Topic: Unofficial Patch for Starfleet Command: Orion Pirates

[TarMinyatur]

Through lots of labor, hex editors, and a disassembler, we have been editing Orion Pirates to fix bugs and to allow for much greater customization of the game than previously thought possible without the source code. The resulting software is not authorized by anyone and shall be freely distributed. The unofficial executable and other assets are useless without a working copy of Orion Pirates 2.552, which you may download from the Dynaverse Marketplace if you've lost your CD. (Similar editing has already been done on Starfleet Command: Community Edition 2.677.)

Patch 2.560 for OP fixes these bugs:

Suicide OL Fusion Beams can no longer be fired in futility beyond OL range (default is 8.99k)
OL/SOL Fusion Beams can do damage at range 8.01k to 8.99k
Phaser-G2 damage estimator displays max-min, instead of min-min

Download the 2.560 Beta. There is a link to the latest version at the top of the General Forum.

[Sirgod]

Woot!

[TAnimaL]

Tar, what number should this patch use, just so we can all call it the same thing. 2.5.5.3 or 2.5.5.4? (Being next after 2.5.5.2)

Moving forward, if there is a another, more significant patch, should we call that 2.6.0.1, just to differentiate it?

[TarMinyatur]

We can call the vanilla patch 2.560. The 2.5xx series has always been reserved for OP. The 2.6xx series (2.660, 2.670, 2.673) is dedicated to CE.

2.560 is fresh territory, with room for 39 revisions.

[TAnimaL]

Thanks Tar. I agree on that 2560 idea.

I copied the PhA/B ranges from the literature (manuals etc), were those brackets wrong? At my work pc, no time to play now. Wait, I shouldn't even be checking this site. Arrgg! Damn, this is so tempting!!

[d4v1ks]

TAnimaL, I've attached an edited copy of your latest offsets.txt. I've commented out the 2.561 stuff that requires new variables. Everything else will work on 2.552. I adjusted the Ph-A/B comments to match the brackets. Please test it.

Tar, my sfc editor says that some offsets' data structures are overlapping! Need to check that! 

Humm... occurred me the ideia. If you wish i could add into the offsets file a way to upgrade 2552... Its not hard. People would only need the sfc editor and offsets.txt with the fixes! They would be hable to download a all-in-one!

I can add an option to compare 2 versions and produce the patch.
Then in the offsets.txt, people would see something in this style, and be hable to switch between vannila or the new version in the UI !! Could do even better.

<< Version 2552
81 C1 64 02 00 00 8B 45  FC 8B 90 64 02 00 00 8B B0
42 30 FF D0 50 6A 08 8B  4D FC E8 91 FB 1E 00 50  B0
81 C1 64 02 00 00 8B 45  FC 8B 90 64 02 00 00 8B B0
42 30 FF D0 50 6A 08 8B  4D FC E8 91 FB 1E 00 50  B0

<< Version 2560
81 C1 64 02 00 00 8B 45  FC 8B 90 64 02 00 00 8B B0
42 30 FF D0 50 6A 08 8B  4D FC E8 91 FB 1E 00 50  B0
81 C1 64 02 00 00 8B 45  FC 8B 90 64 02 00 00 8B B0
42 30 FF D0 50 6A 08 8B  4D FC E8 91 FB 1E 00 50  B0

[TAnimaL]

(I swear, one more thing then back to work....)

For anyone using this current offset, it creates a tab in SFC_Editor for mines with 5 different entries for "Large Explosive Mine." NONE of those entries are correct thoughl changing them will not change mine explosions, and might be changing something else somewhere. Sorry, I must have uploaded my workbin copy last time. Will correct later.

d4v1ks, those overlaps (probably) don't matter - there are some repeated entries in the offset i uploaded, see above. For example, one of those overlaps is that I have two entreis going to the same float, for the Type-I missille and the offensive plasma-Ds on the D rack.

[TarMinyatur]

Looking at the latest offsets.txt, I determined that the Cloak Adjustment needs to be isolated. It can't be included in vanilla because its data (50.0d) is shared with T-bomb placement range and other stuff. I've isolated it in 2.561.

The AMD bracket offset is incorrect, resulting in overlapped memory.

455AEC: 4f // AMD brackets, range x10 // 5.0, 20.0, 30.0, 40.0
//455AF0: 4f // Error! AMD brackets, range x10 // 10.0, 20.0, 30.0, 40.0

That will fix it.

