Hi Everyone,
I have been collecting patches that will be part of Botf Patcher in tools folder of installer.
currently I have 3 mod patch folders for ECM, MUM, and UM5
problem is, so many patches have deviations and patches don't describe the deviation changes properly.
also many patches are missing or wrong URL links.
I am looking for suggestions on how to organize patches.
next issue is conflict patches, example "Auto-Upgrade Fix for AI Ships Under Construction" conflicts with "build queue" patch.
For most mods I have applied Build Queue with Auto upgrade fix patch. but do I keep Build Queue patch version without Auto upgrade fix?
should there be a folder dedicated for out of date patches? This way if they are found applied it would be easier to remove outdated patch before adding updated patch.
Included Patch folders for installer
Moderator: thunderchero
-
- Site Administrator aka Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 7971
- Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:00 am
- Location: On a three month training mission, in command of the USS Valiant.
-
- Code Master
- Posts: 1962
- Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:00 am
Re: Included Patch folders for installer
A complex matter. Example 'Commands in Tactical Combat' has a matrix of four options:
+/- Return Fire for Retreat each +/- Command Ship solo mode targeting restriction + files needed
So do you want prepared patches for all options or do you trust user with hex-editing Command ship switch?
I suggest we first collect patches with different versions/options and pseudo-conflicting combinations.
Then we try to make it as simple as possible (extra folder for this?)
- Conflict of intel & research output tech bonus options vs new building output fixes for local intel and research (tech% bonus patches need editing anyway)
- I updated raiding bug fixes to remove conflict with bankrupt empires fix
- there was a patch conflict with DCER's hide unknown ships popup vs extra option to hide enemy experience bars (so you can't see different race icons)
- new sytem resources has pseudo-conflict with Combat Drone only with Random events (using both needs Combat Drone installed first)
So example in conflicting patches folder: -> red conflict indicates other patch installed -> remove before updating with desired patch ?
- Build Queue with AI Auto upgrade fix -> do not use extra/base patch 'AI Auto upgrade fix'
- AI Auto upgrade fix -> remove before updating with 'Build Queue' patch
+/- Return Fire for Retreat each +/- Command Ship solo mode targeting restriction + files needed
So do you want prepared patches for all options or do you trust user with hex-editing Command ship switch?
I suggest we first collect patches with different versions/options and pseudo-conflicting combinations.
Then we try to make it as simple as possible (extra folder for this?)
- Conflict of intel & research output tech bonus options vs new building output fixes for local intel and research (tech% bonus patches need editing anyway)
- I updated raiding bug fixes to remove conflict with bankrupt empires fix
- there was a patch conflict with DCER's hide unknown ships popup vs extra option to hide enemy experience bars (so you can't see different race icons)
- new sytem resources has pseudo-conflict with Combat Drone only with Random events (using both needs Combat Drone installed first)
I would remove Build Queue patch version without Auto upgrade fix (useful fix with no issues).thunderchero wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:27 pmconflict patches, example "Auto-Upgrade Fix for AI Ships Under Construction" conflicts with "build queue" patch.
For most mods I have applied Build Queue with Auto upgrade fix patch. but do I keep Build Queue patch version without Auto upgrade fix?
So example in conflicting patches folder: -> red conflict indicates other patch installed -> remove before updating with desired patch ?
- Build Queue with AI Auto upgrade fix -> do not use extra/base patch 'AI Auto upgrade fix'
- AI Auto upgrade fix -> remove before updating with 'Build Queue' patch
I don't know how many bugs is too many but that point is reached somewhere before however many in BotF is.
-
- Site Administrator aka Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 7971
- Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:00 am
- Location: On a three month training mission, in command of the USS Valiant.
Re: Included Patch folders for installer
I agree
I was thinking going the other way to start,Spocks-cuddly-tribble wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 4:12 pm I suggest we first collect patches with different versions/options and pseudo-conflicting combinations.
If all mods use exact same version collect those patches for a "basic" patch folder (remove these patches from mod folders)
Then mod folders will only have mod specific patches, but explain deviations in description. This should take care of most patch deviations?
conflicting patch I am still thinking about, but how many will there be if outdated patch are removed?
-
- Code Master
- Posts: 1962
- Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:00 am
Re: Included Patch folders for installer
Mod patch folders only with custom edits sounds good, but this "basic" patch folder would depend on mods?thunderchero wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 4:39 pmIf all mods use exact same version collect those patches for a "basic" patch folder (remove these patches from mod folders)
I was thinking of the patch database as easy means for user to adapt any game version/mod to personal taste.
Power user (aka mod publisher) should be able to adapt/hex-edit new patches/trek.exe.
Or is "basic" folder (patches shared in all popular mods) a separate thing form main patches folder for users?
I don't know how many bugs is too many but that point is reached somewhere before however many in BotF is.
-
- Site Administrator aka Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 7971
- Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:00 am
- Location: On a three month training mission, in command of the USS Valiant.
Re: Included Patch folders for installer
I have done nothing so far, so all is possible, but my thought would beSpocks-cuddly-tribble wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 3:19 pmOr is "basic" folder (patches shared in all popular mods) a separate thing form main patches folder for users?thunderchero wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 4:39 pmIf all mods use exact same version collect those patches for a "basic" patch folder (remove these patches from mod folders)
start with the folder QD created (currently in installer named "Patches") check for outdated and patches that have deviations.
remove any patch from mod folder that has matching code changes already in "Patches" folder.
any patch commonly used in mod folders and not in "Patches" folder add to "Patches" folder.
After all that, mod folders should only have deviations and mod specific changes, deviation patches will be part of mod folders. (this should give us popular deviations)
then double check all patches for proper patch deviation documentation and URL's.
how long this will take I have no idea.
edit; after 3 hours getting so frustrated with deviations and conflicts I decided to just add the 3 new mod folders as they are now and "Patches" folder and other mod folders will remain as before also.
-
- Code Master
- Posts: 1962
- Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:00 am
Re: Included Patch folders for installer
Yeah, there is no real need to change/optimize mod patches.thunderchero wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:29 pmafter 3 hours getting so frustrated with deviations and conflicts I decided to just add the 3 new mod folders as they are now and "Patches" folder and other mod folders will remain as before also.
I'll think about a few adjustments to base patches folder, at least some updated patches plus diagnostic patches. Perhaps sub-folders and/or prefix sorting.
And there is many UI cosmetic patches like res patches (btw bof-res-patch is noob confusing - First I thought it was for editing stbof.RES files).
I don't know how many bugs is too many but that point is reached somewhere before however many in BotF is.
-
- Site Administrator aka Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 7971
- Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:00 am
- Location: On a three month training mission, in command of the USS Valiant.
Re: Included Patch folders for installer
here is patch folder for next beta version
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.