Ultimate Mod 5 v5.5 Redux (New)

[klingonfunfunfun]

Sir

This game brings me / us a lot of joy.

We thank you, genuinely, very much, for all that you do

[Martok]

I'm now running into a consistent bug (that I've not seen before):


Playing as the Federation, the game crashes when I click the End Turn button -- but only if I have multiple Colony Ships grouped together in the same task force while terraforming a planet together. If they're terraforming the same planet, but in their own separate TF, then the game runs just fine when I end the turn.

[Spocks-cuddly-tribble]

I'm now running into a consistent bug (that I've not seen before):


Playing as the Federation, the game crashes when I click the End Turn button -- but only if I have multiple Colony Ships grouped together in the same task force while terraforming a planet together. If they're terraforming the same planet, but in their own separate TF, then the game runs just fine when I end the turn.

Strange, I just copied the whole vanilla sub_4691B0 (Terraform) into UM5.5 and it still crashes (all empires).

There is a pointless code deviation and the insta-terraforming fix is fine.

It might have something to do with UM5 special codes for new planet types i.e. a loop error with former gas giants when using more than one colony ship.

You say the issue is new in UM5.5?


Here is code deviation fix, but it doesn't affect the crash issue:

Code: Select all

NAME: UM 5.5 Terraform code deviation (pointless?) -> restore vanilla

>> 0x68641 66 8B 43 08 90 90
<< 0x68641 8B 43 06 C1 F8 10

[thunderchero]

I'm now running into a consistent bug (that I've not seen before):


Playing as the Federation, the game crashes when I click the End Turn button -- but only if I have multiple Colony Ships grouped together in the same task force while terraforming a planet together. If they're terraforming the same planet, but in their own separate TF, then the game runs just fine when I end the turn.

If you really want to avoid this crash you need to remove 18 fleet taskforce patch and start a new game.

Note: I only tested 1 terraform system with no crash and no idea if removing task force patch will conflict with other code changes.

[Martok]

You say the issue is new in UM5.5?

That is correct, yes. To the best of my knowledge/recollection, I've never encountered this bug in vanilla BOTF, or in any other mod. I'm also quite certain I didn't experience this issue with the previous version of UM5.

If you really want to avoid this crash you need to remove 18 fleet taskforce patch and start a new game.

Note: I only tested 1 terraform system with no crash and no idea if removing task force patch will conflict with other code changes.

So funny thing...



As I've stated numerous times over the years, I'm a complete idiot when it comes to even the most minor technical aspects of modding games, including & especially BOTF. I can barely even figure out how to use Ultimate Editor, though i have managed it (at least to some extent).

Therefore, when I pulled up the patcher tool and didn't find the 18-ship TF patch, I naturally assumed it meant it (somehow) hadn't even been applied to UM5 this time around. So on a -- hunch? whim? (I've no idea what to call it) -- what I did instead was *add* the 18-ship TF patch, with 6 ship icons in the first row of the info box.

...And just like that, my game no longer crashes. I can once again have colony ships grouped together in a task force and terraforming a planet, and there are (thus far) no further issues when I hit the End Turn button. I have no idea how/why that apparently fixed the problem; make of it what you will.

[Martok]

...Except now my game is crashing whenever I click on the Heavy Cruiser 1 or Heavy Explorer in the Federation tech tree. (It did not do this when I started this game.) Sigh.

[thunderchero]

what I did instead was *add* the 18-ship TF patch, with 6 ship icons in the first row of the info box.

that would be reinstalling taskforce patch, I suggested removing taskforce patch

...Except now my game is crashing whenever I click on the Heavy Cruiser 1 or Heavy Explorer in the Federation tech tree. (It did not do this when I started this game.) Sigh.

since this started happening after you made changes you need to un-install and reinstall UM5
then confirm this issue is still happening on un-edited install.

[Dafedz]

Hi,

I just installed this from the top 10 installers app, and suspect there are various typos in ship costs. Although I could be missing something.

For example, is the Fed Tactical Cruiser IV really supposed to have inferior torps (15 x 109) compared to III (18 x 100)? Is the Fed Heavy Explorer supposed to be so inexpensive, given that their cost structure is usually not the lowest (24710)? There may be other oddities.

