Topic: OP+ 3.3 Corrections Thread (Read 10676 times)

FireSoul · « **on:** May 24, 2004, 06:09:56 pm »

Please post detected errors in OP+ 3.3 here.

First, a small oops: R-SKX uses Taldren's old Skyhawk model (RDD) instead of replacement model.

FireSoul · « **Reply #1 on:** May 25, 2004, 12:29:41 am »

.. of course.. after sooo many months of playing with 3.2, someone NOW tells me that the K-B11Kn has fighters when it's not supposed to.

TOCXOBearslayer · « **Reply #2 on:** May 28, 2004, 10:54:48 am »

Quote:

.. of course.. after sooo many months of playing with 3.2, someone NOW tells me that the K-B11Kn has fighters when it's not supposed to.

Also, 'The Infiltrator' has noted a wrong YFA for the H-LGE+

wanderer · « **Reply #3 on:** May 28, 2004, 05:15:39 pm »

OP+ has the YFA for the LGE at 7 (2270) and the LGE+ at 25 (2288). The correct YFA's for these ships should be 5 (2268) and 9 (2272). Source is Module R7 Dreadnoughts at War.

Strafer · « **Reply #4 on:** June 05, 2004, 11:16:30 pm »

L-DNL Class type set to Carrier instead of Dread.

FireSoul · « **Reply #5 on:** June 11, 2004, 04:12:45 pm »

note to self: what is the dronecontrol of a K-D6U supposed to be?

Age · « **Reply #7 on:** June 11, 2004, 08:10:01 pm »

I mentioned about the phasers in OP+3.3.These phasers are on F-CX the port and starboard ones the arc doesn't seem correct.The arc is for port isrs and for starboard ls is this correct.I thought that is should be frrx for port and fllx for starbaord is this right or not.This the way it is on all Federation CAs how com not this one?Please check it out FireSoul to see if the arcs are correct.Thanks and your ship are <cool>

DH123 · « **Reply #10 on:** June 17, 2004, 09:22:10 am »

Do any Plasma-D ships come out before 2265? That is when the KRC comes out.

FireSoul · « **Reply #11 on:** June 17, 2004, 09:41:32 am »

Pirates aside.. some bases.. some FRDs.. and some Monitors..

R-SNE (Y162) -- PLaD detected before Y165 -- mount: 39
R-SNE (Y162) -- PLaD detected before Y165 -- mount: 42
R-KRT (Y162) -- PLaD detected before Y165 -- mount: 48
R-KRTc1 (Y162) -- PLaD detected before Y165 -- mount: 48
R-KRTc2 (Y162) -- PLaD detected before Y165 -- mount: 48

So.. that raises the question: what to do about these. Unfortunately, I'm at work, but it may be worthwhile for these ships to be checked in the MSC, and they are truly from Y162, to report them to ADB.

FireSoul · « **Reply #12 on:** June 17, 2004, 12:44:08 pm »

I had the GF check the rulebooks.

good: SNE's date is 172. That'll have to be simply changed to be fixed.
bad: KRT's YFA is 162. (R4.33?)

.. will have to look at the books myself to confirm this. If this is true, then I think I may have found something to report back to ADB as an error.

-- Luc

Edit: Confirmed. I just reported this via the ADB Discussion Boards (Rules Questions/Ships Questions). Is there a better to do so?

FireSoul · « **Reply #13 on:** May 24, 2004, 06:09:56 pm »

Please post detected errors in OP+ 3.3 here.

First, a small oops: R-SKX uses Taldren's old Skyhawk model (RDD) instead of replacement model.

FireSoul · « **Reply #14 on:** May 25, 2004, 12:29:41 am »

.. of course.. after sooo many months of playing with 3.2, someone NOW tells me that the K-B11Kn has fighters when it's not supposed to.

wanderer · « **Reply #16 on:** May 28, 2004, 05:15:39 pm »

OP+ has the YFA for the LGE at 7 (2270) and the LGE+ at 25 (2288). The correct YFA's for these ships should be 5 (2268) and 9 (2272). Source is Module R7 Dreadnoughts at War.

Strafer · « **Reply #17 on:** June 05, 2004, 11:16:30 pm »

L-DNL Class type set to Carrier instead of Dread.

FireSoul · « **Reply #18 on:** June 11, 2004, 04:12:45 pm »

note to self: what is the dronecontrol of a K-D6U supposed to be?

