Home » MODDING HQ 1.13 » v1.13 Idea Incubation Lab  » New Attachment System Alpha
Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248750] Thu, 08 April 2010 00:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot is currently offline DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3658
Registered:July 2009
I think one of the main drawbacks in real life, besides those you mentioned, is quite simply that you have to carry this gun all day long (especially in the military) and everyone will think twice if he takes this additional, cool attachment if he has a bunch of other stuff to hurl around and from what I heard, every kilogram matters under such conditions. It would be hard to simulate this properly without getting serious protests as some people just like to be prepared and load their mercs to the limit (me to). The weight you can carry in game might be realistic from an isolated perspective, but normally you would also have loads of other, not combat related stuff to carry which basically would restrict your mercs to a rifle and a sidearm.
I could also imagine that the weight would make it harder to keep the rifle readied for extended periods of time. Another thing that can't be simulated in game.
Quote:
equip all my forces with contender encores and let them assualt them in whole platoons.

that sounds hilarious, one day, I'll have to try this
btw: yeah, I ran out of cheesy ideas for balance, at least for now.

Report message to a moderator

Captain

Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248753] Thu, 08 April 2010 01:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
systemfehler

 
Messages:117
Registered:September 2007
Location: Hanover, Germany
DepressivesBrot
I could also imagine that the weight would make it harder to keep the rifle readied for extended periods of time. Another thing that can't be simulated in game.


Maybe they just lose energy over time and by shooting a lot. And forces the merc to lower his weapon once turn based is over, I remember mercs doing that without me telling them.

Report message to a moderator

Sergeant
Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248755] Thu, 08 April 2010 02:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mauser is currently offline Mauser

 
Messages:756
Registered:August 2006
Location: Bavaria - Germany
systemfehler
DepressivesBrot
I could also imagine that the weight would make it harder to keep the rifle readied for extended periods of time. Another thing that can't be simulated in game.


Maybe they just lose energy over time and by shooting a lot. And forces the merc to lower his weapon once turn based is over, I remember mercs doing that without me telling them.


that indeed would be an idea! the heavyer and bulkier the weapon, the more stamina is lost with every shot/burst, when not using bipods or other stabilizers. that indeed could somewhat simulate the worse ergonomics coming with overly heavy and bulky guns and their usage.

of course, the stamina loss would have to be quite subtle but noticeable. after all, firing heavyer guns like some LMGs or large caliber rifles also can be quite stressful and exhausting. and a fully tricked out AR can be almost as heavy as a basic LMG after all.

now, if we could somehow deduct a stamina loss value from the overall heavyness and bulkyness from the gun and deduct such a value from the number and weight of attachments, then this might actually help balancing things out somewhat and make combat and the right equipment for it more meaningful.

so basically, you have to make a tradeoff between increased weapon performance and flexibility and the stamina required to actually effectively use the weapon for a prolonged period of time.

what do you think of that folks and who thinks he could possibly code something like that? Headrock maybe?

Report message to a moderator

First Sergeant
Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248763] Thu, 08 April 2010 06:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
usrbid is currently offline usrbid

 
Messages:1506
Registered:December 2008
DepressivesBrot
3. Trigger groups are already tagged as scifi, then again it's a matter of tweaking the xmls to adjust balance to the new system, perhaps restrict them to certain families of rifles.


Many ARs can be separated in a lower receiver and an upper receiver. The lower receiver needs to have a switch to allow for burst (or auto) fire. To get support for burst (or auto) fire mode(s), the fire control mechanism inside the lower receiver (but purchase-able separately) needs to support it.