Just to quickly answer- no this is as it should be. Tactical Cruiser IV (Prometheus) is still a major upgrade to the type III (Nebula). Although it has fewer photon launchers it has a superior beam count, and does far more damage (90 as opposed to 60). The over all Power of the Prometheus is much greater than the Nebula.

I made a spreadsheet formula to help balance ship strengths, and it can be visualized this way:

Firepower + Defence = POWER [total]

where

(beamNumber * beamDmg) * (beamAccuracy/100) + (torpNumber * TorpDmg) * (torpAccuracy/100) = FIREPOWER

and

(shieldStrength + defensePoints) + (shieldRecharge) + (hullStrength) = DEFENCE

Fed Tactical Cruiser III and IV Power Rating.
Nebula: 5,852
Prometheus: 7,654

Thus the latter is far superior, in fact the Prometheus is the best Tactical ship in game (slightly ahead of the Klingon Strike Ship IV)

As for the cost of the Fed Heavy Explorer. It's relatively balanced with the ship cost formula of all other Fed ship costs that preceded it (though there are slight variations here and there). It appears 'cheap', but consider its Firepower is the lowest of all empire endgame Heavy Commands. This is offset however by it having the best Defence rating. It's over all POWER rating (11,123) is 'average', in the middle, being slightly superior to the Cards Ranor (10,295) and Roms Valdore (10,770), but inferior to the Dominion Legend (11,174) and Klingon Negh'Var (12,711 - being the strongest in game). Hope this clears things up.

[Flocke]

Since it doesn't really fit in the map edit topic:

just on a side note integrity check also flag that issue on that image, as well as 3 other vanilla image wrong size
Info: in edifice.bst: Image size 270x226 of Cun_b.tga deviates from default 270x225 pixels.
Info: in edifice.bst: Image size 270x226 of Fun_b.tga deviates from default 270x225 pixels.
Info: in race.rst: Image size 159x170 of antidean.tga deviates from default 160x170 pixels.

UM5 latest issue make me ask about different resolutions for structures?
should UE also check this during integrity check?

I already planned to improve integrity checks anyhow. Here is what my latest build on map_sys_gen branch now reports for UM5 for my 1366x768 install.
That includes improved edifice.bst, shiplist.sst, techtree.tec and race.rst integrity checks, that now check WDF image placeholder area and trek.exe file names.

Some of it is already fixed if I'm correct.

Code: Select all

Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gidb_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Error: in edifice.bst: Image mzal2_c.tga for htechost.wdf is missing!
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gsrp4_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gsf4_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gidb_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gdcf2_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gsunv_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gidb_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 170x142 of mmiraw.tga doesn't match hsolars.wdf placeholder 2010 with 120x100 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gsrp4_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gsrp4_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gsrp4_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gsrp4_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gsrp4_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gsrp4_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gsrp4_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gsrp4_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gsf4_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gsf4_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gsf4_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gsf4_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gsf4_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gsf4_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gsf4_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gsf4_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gidb_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gidb_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gidb_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gidb_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gidb_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gidb_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gidb_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gidb_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gdcf2_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gdcf2_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gdcf2_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gdcf2_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gdcf2_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gdcf2_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gdcf2_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gdcf2_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gsunv_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gsunv_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gsunv_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gsunv_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gsunv_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gsunv_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gsunv_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Warning: in edifice.bst: Image size 75x63 of gsunv_60.tga doesn't match htechl.wdf placeholder 3401 with 60x50 pixels.
Error: in edifice.bst: Image mzal1_c.tga for htechost.wdf is missing!
Info: in palette.lst: Trimmed 18 entries and removed 0 unused palettes.
Error: in shiplist.sst: Image i_hh5270.tga for hsolbld.wdf is missing!
Warning: in shiplist.sst: Image size 120x90 of i_hh0w.tga doesn't match hsolars.wdf placeholder 2010 with 120x100 pixels.
Error: in shiplist.sst: Image i_h__270.tga for hsolbld.wdf is missing!
Error: in shiplist.sst: Image i_rn270.tga for hsolbld.wdf is missing!

also see viewtopic.php?p=59143#p59143

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

Hi,

I just installed this from the top 10 installers app, and suspect there are various typos in ship costs. Although I could be missing something.