Age · « **Reply #20 on:** June 11, 2004, 08:10:01 pm »

I mentioned about the phasers in OP+3.3.These phasers are on F-CX the port and starboard ones the arc doesn't seem correct.The arc is for port isrs and for starboard ls is this correct.I thought that is should be frrx for port and fllx for starbaord is this right or not.This the way it is on all Federation CAs how com not this one?Please check it out FireSoul to see if the arcs are correct.Thanks and your ship are <cool>

DH123 · « **Reply #23 on:** June 17, 2004, 09:22:10 am »

Do any Plasma-D ships come out before 2265? That is when the KRC comes out.

FireSoul · « **Reply #24 on:** June 17, 2004, 09:41:32 am »

Pirates aside.. some bases.. some FRDs.. and some Monitors..

R-SNE (Y162) -- PLaD detected before Y165 -- mount: 39
R-SNE (Y162) -- PLaD detected before Y165 -- mount: 42
R-KRT (Y162) -- PLaD detected before Y165 -- mount: 48
R-KRTc1 (Y162) -- PLaD detected before Y165 -- mount: 48
R-KRTc2 (Y162) -- PLaD detected before Y165 -- mount: 48

So.. that raises the question: what to do about these. Unfortunately, I'm at work, but it may be worthwhile for these ships to be checked in the MSC, and they are truly from Y162, to report them to ADB.

FireSoul · « **Reply #25 on:** June 17, 2004, 12:44:08 pm »

I had the GF check the rulebooks.

good: SNE's date is 172. That'll have to be simply changed to be fixed.
bad: KRT's YFA is 162. (R4.33?)

.. will have to look at the books myself to confirm this. If this is true, then I think I may have found something to report back to ADB as an error.

-- Luc

Edit: Confirmed. I just reported this via the ADB Discussion Boards (Rules Questions/Ships Questions). Is there a better to do so?

FireSoul · « **Reply #26 on:** June 26, 2004, 11:06:16 am »

bump because I need and use this.

-- Luc

Tulwar · « **Reply #27 on:** July 04, 2004, 02:32:13 pm »

Found something on the Lyran shiplist: The L-DAxPFT, LDR Auxiliary PF Tender has no PFs!

FireSoul · « **Reply #28 on:** July 04, 2004, 03:20:11 pm »

Quote from: Tulwar on July 04, 2004, 02:32:13 pm

Found something on the Lyran shiplist: The L-DAxPFT, LDR Auxiliary PF Tender has no PFs!

Interesting. Thanks.

I'll check it out.

Max Power · « **Reply #29 on:** July 04, 2004, 10:47:27 pm »

Found that there is no E4R in the shiplist. If you care (?).

Mace · « **Reply #30 on:** July 05, 2004, 01:34:52 pm »

Quote from: Max Power on July 04, 2004, 10:47:27 pm

Found that there is no E4R in the shiplist. If you care (?).

Such a Blasphemy!!! Firesoul is definately due a Flogging for that one!!!!!

FPF-DieHard · « **Reply #31 on:** July 05, 2004, 09:07:12 pm »

Federation BCH ships have no entry in Model.siz. The models are HUGE compared to other BCHs

I've naggged you on this already, just posting so you don't forget.

FireSoul · « **Reply #32 on:** July 06, 2004, 09:57:14 am »

Quote from: FPF-DieHard on July 05, 2004, 09:07:12 pm

Federation BCH ships have no entry in Model.siz. The models are HUGE compared to other BCHs

I've naggged you on this already, just posting so you don't forget.

yeah yeah yeah.

~

Nomad · « **Reply #33 on:** July 07, 2004, 10:28:30 pm »

Klink BT ? not balanced at 192.

Compare to Klink TGT at 190.
The BT has 2 more power 4 more distrupter3 2 extra drone racks and plus 2 power for each forward shield.

This baby also has 120 extra drones. In early there isn?t a ship that can stand up to it.
It also takes about 310 point of damage to destroy this ship.

They bvp of this ship should be increased 10-30 points.

For example:
Compare E4 to E4g
E4G has 1 point more of power 2 extra disrupter ones and 1 drone rack and a 19 point bvp increase.

FireSoul · « **Reply #34 on:** July 08, 2004, 09:54:06 am »

Quote from: Nomad on July 07, 2004, 10:28:30 pm

Klink BT ? not balanced at 192.