For better full auto support it is recommended to have a lighter bolt carrier group as part of the upper receiver, however this is not mandatory. A gun with a full auto fire control mechanism but a semi auto only bolt carrier group will perform (mostly) fine. Most upper manufacturers offer full auto and semi auto uppers such as the "CQB MRP Piston Top End, 16

Report message to a moderator

Sergeant Major

Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248781] Thu, 08 April 2010 14:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Hairysteed is currently offline Hairysteed

 
Messages:193
Registered:December 2007
Location: Finland
Dieter
For better full auto support it is recommended to have a lighter bolt carrier group as part of the upper receiver

In game terms: Rod&Spring

Report message to a moderator

Staff Sergeant
Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248786] Thu, 08 April 2010 15:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
usrbid is currently offline usrbid

 
Messages:1506
Registered:December 2008
Uh, I like that, hehehe!! :evil grin:

Report message to a moderator

Sergeant Major

Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248804] Thu, 08 April 2010 17:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CptMoore

 
Messages:224
Registered:March 2009
In trunk. Now. Pls.

hehe

Report message to a moderator

Sergeant 1st Class
Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248809] Thu, 08 April 2010 18:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot is currently offline DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3658
Registered:July 2009
Thanks for explaining Dieter.
Another question that always bothered me: Why has full auto always the highest AP cost?
I mean, shouldn't the first round in full auto cost the same as single shots? With bursts requiring the same amount of AP as the same number of rounds in full auto? (except for very fast bursts like G11 and AN94)
I know APs don't exactly represent a unit of time but I always failed to see the logic behind this, some obscure 'getting a tighter grip on your weapon'?

Report message to a moderator

Captain

Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248815] Thu, 08 April 2010 20:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
razer is currently offline razer

 
Messages:26
Registered:April 2007
Location: Germany
Maybe its game balancing?

Report message to a moderator

Private 1st Class
Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248821] Thu, 08 April 2010 20:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Faithless is currently offline Faithless

 
Messages:439
Registered:October 2009
Location: The safe end of the barre...
Probably, 3 shots in autofire have to be more AP's than 3 shots in burst fire, or the use of burst fire becomes only to save ammo.
(or for low exp mercs that will fire your clip empty instead of 4 bullets)

Report message to a moderator

Master Sergeant
Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248833] Thu, 08 April 2010 22:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot is currently offline DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3658
Registered:July 2009
Yeah, but from what I found online, this IS the purpose of burst mode. To keep rookies from emptying their magazines under stress conditions.

I'm just asking because razer brought up trigger groups in relation to overpowered weapons.
For me, having the certainty that the burst I'm going to fire will cost the AP it shows before would be a sufficient reason for using trigger groups. There are those situations when you have 2 enemies in front of you and have to get into cover afterwards and this will only work if your merc doesn't decide to spend an extra couple of rounds on the first bad guy.

So I thought this could counter the trigger groups potential to overpower weapons.
Right now you can lower burst cost to nearly the level of single shots which is only countered by the fact that it takes 3/4 of your available slots and is therefore only useful fir special purposes like emergency sidearms (I used to equip MP7s late in the game that way as there aren't many other useful attachments for them anyway)

Report message to a moderator

Captain

Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248834] Thu, 08 April 2010 22:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Faithless is currently offline Faithless

 
Messages:439
Registered:October 2009
Location: The safe end of the barre...
In my opinion the only correct way to correct trigger groups is to charge AP costs for switching firing modes.

Report message to a moderator

Master Sergeant
Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248838] Thu, 08 April 2010 23:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot is currently offline DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3658
Registered:July 2009
But that would probably require 2 keys/buttons for fire modes (or a context menu as for doors??) as with the current system you'd get lots of complaints.
let's take (the probably most extreme) example:
Say switching costs 4 AP (probably too much) and your AICW is currently on 'burst', you want semi
currently you have to cycle trough full - grenade single - grenade auto - semi resulting in wasting 16 AP compared to 4 if you could just flip the selector down.

Just playing devils advocate here, but see what I'm getting at?

Report message to a moderator

Captain

Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248839] Thu, 08 April 2010 23:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Faithless is currently offline Faithless

 
Messages:439
Registered:October 2009
Location: The safe end of the barre...
Unless when you charge the AP in the upcoming shot.

