UE Map Editor

[thunderchero]

quick test of latest 16bitTGA branch (downloaded today)

when opening "in-game text" I get this error on vanilla res

ingame.jpg (32.99 KiB) Viewed 2017 times

still need to load some mods later,

Looks good though except above issue.

[Flocke]

quick test of latest 16bitTGA branch (downloaded today)

Ah, great you found some time to test. I just fixed it on map_sys_gen branch and will merge it in a moment.

Edit: merged to 16bitTGA branch

[Flocke]

There was also a bug when diplomatic order 'declare war' was given before saving i.e. that saved game was corrupted (not the running game). But one had to reload and click 'turn' to notice. Has this been fixed?

Finally I found time to analyse and fix this weird bug. I mean to analyse the broken save and write an UE integrity check for it.

It's a somewhat funny glitch. When you declare war, save and reload, the user input becomes partially frozen and you can't click any buttons anymore.
In one game I first had to re-select same race in diplomatics view, in others the input already froze after game load.

It is however easy to recover. With the keyboard F5 button you still can enter the diplomatics view and there, for the broken war declaration, you find the only button that still works, which is the send button. Once clicked, all works normal again and you can cancel the war declaration.

Astonishingly, on second war declaration, saving the game again fixed the bug. Therefore I could easily track it down to the diplomatic order action, which was set to -1. Setting it to 0 fixed the bug.

Having declared war twice btw actually resulted in a second ordInfo war declaration entry. The first one still was binary identical to the bugged game, the second entry however somehow did override the first one and still fixed the bug. Comparing both the entries by my surprise showed, that almost each value of the diplomatic order was different. Nonetheless, fixing the action value solved the bug.

[thunderchero]

quick test of latest 16bitTGA branch (downloaded today)

Ah, great you found some time to test. I just fixed it on map_sys_gen branch and will merge it in a moment.

Edit: merged to 16bitTGA branch

tested new 16bitTGA branch without issues, did quick test on MUM no issue

but will note in "Add and remove ship models"
1. MUM uses the "TMP" slot for almost 50% of it's models. would there be any way to read shiplist (prefix of ship) instead of phaser slots? example if no dedicated slot use TMP slot for phaser data.
2. did adding ships on different resolution get put on back burner?

[Flocke]

but will note in "Add and remove ship models"
1. MUM uses the "TMP" slot for almost 50% of it's models. would there be any way to read shiplist (prefix of ship) instead of phaser slots? example if no dedicated slot use TMP slot for phaser data.

Hmn, I had a quick look. UE determines installed ships from trek.exe 'ShipModelSegment', which likely refers to the phaser slots you mentioned. This likely was done so in thought it would limit the model list. When that's not the case, we instead need a mapping for the used slot and it would rather become a property of the ship stats data.

It however is too much to aproach refactoring this for now. And I'd also rather want to work on some code extensions again.

2. did adding ships on different resolution get put on back burner?

Yep, that's a 'convenience' request which I'll leave for a later time.
And I think the 1st request actually has a higher priority for ship model import.

So for both cases you likely will have to wait a while longer.
But would make a good start for a new feature request list.

[thunderchero]

So for both cases you likely will have to wait a while longer.
But would make a good start for a new feature request list.

sounds good to me, I am starting to wonder if I will even make end of month release date theses days.

[Flocke]

For reference I looked up documentation for the TMP slot:
viewtopic.php?p=32044#p32044

Having checked usage of the ingame slots, which define phaser slots and ship model scale, it's a rather complex topic. You can't put everything into the TMP ship model slot given that the scale and the phaser slots need to match. Therefore some menu like the current ship model import & export one is needed to do the compatibility checking.
Furthermore, sharing of normal slots is limited by the graphics name length.

With documentation above for me it reads like we better replace that whole load_ship_exe_slots_eaxHob routine and read the data from some extendable xml files or something. That should help to solve the mess. And if I get things right, that way we even can increase the graphics name length to what is used in shiplist.sst.

So before I waste time on the complex UE import/export menu, I rather investigate code extension.

[Flocke]

sounds good to me, I am starting to wonder if I will even make end of month release date theses days.

Don't push me! Before risking any further blame I went ahead now!
When with some additional testing you don't find any larger issues, UE should be ready to be included.

[Spocks-cuddly-tribble]

I could easily track it down to the diplomatic order action, which was set to -1. Setting it to 0 fixed the bug.

second ordInfo war declaration entry (...) almost each value of the diplomatic order was different. Nonetheless, fixing the action value solved the bug.

