of the Air, Land, Sea and Submarine individual Classes. In your MIS file, you'll want to match what you used these to the different assets in Names.cfg, Equipment & Unit list for FotrsU.xlsx, and you might have to access the different nations Roster folders and the Air, Sea, Land or Sub folders of each asset used.
Things to look for in FotRSU:
  1. Battleships - BB can be Type=11 or Type=19. The Type=19 is the majority of this Class, and they carry Scout Planes (Stock game's "Type19=Super Fleet carrier" renamed to "Heavy Warship with Scout Planes"). There are generally speaking 2 BB of each nation (that has BB) that will be Type=11, so that an un-edited GENERIC call will still bring in a ship.
  2. Heavy Cruisers - CA can by either Type=7 or Type=19. Notice that the CA can be in the same Class as the BB? You do have to be careful with a GENERIC Type=19 call, since you might not get a BB or CA as you wanted, but rather either or.
  3. Light Cruisers - CL can be either Type=6 or Type=18. Again, the Type=18 designation has been renamed from Stock's "Type18=Elite Escort Carrier" to "Light Warship with Scout Planes".
  4. Submarines - SS, yes, submarines... The AI subs can also be Type=18, "Light Warship with Scout Planes". There are at least four Japanese submarine classes that carry and launch planes from a catapult (OK, so they "Spawn" in). You will encounter them in-game at times. If you are ever out in the middle of nowhere, and you see a small floatplane, it probably came from an IJN submarine.
  5. Submarines (again) SS - again with the submarines. All of the other AI submarines are Type=17, which in the Stock game is "Elite Destroyer Escort", renamed in the FotRSU mod to "Type17=Submarine". They are surface-only vessels. Do NOT use any Type=200 subs in any of your missions, except for ones that are player-controlled. If you don't adhere to this, the gauges on the players' subs will stick to a 12 O'Clock high position, and do not move. You have been warned.
  6. Some small coastal vessels that have engines in them have been re-designated as "Type=108", which in the Names.cfg of Stock is "Type108=Rare Cargo ship", but in FotRSU is now "Type108=Motorized Coastal Vessel". This was done so that all vessels that make a definite noise can be heard on the Sonar Station by both the player and the AI. "Other coastal vessels, such as junks and Sampans are still Type=104, but their Names.cfg designation has changed to "Type104=Non Motorized Coastal Vessel" from the Stock's "Type104=Coastal Vessel".
  7. Type=109 is a special case, in that it was reserved in Stock and a lot of mods, including FotRSU originally. The Conte Verde (European Liner)
    was often the only vessel in that Type designation. Since it wasn't very "rare" in the game anyway, we moved it to the Type=103 set for "Troop Ship", and call that Type specifically. The Type=109 is now the Photo Target for the PhotoOp SpecOps, which are in the process of being rebuilt. We did several iterations of a PhotoOp target, but could not get the RecManual to cooperate with us, unless it was designated a "Ship", so it is Type=109.
The ships with the Type= changes will adhere to their original Stock game's AI settings, which means that a BB or CA or CL or IJN sub will launch float planes almost immediately upon detecting your submarine. Those classes are old "Elite" vessels. Therefore, the "Elite Black Swan" and others like it cannot be used in FotRSU. Just make the crew "Elite". The AI subs now are also "elite", and will not only attack, but chase the players' subs. Also, be aware, since I don't think we've gotten this info out yet, that some of the top speeds of various ships have been changed. So if after you get a mis file to open properly in the ME, but you can't edit the waypoints etc., check the Group or Unit's "Properties", and see what the speed is set to. I'm still going through the mod again for more of those kinds of issues. This is where searching the text with the 010 Editor's Search with a script really shines, since I can "qualify" each search to a specific class of ship, and only find "hits" for that particular Class that exceeds its top speed. When I find one, I can then change all of the ships in a particular group that sail with it, that must also be "speed restricted", since the slowest vessel dictates a group's max speed...

Now, I may well have forgotten something... if I did, just yell, and I'll try and correct any omissions or mistakes. :salute:

Jackdaw 03-24-19 04:30 AM

Hi Propbeanie, thank you very much!


Notepad++ is a very good tip. I've downloaded at once. Somewhat more complicated than a conventional editor. Let's see if he is helpful after getting used to it.

The "old v0.80 for "Equipment & Unit list for FotrsU.xlsx" I had overlooked or ignored; Ash on my head, my mistake. Nevertheless, I had recognized the problem without synonymous. The result "human-eye-to-brain recognition" is exactly what I meant with "laborious search".