[TarMinyatur]

I copied the PhA/B ranges from the literature (manuals etc), were those brackets wrong?

The brackets in the literature are wrong, or the data is wrong. The difference is significant, but usually minor, except for Range-1 Phaser-B's (they have a base chance to hit of 83%, instead of 100% as implied by the manual/wiki).

0-1, 2-4, 5-6, 7-10, 11-16, 17-20, 21-24, 25-31, 32-41 // literature

0, 1-3, 4-5, 6-9, 10-15, 16-19, 20-23, 24-30, 31-40 // .exe data

I prefer to not alter the Phaser-A/B data after 14 years.

[TAnimaL]

Well, of course the exe data was correct. I ran a test on the PhA and the damage matches those brackets (0, 1-3, 4-5, 6-9, 10-15, 16-19, 20-23, 24-30, 31-40). It's a little interesting that the manuals per se were wrong about original weapons that were created for OP and not from SFB. I'd guess someone writing that literature copyied the data out of the exe and forgot about the 0.99/-0.01 thingy in the ranges.

Not a high priority but I guess I'll update that weapons wiki soon.

[TarMinyatur]

...i could add into the offsets file a way to upgrade 2552... Its not hard. People would only need the sfc editor and offsets.txt with the fixes! They would be hable to download a all-in-one!

Sounds good. It needs to be simple. I think a direct download of 2.560 is good for those who don't intend to customize any values.

[TAnimaL]

For this patch, and with the PhA/B, we should use range brackets from the exe and ignore (& change) the data in manuals. But for the TR beams, should we use the SFB range brackets (0-3, 4-5, 6-8, 9-12, 12-18 19-26) or the brackets that were in the original exe (0-2, 3-4, 5-7, etc)?  I vote for the true SFB brackets but I didn't want to just assume everyone else did too. Both of these and the advanced phasers are in limited use anyway.

[Klingon Fanatic]

First of all, thanks to all of you guys for working on this.

Second, I tried to reinstall SFC: OP on my Windows 10 Laptop and I can get the 2560 number to appear on the start up screen but the game hangs after I click single player skirmish or even multiplayer.

Any advise on how to get this game to work on Windows 10?

[TAnimaL]

Here's what d4v1ks did, as mentioned in the "Win8.1" thread
http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163393826.msg1123050876.html#msg1123050876

Have you tried  2552 OP in Win10 yet?

[TarMinyatur]

For this patch, and with the PhA/B, we should use range brackets from the exe and ignore (& change) the data in manuals. But for the TR beams, should we use the SFB range brackets (0-3, 4-5, 6-8, 9-12, 12-18 19-26) or the brackets that were in the original exe (0-2, 3-4, 5-7, etc)?  I vote for the true SFB brackets but I didn't want to just assume everyone else did too. Both of these and the advanced phasers are in limited use anyway.

I am in favor of using the SFB brackets for TR Beams. The default 5-7 bracket, for example, is weird. I think the programmers made an easy mistake -- going from SFB's "8" to an internal value of 80 to a non-inclusive limit of 90.0f to get 8.99k is ripe for error. Default OL Fusion Beams suffer from this mistake too -- SFB "8" became 8.00k, which doesn't include the customary 0.99 extension.

[TarMinyatur]

First of all, thanks to all of you guys for working on this.

Second, I tried to reinstall SFC: OP on my Windows 10 Laptop and I can get the 2560 number to appear on the start up screen but the game hangs after I click single player skirmish or even multiplayer.

Any advise on how to get this game to work on Windows 10?

Hmm. I'd try to do at least one skirmish in 2.500, and then patch to 2.552, so we can rule out 2.560 as an issue.

[d4v1ks]

I think he managed to make it work. he suddently disapeared after posting in so many places.
Why would he just gave up after ask something he wanted so much to know?

[Klingon Fanatic]

I think he managed to make it work. he suddently disapeared after posting in so many places.
Why would he just gave up after ask something he wanted so much to know?

I was frustrated that I couldn't play the game so I posted twice about this.

I also figured that I would not get an immediate response since there are so few people here compared to the old days....

At any rate, I have always found the folks at Dynaverse.net very helpful and look forward to trying out the solutions recommended.

[d4v1ks]

ok, lets us try to solve it then, if its not is just a hardware/driver related problem.

[Klingon Fanatic]

ok, lets us try to solve it then, if its not is just a hardware/driver related problem.

d4v1ks

Thanks again. I'm all set.