Compare to Klink TGT at 190.
The BT has 2 more power 4 more distrupter3 2 extra drone racks and plus 2 power for each forward shield.

This baby also has 120 extra drones. In early there isn?t a ship that can stand up to it.
It also takes about 310 point of damage to destroy this ship.

They bvp of this ship should be increased 10-30 points.

For example:
Compare E4 to E4g
E4G has 1 point more of power 2 extra disrupter ones and 1 drone rack and a 19 point bvp increase.

I'll have to look at the klingon tugs and recalculate the BPVs.

Bonk · « **Reply #35 on:** July 08, 2004, 05:21:03 pm »

Any chance we could get a shortcut to the uninstaller on the start menu for the next version? I have a tendency to forget to check the control panel add/remove programs dialog to see if its installed, it helps me to have that reminder on the start menu. (I know, I know - memory like a sieve...)

FireSoul · « **Reply #36 on:** July 08, 2004, 07:39:28 pm »

Quote from: Bonk on July 08, 2004, 05:21:03 pm

Any chance we could get a shortcut to the uninstaller on the start menu for the next version? I have a tendency to forget to check the control panel add/remove programs dialog to see if its installed, it helps me to have that reminder on the start menu. (I know, I know - memory like a sieve...)

I dunno if this is a good idea. Once a person uninstall the game, OP+ becomes crippled, itself.. and the uninstall becomes useless.

FireSoul · « **Reply #37 on:** July 08, 2004, 08:34:36 pm »

Quote from: Nomad on July 07, 2004, 10:28:30 pm

Klink BT ? not balanced at 192.

Compare to Klink TGT at 190.
The BT has 2 more power 4 more distrupter3 2 extra drone racks and plus 2 power for each forward shield.

This baby also has 120 extra drones. In early there isn?t a ship that can stand up to it.
It also takes about 310 point of damage to destroy this ship.

They bvp of this ship should be increased 10-30 points.

For example:
Compare E4 to E4g
E4G has 1 point more of power 2 extra disrupter ones and 1 drone rack and a 19 point bvp increase.

I have your answer. It's the economic cost (EPV) of having a tug with troop transport pods that come up to 190. The BPV itself is around.. 145 for the unrefitted tug + pod.
This is therefore accurate data. Sorry.

Bonk · « **Reply #38 on:** July 08, 2004, 09:35:09 pm »

Quote from: FireSoul on July 08, 2004, 07:39:28 pm

Quote from: Bonk on July 08, 2004, 05:21:03 pm
Any chance we could get a shortcut to the uninstaller on the start menu for the next version? I have a tendency to forget to check the control panel add/remove programs dialog to see if its installed, it helps me to have that reminder on the start menu. (I know, I know - memory like a sieve...)

I dunno if this is a good idea. Once a person uninstall the game, OP+ becomes crippled, itself.. and the uninstall becomes useless.

Won't the entry in the add/remove programs dialog remain anyway? In one case you have an extra entry in the add/remove programs and in the other just an extra shortcut as well? (That can be easily deleted...) Anyhoo, no biggie, just a thought, I proposed using installers in the first place because I was lazy and would forget, lol... I swap mods so frequently I just have to remember to check the add/remove programs dialog. I've enjoyed OP+ since the start, so you go with what makes sense for you.

P.S. it occurs to me that usually when you uninstall OP, files not created in the original installation are not removed, the uninstaller will say could not remove folder blah blah... and so I figure our NSIS uninstallers and installed files will remain functional to be uninstalled as long as the user does not delete the OP folder manually (which often occurs and is suggested), I'm just more likely to remember to uninstall a mod first if its on my start menu to remind me though it could produce a redundant short in the above situation... to be honest I've been running on the same single OP installation for at least two years now uncorrupted, I haven't tested the situation by uninstalling OP... oh the horror!, sacrilege!

FPF-DieHard · « **Reply #39 on:** July 12, 2004, 09:30:00 am »

R-KVL. I think the second R-Torp is on a "phantom" hardpoint and does not show up. This is the case on the LB5 list (based off of OP+ 3.0). I check the 3.3 list, and the hardpoint layout seems to be the same.

FireSoul · « **Reply #40 on:** July 12, 2004, 09:34:17 am »

Quote from: FPF-DieHard on July 12, 2004, 09:30:00 am

R-KVL. I think the second R-Torp is on a "phantom" hardpoint and does not show up. This is the case on the LB5 list (based off of OP+ 3.0). I check the 3.3 list, and the hardpoint layout seems to be the same.