However, all these positive synergy effects do not help me at the moment. Of course I can open the * mis file and look for mod-related changes. I have already done so successfully in the past. In the present case, however, the mission is written with the latest Ultimate. So why investigate? Until a few days ago, the * mis was still easy to open (which it still is) and edit, i.e. you could zoom in and edit to the smallest scale. That's current only possible up to 2000 km; Processing impossible.

The only thing that has happened to the "file" is that I drove them in the game for the purpose of testing. Furthermore, I did not keep a calendar on that, but between the last processing of this mission and the current test, the big mistake could have been to give in to the "coercion" of "Billy Windows" and have Win10 installed. After a few days, the system fell asleep and nothing went any more - I'll keep it as it used to be: Win10 - solo sobre mi cadaver de enfriamiento !!

However, this event can not be cause, as other * mis files that have been created in parallel will continue to work properly. I can only explain these "opening errors" with a parallel to SH 2 (I very, very long time needed to find at that time). If you paste in a * sdf file, e.g. a word from a Word file, the * sdf was "in the bucket". Only here I have no such "foreign body" implanted and, as mentioned, the file is still to open (runs in the game) and only in a major function in Mission Editor not to change (zoom in / zoom out) ??

I'm afraid I'll have to take your last paragraph to my heart's content once more. Seems to have an impact on (future) "crafting".


:Kaleun_Salute:

propbeanie 03-24-19 12:26 PM

I apparently didn't pay enough attention to proper formatting when I posted above... the "List" being an actual list might help in the thought process. You just have to slog through the mis and tsr files, one line, ship, plane, gun (whatever assets you used) at a time. It can be a laborious process. The ME does not have a help file, but it does have the "Validate Mission" function on the "Mission" menu, so give that a whirl, and see if it won't give you any clues to what is amiss. It will find about a third of the possible errors. One little apostrophe, or semi-colon or space character out of place, and you've got problems. It is a very persnickety application... If you still can't get it, let me know, and we'll work out a file exchange, and I'll look at it for you. :salute:

Jackdaw 03-25-19 03:13 PM

Since I know from painful experience, what a pig job it is, I appreciate the offer especially!

Fortunately, it is no longer necessary. I found the mistake.

As mentioned earlier, I wrote the mission under Ultimate 0.8, but forgot that I had some minor changes built in there to avoid having to use JSGME. Through the "Win10 Escapade" I have used both a clean game and Ultimate 0.8 only with changes visible through JSGME and did not think much of the previously built-in changes. As expected, "Mission validate" did not help, as only the editor's usual "detachments" in this mission (and also often) showed up at stationary units which (at least for me) have never had a negative impact. (too close blablabla)

When I tried to answer you, something was humming through the back of my mind and I suddenly realized that I'd read something about a unit that did not actually appear in Ultimate when it came to validation errors. Immediately checked I knew then where the problem comes from. Everything fixed and mission is in the ME again fully editable.

However, this brings me back to an open problem with this supplement:

These are two fuel storage tanks. I can not remember where I got it from. I mean dark to remember that I copied them from a Traveller mod. The tanks are pure white, way too big (like a silo) and have nothing else to offer. After bombardment, they start to burn, smoke something and sink into the sea. I like them as a supplement to infiltration and recon tasks, but they are so horribly ugly!

Anyway, some color must (rust..) come into play. The tanks would have to be sized differently. You might be able to attach pumps and piping;
Stellings to go alongside, Shell or labels like this could be implemented. Furthermore, the tanks must of course also explode not only burn. (Gimmick: there should be different loadouts oil/fuel/aviation gasoline and different reactions - burn or explosion [Label:By Deepest Purple Oil...])
Finally, I had found in the context of a mission creation still a really original floating gas station.

Since I have no idea about this part of modding, I had contacted ZUIKAKU2604 at the end of last year. He had also agreed to take action, whereupon I emailed him everything I had. I have no idea why, but I never heard from him again? Could not I let you have that material and idea and you will lead it into proven hands? I would then park my material uploaded and send a download link. Does this work on the PM at Subsim? Otherwise I would just need an email address by PM. I would be happy if that should work!

If you like, I could in the face of the work you have done so far with this "erroneous mission" include this mission just for fun. As far as I'm aware, it's a completely new concept; at least I have not seen anything like it. However, it is finished, but still needs the paint, if you understand what I mean.

In any case, first thanks! :Kaleun_Salute:

propbeanie 03-27-19 01:07 PM

You're probably talking about these naked nasties:

https://i.imgur.com/s2Di78h.jpg

:O:

Jackdaw 03-28-19 04:34 AM

Astonishing! :Kaleun_Cheers:

Yeah, exactly this guys I mean. And now?

