Change the default weapon layout???

[caymanlee]

I create a sub-type ASROC and wanna add it in the controlable Seawolf Weapon system, but fail by using the DWEdit.exe, even though it seems like it would work by changing the layout in the DWEdit laucher dialog, but it will only functional in those AI(uncontrolable) Subs, not those controlable subs
my guess:it might due to the Interfaces of controlable subs have some sort of connection with the database, and the connection can't be changed by the DWEdit.exe
anyone know the solution? I think since we can upgrade the SCX2 which contain lots of new contoalable subs with different weapon layout, the similar method can be take to upgrade the DW weapon system
thank you!

[OneShot]

Sometimes I ask myself why I assembled the FAQ in the first place, obviously people dont read it, or try to research a bit before posting.

Originally Posted by DW FAQ

Why can't Modders make playables like they did for Sub Command with SCU?

Back in the days of Sub Command some enterprising modders created an utility to switch the skins/models for the playable platforms and thus allowing players to "drive" different types of submarines.

While SCS tolerated it at that time, they have stated (pretty clearly) that they explicitly reserve the right to create playable models for themselves and messing around with DLLs, EXE files and so on (which would be necessary to create a SCU like utility for DW) is a big NO NO!

However modders are free to and actually encouraged to create improved textures, modells and so on for the game to visually, and audible enhance it. So while you might see all of the platforms from the real world in Dangerous Waters at a future date, you will only drive those SCS makes.

In other words, messing around with the interface of the playable platforms is a NO NO as stated clearly by SCS lots of times. You can legally swap weapons as Luftwolf has proven, but unfortunatly only how they work/behave and not the entries in the interfaces in game, those are unfortunatly hardcoded and not database driven.

[caymanlee]

thanks, I get it, hardcode is the problem. therefore, I know my accurate question is these:
How can I access and change the hardcode? Is that legal? Is that possible? By any software?

Thank you!

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by caymanlee

thanks, I get it, hardcode is the problem. therefore, I know my accurate question is these:
How can I access and change the hardcode? Is that legal? Is that possible? By any software?

Thank you!

Didn't you read what Oneshot posted ?
The hardcoded information is in the exe or dll files and so are not to be modified, so of course it would be illegal to modify them.
You can mod anything in DW short of the exe and dll files.

[Molon Labe]

Easy guys, not everyone understands the nuts and bolts of modding, myself included.

[GrayOwl]

Originally Posted by caymanlee

I create a sub-type ASROC and wanna add it in the controlable Seawolf Weapon system, but fail by using the DWEdit.exe, even though it seems like it would work by changing the layout in the DWEdit laucher dialog, but it will only functional in those AI(uncontrolable) Subs, not those controlable subs
my guess:it might due to the Interfaces of controlable subs have some sort of connection with the database, and the connection can't be changed by the DWEdit.exe
anyone know the solution? I think since we can upgrade the SCX2 which contain lots of new contoalable subs with different weapon layout, the similar method can be take to upgrade the DW weapon system
thank you!

I had modernization from SCX-II To DW (UPGRADE) concerning all sensors and compatibility of the doctrines is interestingly and it works...
And even many bugs were fixed - ASW of a rocket shoot very precisely, the torpedo fuel was spent correctly, etc...

And Similar Platforms For Control Accessible....

[LuftWolf]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Easy guys, not everyone understands the nuts and bolts of modding, myself included.

Hmm...

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

Yeah, so I'm an ingoramus. You gotta problem with dat?

[LuftWolf]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Yeah, so I'm an ingoramus. You gotta problem with dat?

You're not ignorant, you're stubborn... or lazy.

Cheers,
David

[Nexus7]

Originally Posted by OneShot

Sometimes I ask myself why I assembled the FAQ in the first place, obviously people dont read it, or try to research a bit before posting.

In other words, messing around with the interface of the playable platforms is a NO NO as stated clearly by SCS lots of times. You can legally swap weapons as Luftwolf has proven, but unfortunatly only how they work/behave and not the entries in the interfaces in game, those are unfortunatly hardcoded and not database driven.

I wonder instead what the "modders section" is there for

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Nexus7

I wonder instead what the "modders section" is there for

To mod the database, to add new non playable models (the default ones are creepy as far as graphics goes). To mod the AI doctrines etc...
You can do a lot of things, as Luftwolf and Amizaur have demostrated over the last year.
What you can't do is add new playables and no amount of bitching, moaning and throwing a tantrum will change this fact.
Just live with it and enjoy DW.

[Dr.Sid]

Mod section is useless .. who reads all the sections ?

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

Mod section is useless .. who reads all the sections ?

I do.

[SaxMan]

To quote Goldorak:
"What you can't do is add new playables and no amount of bitching, moaning and throwing a tantrum will change this fact.
Just live with it and enjoy DW."

I'd respectfully disagree. If we the users, who paid $ for the game, want to be able to add extra playables (something that fascinates me more than playing in depth), then we should so state, as loudly and as often as we please. It may be impossible for SCS to give up their death grip on this one (much to the detriment of replayability and popularity), but it doesn't mean that those of us who desire this should remain quiet. The squeaky wheel gets the grease - if those of us who desire extra playables don't say anything, it will never become a requirement in any future follow-on game architecture design.

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by SaxMan

I'd respectfully disagree. If we the users, who paid $ for the game, want to be able to add extra playables (something that fascinates me more than playing in depth)...

DW is an in-depth simulation; turning it into a survey sim is just senseless. There are plenty of other "sims" out there that give you many playables that are not modeled in much detail.

But, adding more playables that are modeled appropriately improves the product that we have without transforming it into something twisted and evil.

...then we should so state, as loudly and as often as we please. It may be impossible for SCS to give up their death grip on this one (much to the detriment of replayability and popularity), but it doesn't mean that those of us who desire this should remain quiet. The squeaky wheel gets the grease - if those of us who desire extra playables don't say anything, it will never become a requirement in any future follow-on game architecture design.

I think you're right on both points--both that SCS won't budge on this (it's because their business model relies mostly on military contractors, not us, and giving us what we want here will harm the military part of the busines) and that we should bitch anyways. The fact of the matter is that the producers of any games should be working hand-in-hand with the modding community to deliver a better product, not doing so is simply missing out on a big opportunity to have free work done for you and to deliver a better product. For niche sims like DW, the need for cost control makes it even more important for the community to be involved.

We, as customers, have every right to be pissed off that we're on the **** end of this stick and we should make it clear to current and future producers that this is one of our expectations.