OP+'s R-KVL 2 R-torps are on the same mountpoint, due to a lack of mountpoints.

FPF-DieHard · « **Reply #41 on:** July 12, 2004, 11:03:10 am »

Quote from: FireSoul on July 12, 2004, 09:34:17 am

Quote from: FPF-DieHard on July 12, 2004, 09:30:00 am
R-KVL. I think the second R-Torp is on a "phantom" hardpoint and does not show up. This is the case on the LB5 list (based off of OP+ 3.0). I check the 3.3 list, and the hardpoint layout seems to be the same.

OP+'s R-KVL 2 R-torps are on the same mountpoint, due to a lack of mountpoints.

I know what happened, Ship edit gets funky when you open more than one copy at a time. Thanks for checking.

Age · « **Reply #42 on:** July 12, 2004, 04:22:08 pm »

I would check out the Mirak Z-MCC starboard phaser arcs out I think in is incorrect with the port side.They are both showing different arcs.I am not sure if this intentional or not ?

FireSoul · « **Reply #43 on:** July 12, 2004, 05:54:30 pm »

Quote from: Age on July 12, 2004, 04:22:08 pm

I would check out the Mirak Z-MCC starboard phaser arcs out I think in is incorrect with the port side.They are both showing different arcs.I am not sure if this intentional or not ?

Do you mean the graphics are incorrect?
That's normal with the secretly added arcs to SFC:OP.

Age · « **Reply #44 on:** July 12, 2004, 07:14:51 pm »

No.I mean the arcs don't seem right when I click the arc button.The arcs for the port phaser are RA and the Starboard are FFR.This going by my EAW firing arcs chart.FireSoul could please check this out.Thanks.

FireSoul · « **Reply #45 on:** July 12, 2004, 08:19:02 pm »

Quote from: Age on July 12, 2004, 07:14:51 pm

No.I mean the arcs don't seem right when I click the arc button.The arcs for the port phaser are RA and the Starboard are FFR.This going by my EAW firing arcs chart.FireSoul could please check this out.Thanks.

Let me explain this differently: The arcs are correct, the graphics for them are not. That's because these are arcs were some that were added as easter eggs in a patch and no artwork was available.

Age · « **Reply #46 on:** July 12, 2004, 08:25:57 pm »

Thanks FireSoul.

FireSoul · « **Reply #47 on:** July 15, 2004, 10:38:06 am »

I'm sooo tempted to do this one: Stellar Journal 2/Captain's Log 28, page 16.

Quote

USS Kaufman: A standard four-photon destroyer, the Kaufman was, for reasons never really explained, built with the single warp engine facing backwards. This unique arrangement allowed the ship to fly at top speed away from the enemy while keeping all of her torpedoes bearing on the pursuing enemy force. This ship served with distiction on the Klingon front, unitl its continuing retrograde bought it within range of Romulan squadrons. There, its success continued. Romulan ships maneuvered to uncloak "behind" the fast-moving destroyer, only to find themselves facing the four hot torpedo tubes of the "Killer" Kaufman.

As a personal policy, I tend not to add ships from Captains' Logs.. .. but this one seems .. too funny.

Should I dare do a unrefitted F-DD this way, with the model showing the warps going the other way and the registry match the Kaufman's?

FPF-DieHard · « **Reply #48 on:** July 15, 2004, 12:15:09 pm »

Quote from: FireSoul on July 15, 2004, 10:38:06 am

I'm sooo tempted to do this one: Stellar Journal 2/Captain's Log 28, page 16.

Quote
USS Kaufman: A standard four-photon destroyer, the Kaufman was, for reasons never really explained, built with the single warp engine facing backwards. This unique arrangement allowed the ship to fly at top speed away from the enemy while keeping all of her torpedoes bearing on the pursuing enemy force. This ship served with distiction on the Klingon front, unitl its continuing retrograde bought it within range of Romulan squadrons. There, its success continued. Romulan ships maneuvered to uncloak "behind" the fast-moving destroyer, only to find themselves facing the four hot torpedo tubes of the "Killer" Kaufman.

As a personal policy, I tend not to add ships from Captains' Logs.. .. but this one seems .. too funny.
Should I dare do a unrefitted F-DD this way, with the model showing the warps going the other way and the registry match the Kaufman's?

Okay, that ship description is an obvious joke, but how funny would it be to put a few "backwards facing ships and models?