Nice, this narrows down the search for the corrupted asm area.

You can't put everything into the TMP ship model slot given that the scale and the phaser slots need to match. Therefore some menu like the current ship model import & export one is needed to do the compatibility checking.

So before I waste time on the complex UE import/export menu, I rather investigate code extension.

I think thunderchero is well aware of this, it's just about an easier viewing option for all ships sharing the temp slot (with identical scale, phaser and damage slot values) via "no dedicated slot".

If you revisit the topic don't forget UE support of the phaser firing arc bitmasks at the end the trek.exe slots @ 3: viewtopic.php?p=56589#p56589

[Flocke]

If you revisit the topic don't forget UE support of the phaser firing arc bitmasks at the end the trek.exe slots @ 3: viewtopic.php?p=56589#p56589

Dude, I didn't miss that suggestion, but such asm patching with UE is a bit cumbersome and a bit much work for now. Furthermore here again we might find a better patch implementing some trek.exe extension, if at all it remains any relevant. I mean how might I ever go about implementing a new BotF combat system when all the time I keep messing with the old one?

Nonetheless, like said before, best start a new list for any missed feature requests.

At least, with the latest pre-release you now can edit the refitted Enterprise-D main cannon stats, offensive and defensive capability and have some auto-calculation options. (don't miss the settings button)

[Spocks-cuddly-tribble]

here again we might find a better patch implementing some trek.exe extension, if at all it remains any relevant. I mean how might I ever go about implementing a new BotF combat system when all the time I keep messing with the old one?

Of course, I meant handle the features in the most comfortable way of your choice, if and when you have time and feel like doing so in one of your future projects.

offensive and defensive capability and have some auto-calculation options. (don't miss the settings button)

This AI feature might be useful for mods with new or changed ship stats, i.e. help the AI a bit to sort its ships better for tasks.
Albeit I wouldn't expect a great improvement.

The stats of unfinished/flawed hidden third ship weapon are not really useful, unless a mod author has an idea for a special gimmick.

[Flocke]

+251 (byte) beaten/dead empires bitmask

Verified to be beaten/dead non-AI multiplayer empires and updated for UE.

for what project do you analyse the boring result.lst? Or is this just an auto check for random deviations?

Implementing the new system remove, for ordInfo I revealed another entry type. By a crash on a removed system I found that there exist a special wonder build order type 8 (and likely also a matching result). It is a very plain entry, which only consists of the ordInfo header and:

Code: Select all

  0x0 - 0x1: the system id the order is assigned to
  0x2 - 0x3: the building id / structure index to build
  0x4 - 0x7: always 1 it seems

I remember frequently having seen such 8 byte orders before. But I was unclear on what it's used for.
Without updating those ids, removing all systems >= the wonder build system id lead to a crash. When I tested to remove all orders I however managed to track it down to the wonder build of the edo palace this case.

[Spocks-cuddly-tribble]

ordInfo ... a special wonder build order type 8 (and likely also a matching result). It is a very plain entry, which only consists of the ordInfo header and:

Code: Select all

  0x0 - 0x1: the system id the order is assigned to
  0x2 - 0x3: the building id / structure index to build
  0x4 - 0x7: always 1 it seems

I remember frequently having seen such 8 byte orders before. But I was unclear on what it's used for.
Without updating those ids, removing all systems >= the wonder build system id lead to a crash. When I tested to remove all orders I however managed to track it down to the wonder build of the edo palace this case.

Should be triggered by code of the flawed AI build wonder task B so the issue shouldn't arise with mods using the One-per-Empire buildings fix while disabling the old Build Wonder code: viewtopic.php?p=54784#p54784

OT: It would be really useful to know if minor special builldings can be set to one-per-system with no issues (i.e. no in game change vs one-per-empire). Many mods like UM5 could be fixed with this simple change.

[Flocke]

Should be triggered by code of the flawed AI build wonder task B so the issue shouldn't arise with mods using the One-per-Empire buildings fix while disabling the old Build Wonder code: viewtopic.php?p=54784#p54784

Sorry for confusion. There is no issue with the AI build wonder task. I just needed to include it for system id updates.

[Spocks-cuddly-tribble]

Even if the EDO are part of a player empire and not AI, there still might be a connection with one-per-empire structures and your wonder build order type 8?