Report message to a moderator

Master Sergeant
Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248841] Thu, 08 April 2010 23:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot is currently offline DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3658
Registered:July 2009
yes, that would just require keeping track if the firemode was changed. But is it really justifiable to charge AP for such a small action? Unless you have a really awkward constructed weapon, it's not much more of a move than clicking your mouse.

Report message to a moderator

Captain

Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248842] Thu, 08 April 2010 23:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Faithless is currently offline Faithless

 
Messages:439
Registered:October 2009
Location: The safe end of the barre...
I believe it's justifiable to charge AP's for flipping that switch. AP's have been charged for less.
I'm not sure it's worth the effort though...

Report message to a moderator

Master Sergeant
Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248851] Fri, 09 April 2010 03:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Hairysteed is currently offline Hairysteed

 
Messages:193
Registered:December 2007
Location: Finland
DepressivesBrot
Say switching costs 4 AP (probably too much) and your AICW is currently on 'burst', you want semi
currently you have to cycle trough full - grenade single - grenade auto - semi resulting in wasting 16 AP compared to 4 if you could just flip the selector down.

Sorry for nitpicking, but since the AICW is based on the AUG series I would assume it has that same two-stage trigger for semi and full auto - no need to flip selector switches.

...which brings to question: how would you treat weapons such as the AUG family or Jati-matic that have two-stage triggers instead of selector switches?

Report message to a moderator

Staff Sergeant
Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248861] Fri, 09 April 2010 10:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot is currently offline DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3658
Registered:July 2009
I just chose this as the most extreme example as it has 5 fire modes, didn't care for different designs, actually didn't even know of those. As for treating them, a bonus for 'switch cost' or ignore them for sake of simplicity.
But as WarmSteel already said, it's doubtable the whole system is worth the effort.

Report message to a moderator

Captain

Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248864] Fri, 09 April 2010 12:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Hairysteed is currently offline Hairysteed

 
Messages:193
Registered:December 2007
Location: Finland
I think selector switch AP costs and stamina loss for heavier weapons are not yet priority items let alone related NAS development, so let's get back to topic:

How are rail upgrades going to be handled? I saw a rifle lam/flashlight attached on the AKM, which isn't a valid attachment for it in Vanilla. Are there going to be RIS versions of every weapon which you can get by merging a RIS handguard or is a RIS handguard another attachment that will enable more attachment slots?

Report message to a moderator

Staff Sergeant
Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248865] Fri, 09 April 2010 12:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Faithless is currently offline Faithless

 
Messages:439
Registered:October 2009
Location: The safe end of the barre...
The old merging system will stay for the ones that already exist, for now.
But the possibility to make attachments that alter the slots that are on a gun is already in NAS.
People who want to make attachments like that are free to do so.
Merges will have to stay for the old attachment system.

EDIT: This feature is a bit broken right now, but it's been fixed and will work correctly in the next version.

[Updated on: Fri, 09 April 2010 12:17] by Moderator

Report message to a moderator

Master Sergeant
Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248924] Sat, 10 April 2010 01:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Faithless is currently offline Faithless

 
Messages:439
Registered:October 2009
Location: The safe end of the barre...
Removing any attachment that adds extra ammo now unloads your magazine.
This means mag adapters can be removeable now.

EDIT: Well, this goes for the next update. It will also work without NAS.

[Updated on: Sat, 10 April 2010 01:11] by Moderator

Report message to a moderator

Master Sergeant
Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248936] Sat, 10 April 2010 03:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mauser is currently offline Mauser

 
Messages:756
Registered:August 2006
Location: Bavaria - Germany
Excellent news Warmsteel!

so basically, realizing my concept of determining the magazine size of a gun completely through magazine type attachments is now possible, yes?

well, can

Report message to a moderator

First Sergeant
Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248945] Sat, 10 April 2010 11:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Faithless is currently offline Faithless

 
Messages:439
Registered:October 2009
Location: The safe end of the barre...
Not... quite...
Ammo is still read from a special place for ammo on the gun. You'd have to change this, also.
I've just made it possible to de-attach mag adapters without exploits.