Age · « **Reply #49 on:** July 15, 2004, 12:36:09 pm »

Quote from: FPF-DieHard on July 15, 2004, 12:15:09 pm

Quote from: FireSoul on July 15, 2004, 10:38:06 am
I'm sooo tempted to do this one: Stellar Journal 2/Captain's Log 28, page 16.

Quote
USS Kaufman: A standard four-photon destroyer, the Kaufman was, for reasons never really explained, built with the single warp engine facing backwards. This unique arrangement allowed the ship to fly at top speed away from the enemy while keeping all of her torpedoes bearing on the pursuing enemy force. This ship served with distiction on the Klingon front, unitl its continuing retrograde bought it within range of Romulan squadrons. There, its success continued. Romulan ships maneuvered to uncloak "behind" the fast-moving destroyer, only to find themselves facing the four hot torpedo tubes of the "Killer" Kaufman.

As a personal policy, I tend not to add ships from Captains' Logs.. .. but this one seems .. too funny.
Should I dare do a unrefitted F-DD this way, with the model showing the warps going the other way and the registry match the Kaufman's?

Okay, that ship description is an obvious joke, but how funny would it be to put a few "backwards facing ships and models?

I would put the torps in ra and fa arc and leave the warp naccelle alone and do the same for F-DD+.

FireSoul · « **Reply #50 on:** July 15, 2004, 01:08:56 pm »

Reading the rest of the article, it's obviously a joke.. however a feasible one.

~
I don't think I'll be doing this one after all (but it's still tempting!) but I found that little tidbit amusing enough to share.

FPF-DieHard · « **Reply #51 on:** July 16, 2004, 11:39:00 pm »

Not really a "correction" per se, but I did notice that shields cost twice as much power as they do in SFB.

THis is addressable, should it be?

Mace · « **Reply #52 on:** July 17, 2004, 09:25:51 am »

Quote from: FireSoul on July 15, 2004, 10:38:06 am

I'm sooo tempted to do this one: Stellar Journal 2/Captain's Log 28, page 16.

Quote
USS Kaufman: A standard four-photon destroyer, the Kaufman was, for reasons never really explained, built with the single warp engine facing backwards. This unique arrangement allowed the ship to fly at top speed away from the enemy while keeping all of her torpedoes bearing on the pursuing enemy force. This ship served with distiction on the Klingon front, unitl its continuing retrograde bought it within range of Romulan squadrons. There, its success continued. Romulan ships maneuvered to uncloak "behind" the fast-moving destroyer, only to find themselves facing the four hot torpedo tubes of the "Killer" Kaufman.

As a personal policy, I tend not to add ships from Captains' Logs.. .. but this one seems .. too funny.
Should I dare do a unrefitted F-DD this way, with the model showing the warps going the other way and the registry match the Kaufman's?

Yeah, this is definately a joke article. How many fast moving 4 photon Fed destroyers have you ever seen.

FireSoul · « **Reply #53 on:** July 17, 2004, 11:38:09 am »

Quote from: FPF-DieHard on July 16, 2004, 11:39:00 pm

Not really a "correction" per se, but I did notice that shields cost twice as much power as they do in SFB.

THis is addressable, should it be?

This is link to the size class of the ship. I think the way to fix this is.. have another patch...

.. and we all know there won't be another official patch. Have you checked in EAW?

FPF-DieHard · « **Reply #54 on:** July 17, 2004, 04:28:48 pm »

Quote from: FireSoul on July 17, 2004, 11:38:09 am

Quote from: FPF-DieHard on July 16, 2004, 11:39:00 pm
Not really a "correction" per se, but I did notice that shields cost twice as much power as they do in SFB.

THis is addressable, should it be?

This is link to the size class of the ship. I think the way to fix this is.. have another patch... .. and we all know there won't be another official patch. Have you checked in EAW?

That would mean I'd have to find and install EAW

Does size class determine any things else besides Sheild cost? You could always tweak this so the power draw matches what it should match in SFB.

FPF-DieHard · « **Reply #55 on:** July 20, 2004, 09:53:35 am »

Corbomite pointed this out last night.

There is a bug, but not with the cost of shields. The bug is with the reporting of the costs of shields in the power panel, a CA will say it's drawing 4 points but it is really only drawing 2.

Actual power draw is correct.