Just to quickly answer- no this is as it should be....

I made a spreadsheet formula to help balance ship strengths, and it can be visualized this way:

Firepower + Defence = POWER [total]

where

(beamNumber * beamDmg) * (beamAccuracy/100) + (torpNumber * TorpDmg) * (torpAccuracy/100) = FIREPOWER

and

(shieldStrength + defensePoints) + (shieldRecharge) + (hullStrength) = DEFENCE

That makes sense, even though I expected each aspect of a ship to always improve.

Is the difference in shields between Cruiser IV (880 (95)/290) and V (137(68)/370) also intended?

Thanks,

Ken

[Dafedz]

That makes sense, even though I expected each aspect of a ship to always improve.

Is the difference in shields between Cruiser IV (880 (95)/290) and V (137(68)/370) also intended?

Thanks,

Ken

The first one you quote is for the Light Cruiser VI (Nova class), not Cruiser IV. And those stats are correct.

But there is an error for Cruiser V. Well spotted.

Incorrect stats for Cruiser V
Shield Recharge: 68
Shield Strength: 137
Hull Strength: 370

The way this is set up means there's no way to 'import' the spread sheet data into UE. Every field (thousands) have to entered by hand one by one. Errors are inevitable. I had thought I had done a better job of avoiding them.

The Fed shield/hull stats for Cruisers V should be:

Shield Recharge: 137
Shield Strength: 1,070
Hull Strength: 370

The correction will have to go out in a future patch.

[Flocke]

The way this is set up means there's no way to 'import' the spread sheet data into UE. Every field (thousands) have to entered by hand one by one. Errors are inevitable. I had thought I had done a better job of avoiding them.

Sounds like a valid request!
Shouldn't be too hard to implement when you provide a sample and we can agree on a common format.
I could both support some csv value format or check on xls and xlsx library support.

[thunderchero]

The way this is set up means there's no way to 'import' the spread sheet data into UE. Every field (thousands) have to entered by hand one by one. Errors are inevitable. I had thought I had done a better job of avoiding them.

Sounds like a valid request!
Shouldn't be too hard to implement when you provide a sample and we can agree on a common format.
I could both support some csv value format or check on xls and xlsx library support.

QD created a tool some time ago, but don't know if his spreadsheet would work or not.
"Tool for editing and importing the ship list to stbof.res"
viewtopic.php?p=37706#p37706

[Flocke]

QD created a tool some time ago, but don't know if his spreadsheet would work or not.
"Tool for editing and importing the ship list to stbof.res"
viewtopic.php?p=37706#p37706

Nice!! Looks like there went quite some work into the .xlsm spreadsheet.

Ship editing is a core feature of UE, so there should be some built in import & export option

With LibreOffice I sadly can't run the macros from that spreadsheet, but I can use it to investigate the columns and implement the needed csv import & export.

I also checked the macro code, it looks quite messy but ok. It's rather some lacked feature support by the LibreOffice Calc I guess. Already basic calls like Application.Sheets fail.

LibreOffice_VBA_Error.jpg (43.26 KiB) Viewed 1205 times

[Lathon]

QD created a tool some time ago, but don't know if his spreadsheet would work or not.
"Tool for editing and importing the ship list to stbof.res"
viewtopic.php?p=37706#p37706

Nice!! Looks like there went quite some work into the .xlsm spreadsheet.

Ship editing is a core feature of UE, so there should be some built in import & export option

With LibreOffice I sadly can't run the macros from that spreadsheet, but I can use it to investigate the columns and implement the needed csv import & export.

I also checked the macro code, it looks quite messy but ok. It's rather some lacked feature support by the LibreOffice Calc I guess. Already basic calls like Application.Sheets fail.
LibreOffice_VBA_Error.jpg

That's a VBA call, so I'm not surprised it's not working. If I remember correctly, LibreOffice only has limited supported for VBA code.

Also, Excel Macro's are no fun to deal with....