This new ammo system would probably interfere with the old attachment system though, and separating it would probably also be messy.

[Updated on: Sat, 10 April 2010 11:08] by Moderator

Report message to a moderator

Master Sergeant
Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248951] Sat, 10 April 2010 18:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Faithless is currently offline Faithless

 
Messages:439
Registered:October 2009
Location: The safe end of the barre...
Fixed a crash concerning sorting items. Think this one was also in 1.13, though.

Report message to a moderator

Master Sergeant
Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248952] Sat, 10 April 2010 18:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mauser is currently offline Mauser

 
Messages:756
Registered:August 2006
Location: Bavaria - Germany
WarmSteel
Not... quite...
Ammo is still read from a special place for ammo on the gun. You'd have to change this, also.
I've just made it possible to de-attach mag adapters without exploits.

This new ammo system would probably interfere with the old attachment system though, and separating it would probably also be messy.



well, since we can now determine the magazine capacity of a gun completely through appropriate attachments, i don cannot see what would stand in the way of implementing my basic system?

right now we easily could make all guns in the XMLs have only one single round of ammo capacity by default, which in turn can be increased by the use of an extending magazine attachment type, where one such attachment type will be applied to most guns by default.

the attachment determines the current magazine size of the weapon and what type of magazine it unloads, so we could model a much more flexible system with this, allthough it

Report message to a moderator

First Sergeant
Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248957] Sat, 10 April 2010 20:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2815
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
Careful there Mauser, there are still people who swear by Old-Inventory, and that option, like the original screen resolution should be respected. (As NIV more or less did.)

Now that being said, I have gotten around to downloading NAS and examining the XML's. I like what I see, despite not actually having time to figure out what XML does what. Now while I personally have no fears about editing XML's with Notepad (and have been since acquiring a Windows 7 computer), I can see demands already for some kind of GUI Editor. I think I may just produce a mini-mod for the UC Hybrid based on this, once I figure out how to.

Any plans to include silhouettes (like NIV) to give a graphical indication of what a specific slot does?

EDIT: Oh and how will this attachment changing attachment slots work? This is something that I will be using if available.

[Updated on: Sat, 10 April 2010 20:55] by Moderator

Report message to a moderator

Lieutenant

Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248970] Sun, 11 April 2010 01:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Faithless is currently offline Faithless

 
Messages:439
Registered:October 2009
Location: The safe end of the barre...
Just a little heads up for you guys, the next version of NAS will break savegame compability.

Report message to a moderator

Master Sergeant
Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248972] Sun, 11 April 2010 02:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Faithless is currently offline Faithless

 
Messages:439
Registered:October 2009
Location: The safe end of the barre...
wil473
Any plans to include silhouettes (like NIV) to give a graphical indication of what a specific slot does?

No plans for this what-so-ever. I'm not much of an artist. If anyone else wants to, be my guest Smile

wil473
EDIT: Oh and how will this attachment changing attachment slots work? This is something that I will be using if available.

It already does kind of work, though it is bugged in the current release (changing one item will change ALL items with the same index. Fixed in the next update, though).
In the AttachmentSlotAssign.xml you can put any number of slotIndex[/addsSlot] and slotIndex[/removesSlot].

Report message to a moderator

Master Sergeant
Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248983] Sun, 11 April 2010 10:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Czert is currently offline Czert

 
Messages:105
Registered:August 2007
It is posible to indroduce penalties to overpimped guns, or it need changing code to do that ?
BTW - it is hard to say, which weapon is overpimped, becase many weapons IRL have 6 attachments and are very happily used in combat.

Report message to a moderator

Sergeant
Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248988] Sun, 11 April 2010 12:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Faithless is currently offline Faithless

 
Messages:439
Registered:October 2009
Location: The safe end of the barre...
The attachment XML's can be changed or you can change code to do it, depends what you want.
I might wait for some upcoming updates before balancing the attachments, though.
Might bring out a temporary XML for that time that balances some attachments.