FireSoul · « **Reply #56 on:** July 20, 2004, 10:24:08 am »

Quote from: FPF-DieHard on July 20, 2004, 09:53:35 am

Corbomite pointed this out last night.

There is a bug, but not with the cost of shields. The bug is with the reporting of the costs of shields in the power panel, a CA will say it's drawing 4 points but it is really only drawing 2.

Actual power draw is correct.

buh. *sputter* .. ok..
Weird one. This needs of course to be logged as a SFC2 bug. There's nothing I can do from this end.

-- Luc

Max Power · « **Reply #57 on:** July 25, 2004, 06:15:15 pm »

Found an error. The LNH survey variant (LNH mission Q in F&E) has 4 APR instead of 4 cargo. The 4 cargo instead of the APR is required in the survey mission.

FireSoul · « **Reply #58 on:** July 26, 2004, 10:11:25 am »

Quote from: Max Power on July 25, 2004, 06:15:15 pm

Found an error. The LNH survey variant (LNH mission Q in F&E) has 4 APR instead of 4 cargo. The 4 cargo instead of the APR is required in the survey mission.

Thanks .. I'll look at this shortly.

FPF-DieHard · « **Reply #59 on:** July 26, 2004, 10:17:51 am »

I know you already fixed this for 3.4, but the F-BCH and F-DW ships do not have models.siz entry.

It is quite funny seing the F-DW larger than an F-NCA

FireSoul · « **Reply #60 on:** July 26, 2004, 10:40:40 am »

Quote from: FPF-DieHard on July 26, 2004, 10:17:51 am

I know you already fixed this for 3.4, but the F-BCH and F-DW ships do not have models.siz entry.

It is quite funny seing the F-DW larger than an F-NCA

You already posted for the Fed BCHs .. stop it!

FireSoul · « **Reply #61 on:** August 02, 2004, 12:35:45 am »

Quote from: Bonk on July 08, 2004, 05:21:03 pm

Any chance we could get a shortcut to the uninstaller on the start menu for the next version? I have a tendency to forget to check the control panel add/remove programs dialog to see if its installed, it helps me to have that reminder on the start menu. (I know, I know - memory like a sieve...)

Happy?

-- Luc

PS. It also gave me a place to create shortcuts to the Models Credits readme and a URL link to the main website. Also, people can simply not install that component if they don't want it.

Bernard Guignard · « **Reply #62 on:** August 02, 2004, 08:03:39 am »

Hello FireSoul
Its looking Good I look forward to the day that 3.4 is realased to the general Populace. Keep up the great work

Bonk · « **Reply #63 on:** August 02, 2004, 08:10:23 am »

Quote from: FireSoul on August 02, 2004, 12:35:45 am

Quote from: Bonk on July 08, 2004, 05:21:03 pm
Any chance we could get a shortcut to the uninstaller on the start menu for the next version? I have a tendency to forget to check the control panel add/remove programs dialog to see if its installed, it helps me to have that reminder on the start menu. (I know, I know - memory like a sieve...)

Happy?

-- Luc

PS. It also gave me a place to create shortcuts to the Models Credits readme and a URL link to the main website. Also, people can simply not install that component if they don't want it.

Way cool!

(Yes, happy...)

You be gettin fancy with NSIS! ("Modern UI") - Gotta figure that one out yet myself...

Now then, could you add a simple way for us to detect the OP+ version from an NSIS script?

The current GW3 installer I'm working with looks for the opplus folder before installing, but does not check for the version (I was too lazy to go by file dates or size etc...)

i.e. - my current OP+ detection in my install section:

Code: [Select]


IfFileExists "$INSTDIR\opplus\*.*" Opplus_installed Opplus_not_installed

Opplus_installed:
; do GW3 installation here
Goto Finished_install

Opplus_not_installed:
MessageBox MB_OK|MB_ICONSTOP "OP+ not found! GW3 v1 requires OP+3.3, please install it first. (GW3 v1 not installed.)" IDOK Finished_install

Finished_install:

Perhaps if you installed a "version.ini" in the opplus folder or just a file with the OP+ version as its title? Or perhaps you have a suggestion for how to detect the OP+ version without adding anything to your install.
A version.ini file would make it nice and easy though through use of the NSIS "ReadINIStr" function.

Thanks again for the optional shortcuts!