I assume that you have the original files. Is there a chance to revise?
:salute:

propbeanie 03-28-19 08:48 AM

We're trying. Texture has been applied, but they need a "platform" to sit on, so they don't sink and disappear... You want the impressive smoke and fire around a while longer... :salute:

Jackdaw 03-28-19 09:44 AM

Smoke & fire are always good for the atmosphere!

I do not understand that with the platform. Currently they "swim"; after a few hits they burn and smoke and then go into the depths. However, you can see nothing under water from the devices. Not like the ships, for example.

No matter; Anyway. From this part of our beautiful Sim I understand now really nothing. But I'm pleased :yeah: looking forward to using something nicer "tanks" at some point. Will they come with a newer Ultimate version or can I get a prerelease for testing in one or the other mission?

:salute:

propbeanie 03-28-19 10:55 AM

The tanks are "disguised" ships. In other words, they took a ship, and gave it a "tank" 3D image, so that it - the tank - would be destructible. One of several 'tricks' to work around shortcomings in the game. Someone else came up with the platform idea, to hold the 'ship' disguised as a tank. That way, it can't sink, and can be placed other than directly on water...

Jackdaw 03-29-19 02:50 AM

The tanks are built on the basis of a ship, I thought so. Makes sense, because so different reactions or contents (oil / gasoline) can be programmed with appropriate reactions. If I continue to understand correctly, should the tanks generally also be usable on land? Well, if that does not work, there's nothing wrong with installing the "wet" and the "dry" variant, right?

Has anyone already tried the various shore batteries or the flak platform? However, I had already tested (although no reasonable captain should do that), if you can destroy a shore battery from the sea? I'm actually sure that I've hit more often, but without reaction. Undaunted was shot back. Air support was also not the hit, as the bombers did not attack the batteries. But I did not do any extensive experiments either. :hmmm:


In principle, therefore, the batteries would have to be usable as a "platform". Only they would have to show a little more reaction to fire. For a universal version that can be used both on the water and in the countryside, I can not think of anything.
:salute:

propbeanie 03-29-19 03:27 PM

A "ship" in SH4 will be destroyed when it comes into contact with a "land mass", so the tanks do the same thing. A "platform" for them is just something that they can sit on to keep the from "contacting" said "land mass". Not dark magic, just misplaced technique that has been forgotten. But we'll find it...

The shore batteries are not destructible. If you put a BB off-shore from gun emplacements, they will eventually sink the ship, and be able to take on more. The guns are not very accurate against AI controlled ships though. The set-up is like that more to entertain the player, and draw his eye away from the problem that the earth doesn't lift when a naval shell strikes... :roll: - but really, it's all just for show, or "immersion" as it's called. There could also be a "destructible" version of some of the gun emplacements, so that a person could "see" the massive destruction brought about by bombardment of the Kongo on Guadalcanal... only problem being is "where is that confounded gun emplacement anyway?"... :salute:

Jackdaw 03-30-19 10:03 AM

That's not really a problem for me. Extensive landing operations are not my thing. The shore batteries are certainly dangerous enough for submarines. Would be worth improving, however, that these guns basically have a field of fire of 360 °? Because I wanted to know that, I had two batteries installed on a slope rising behind them. Waypoint at sea. When I came in the 180 ° behind bay, I could not see a gun, but got for "upgiving/unlearning" purposes
neat firing from these two batteries. This explains the old saying: When fire falls from the sky ...:huh:



Where people can find this "...confounded gun emplacement..." I don't know too. Maybe an archaeologist on Henderson Field can help? :Kaleun_Binocular:

propbeanie 03-30-19 12:24 PM

Ahhh, but they can elevate the gun, and shoot over the hill, using whoever / whatever spotted you as their "artillery spotter", while using the latest in digital comm technology to give them immediate targeting updates... The shore guns can't hit a docked BB from 1500 yards, but they can sink a moving sub in 3 salvos from 8500... over a hill, no less... :har: :salute:

Jackdaw 03-31-19 06:32 AM

Ah yes, I forgot! While coastal artillery is actually usually built-in, often bunkered with limited field of fire we have here 360 ° mortars and these, of course, with so-called indirect fire-control-radar or possibly satellite-based? [To get the f-c-r running, take a balloon pulling up an old steel plate; because of the reflection and so on ...:know:....:damn:]

The other is a problem of dangerousness. Because of the limited negative elevation on battleships, these are likely to be safe near the shore 'cause no threat (:06:), while an approaching submarine is particularly highly dangerous to near-shore infantry & Co.: (see 2:35 ...)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpEcU0OEzhc



It reminds me that I need to see the movie again; Already for radio operator Hornsby ...


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:42 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2024 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.