Report message to a moderator

Master Sergeant
Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #249033] Sun, 11 April 2010 17:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2815
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
Right I've completed most of my to-do list for now, and have time to figure out this NAS stuff.

As far as silhouettes go, sure I can do some graphics, nobody has complained yet about the ones I added to the NIV implementation used in the UC-113 Hybrid. I wasn't thinking of anything too creative, perhaps:
- taking the NIV "Rifle Grenade" picture and turning it on its side for the grenade slot
- some kind of thread pattern on a rectangle for the threaded barrel
- eye and generic scope for the scope mount
- rail tracks for RIS

In fact I was thinking when the actual workings of NAS is done and tested, the NIV code (and even the multi-page STi file) for the silhouette grahics could be recycled for this purpose.

Now with game balance, we do have the AP Reduction and To Hit variables to mess around with. From my experience they work reasonably well to penalize the player under the correct circumstances, though the floor for negative vaules could be dropped a bit lower. The problem is it is hard to think of a "realistic" or "intuitive" penalty for an attachment which is meant to increase CTH and/or reduce AP.

[Updated on: Sun, 11 April 2010 17:19] by Moderator

Report message to a moderator

Lieutenant

Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #249037] Sun, 11 April 2010 17:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Starwalker is currently offline Starwalker

 
Messages:759
Registered:October 2005
Location: Hannover, Germany
For NGAP we planned to have AP-penalties for the heavier attachments, that's why we did the 100AP-system first (to have a higher resolution for these penalties), besides the other reasons.

Report message to a moderator

First Sergeant

Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #249039] Sun, 11 April 2010 18:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1760
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
Yeah, the game should calculate the added weight of all attachments (I.E. without the gun itself), then add some percentage to DRAW-COST and/or FIRING_COST. Possibly using a curvy-graph formula to make the effect more pronounced the more attachments are added.

Report message to a moderator

Sergeant Major

Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #249044] Sun, 11 April 2010 18:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2815
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
I would favour penalties defined at the attachment slot for the following reasons:

1) it is more transparent than some formula based on weight
2) the same attachment will have a different effect depending on which slot it uses; ie. a RIS LAM attached on the "optics" RIS is going to have a different effect on balance than say attached to a RIS right at the very end of the rifle

How about something that took into account both weight and position? ie. if slot type A is occupied by attachment with weight < X then penalty = Y1, else Y2 (or some formula that calculated penalties based on weight of the attachment)

EDIT:
I've put the NAS files into the correct places and the UC-113 Hybrid does not crash, a very good sign. Alt-W cheat coded my way to view some items, aside from the fact the XML's were designed for Data-1.13 items, looking good so far. In particular Default Attachments seem to be working, as long as things in Data-1.13 line up with the mods. I see quite a bit of data entry in my future just to get the basics working, but at the same time, it seems to be less as it looks like I can define an attachment slot for all RIS items to fit onto and then just make sure each gun that needs this slot has it.

I'm going to see if I can get my implementation of folding stocks to work first, this should end any complaints about me sacrificing one attachment slot for the sake of my alternative to the main 1.13's 1/3 of the time the stock is folded system.

[Updated on: Sun, 11 April 2010 19:07] by Moderator

Report message to a moderator

Lieutenant

Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #249046] Sun, 11 April 2010 19:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CptMoore

 
Messages:224
Registered:March 2009
wil473
I would favour penalties defined at the attachment slot for the following reasons:
1) it is more transparent than some formula based on weight
...

+1

Allowing to understand the rules precisely should be the first priority of any game.

Report message to a moderator

Sergeant 1st Class
Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #249063] Sun, 11 April 2010 22:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Faithless is currently offline Faithless

 
Messages:439
Registered:October 2009
Location: The safe end of the barre...
Quote:
the same attachment will have a different effect depending on which slot it uses; ie. a RIS LAM attached on the "optics" RIS is going to have a different effect on balance than say attached to a RIS right at the very end of the rifle

This would be alot of xml work. You'd have to make alot of the same slots just to simulate attachments going on another spot. It would also just be another complication and I just don't think it's worth it for the little difference it makes.
Might aswell change the stats on the attachments themselves. If the gun takes the attachment on a strange place, then tough luck. We just need to make sure that every attachment has at least a little downside.