FireSoul · « **Reply #64 on:** August 02, 2004, 09:35:32 am »

I have this regkey set.. ... for the uninstall to show up properly in controlpanel's add/remove programs:

HKLM "Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall\opplus" "DisplayName"
"OP+ Shiplist 3.3 (remove only)"

IF you don't have that exactly, you don't have 3.3 installed.

Edit: I'm adding a version regkey for 3.4, what the heckl. It's easy. However, the above will still apply for 3.3.

Bonk · « **Reply #65 on:** August 02, 2004, 12:24:54 pm »

Duh, I forgot the registry key... good idea, I'll play with that for detecting the presence and version of OP+ tonight.

edit: Yup, that works well, I used a few lines like so:

Code: [Select]

...
Var opplus_regkey

Section "Install"

ReadRegStr $opplus_regkey HKLM "SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall\opplus" "DisplayName"
StrCmp $opplus_regkey "OP+ Shiplist 3.3 (remove only)" Opplus_installed Opplus_not_installed
...

I'll keep an eye out for the version regkey in 3.4.

FireSoul · « **Reply #66 on:** August 02, 2004, 12:37:27 pm »

Quote from: Bernard Guignard on August 02, 2004, 08:03:39 am

Hello FireSoul
Its looking Good I look forward to the day that 3.4 is realased to the general Populace. Keep up the great work

I'm in the review/testing phase, so it's just a matter of time until a release. I've improved my testing programs/scripts to check each and every weapon used, as well as each arc, and each reload number.. ... as well as checking which weapons use arcs and which have reloads defined in the 3rd field..

.. as well as checking each ship to have a valid UI defined (ie: current Z-XCB problem), to checking each UI to see if the weapons placed actually go to a *VISIBLE* mountpoint.

Let me tell you, it helps to take out the human error out of the loop. I am in fact about to install a freshly-made installer right now, to run my models tester on it. I made a version of it that does all the models for all races, so that I don't have to run it for each race (which is also useful).

.. After that I will check and see if there are any textures that are > than 8-bit and will reduce them at need. I also need to check the no-models installer..

.. etc...etc.. soon, my friends, soon!

-- Luc

FPF-DieHard · « **Reply #67 on:** August 02, 2004, 04:08:09 pm »

Quote from: FireSoul on August 02, 2004, 12:37:27 pm

.. etc...etc.. soon, my friends, soon!
-- Luc

Hear that J'inn? We get to redo the GW3 list is a few days!!!

KHH Jakle · « **Reply #68 on:** August 02, 2004, 05:59:34 pm »

Firesoul - sorry if this is a little late: have you looked at te different Klink F5/F5W's? I think on many of them , the forward phasers firing arcs are flip flopped. so the right phaser has a left side firing arc and the left phaser has a right side firing arc.

I guess I could be wrong and they are supposed to be that way....but it's counter intuitive (ie - doesn't look right)

FireSoul · « **Reply #69 on:** August 02, 2004, 06:10:51 pm »

Quote from: KHH Jakle on August 02, 2004, 05:59:34 pm

Firesoul - sorry if this is a little late: have you looked at te different Klink F5/F5W's? I think on many of them , the forward phasers firing arcs are flip flopped. so the right phaser has a left side firing arc and the left phaser has a right side firing arc.

I guess I could be wrong and they are supposed to be that way....but it's counter intuitive (ie - doesn't look right)

You're quite right that it doesn't look right, but the arcs are actualyl correct. The arcs "LSRF" and "RSLF" are easter egg arcs, added in patch 2.5.4.10. They are not displaying the correct arcs in the UI. The other easter egg arcs are also wrong.

FireSoul · « **Reply #70 on:** August 02, 2004, 06:11:40 pm »

Quote from: FPF-DieHard on August 02, 2004, 04:08:09 pm

Quote from: FireSoul on August 02, 2004, 12:37:27 pm

.. etc...etc.. soon, my friends, soon!
-- Luc

Hear that J'inn? We get to redo the GW3 list is a few days!!!

"Days will seem like hours.."

News:

Topic: OP+ 3.3 Corrections Thread (Read 10676 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

FireSoul

FireSoul

TOCXOBearslayer

wanderer

Strafer

FireSoul

FireSoul

Age

FireSoul

FireSoul

DH123

FireSoul

FireSoul

FireSoul

FireSoul

TOCXOBearslayer

wanderer

Strafer

FireSoul

FireSoul

Age

FireSoul

FireSoul

DH123

FireSoul

FireSoul

Topic: OP+ 3.3 Corrections Thread (Read 10676 times)