Report message to a moderator

Master Sergeant
Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #249066] Sun, 11 April 2010 23:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Faithless is currently offline Faithless

 
Messages:439
Registered:October 2009
Location: The safe end of the barre...
New version of NAS. It has been made to be more reliable in the future (that is, after we get the bugs out).
There are also a few minor fixes, read them on the first page.

Report message to a moderator

Master Sergeant
Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #249111] Mon, 12 April 2010 04:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2815
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
Well that was a bit easier than I expected, I got my folding stock system working with NAS in only a few hours. Works perfectly, though I also in the process removed all the other slots.

Specifics so far:
- Default attachments defined in items.xml work as long as a compatible attachment slot is on the item
- mergers to swap stock items and in the case of MP's weapon items as well work flawlessly
- I only need one slot specific to the folding stock system, and I've figued out how to place it on the end where it intuitively belongs

I imagine the fun/pain will be in filling in each item's slots individually. Thankfully most items do not need an attachment definition, but I am guessing that any item involved in a combo merger (ie. Vanilla JA2 X-Ray Detector) will require that attachment defined in NAS before it works. However before I do that, I'm going to see just how many different slots I am actually using. I am suspecting that philosophical differences I have with Starwalker concering balance and attachment logic may have streamlined things a bit for me.

MS Excel 2003 seems to have no problems manupulating the XML's except ItemSlotAssign. That one seems to work best for me in Notepad.

A questions, I noticed that some of the slots have a list of possible attachments, while others just say Attachments. How is that controlled? (So far in testing I'm using Slot Index 88 for the folding stocks, and 87 as a slot specific for the KORSAK-1 LAM).

Thank you WarmSteel, now that I've had a chance to decipher the XML's this is effectively the attachment system I've been hoping for. If all goes well, I think I can have a basic mini-mod for the UC-Hybrid done in a relatively short time.

EDIT: Oh and I don't mind the XML work, seems more straght forward than additional coding. Besides, as I said before, if it is just simple penalties, the XML's already allow for that. Just drop the maximum allowed negative values and those seeking the "Uber weapon" via excess attachments can be shown the error of their ways without too much effort.

[Updated on: Mon, 12 April 2010 05:12] by Moderator

Report message to a moderator

Lieutenant

Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #249134] Mon, 12 April 2010 06:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mauser is currently offline Mauser

 
Messages:756
Registered:August 2006
Location: Bavaria - Germany
sounds good wil473!

looking forward seeing that stuff in a running UC-1.13 hybrid mod.

might bring me bakc to testing that mod, since it was too crash prone for me when i last tried it.

but since this has to be playtested anyways, why not do it within a proper mod like UC?

hope that

Report message to a moderator

First Sergeant
Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #249151] Mon, 12 April 2010 12:55 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Faithless is currently offline Faithless

 
Messages:439
Registered:October 2009
Location: The safe end of the barre...
Quote:
A questions, I noticed that some of the slots have a list of possible attachments, while others just say Attachments. How is that controlled? (So far in testing I'm using Slot Index 88 for the folding stocks, and 87 as a slot specific for the KORSAK-1 LAM).

Some attachments have the "hidden" flag, those attachments are not displayed.
Also the grenade slot doesnt have any valid attachments in the xml, so it thinks it doesn't have any.

Quote:
but i trust Warmsteel to properly debug his work before releasing it, he seems motivated and capable to deliver some quality coding, right? wink

lets hope so :magician:

Report message to a moderator

Master Sergeant
Previous Topic: WF6.06-Mod_beta_english_for_JA2_1.13NIV2112 and higher
Next Topic: Combo Mod Loader for 1.13
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Mar 28 10:30:38 GMT+2 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.04611 seconds