REBCP is...temporarily offline...

This is the place for chit chat! Everything goes even Star Trek! Just make sure to buy the Moderator a drink!

Moderators: Darksaber, General_Trageton, K_Kinnison

Re: REBCP is...temporarily offline...

baggy101
Cadet 3rd Class
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2015 9:32 am

Post by baggy101 » Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:23 pm

Have you considered using slots that are for ships that are not canon? I know it would mess about with the original campaign but it would free up many slots. I wouldn’t mind editing the azzermeen campaign to be new canon!

User avatar
ual002
Ensign
Galactic Empire
Posts: 488
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:23 am

Post by ual002 » Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:34 pm

What is really needed is a magical discovery of new ship slots. There is just too much new canon and too many eras. At least legends era stuff borrowed heavily from the OT. This new ST era changes everything it touches, even if slightly.
For the glory of his majesty Emperor Palpatine! Image Image Image Image

User avatar
Jaeven
Ensign
Galactic Empire
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 3:18 am

Post by Jaeven » Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:36 pm

The thing about the non-canon ships is that they can be added into canon campaigns really easily. Take the MC80Bs and MC90s for example. Are they canon? No.

Could they easily be put into a Sequels New Republic campaign? Without issue at all.

User avatar
Phoenix Leader
Ensign
Rebel Alliance
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2018 2:20 pm

Post by Phoenix Leader » Sat Jun 29, 2019 2:28 pm

DTM wrote:
Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:00 pm
I'm going to pray in T-85 X-wing :D
I am very very uncertain about the T-85 X-Wing ... because it's ugly! Very ugly. Some say it could only be an artistic choice of the art-designer of the TV-show, but I disagree. All the other spaceships on the show are drawn in a very detailed way.
I'm not sure what to think about its design, but I have a theory:

Perhaps the T-85 X-Wing is used only by the New Republic (not by the Resistance), because it was designed after the disarmament treaty signed by the New Republic. The T-85 may not be equipped with heavy weapons, because it has been designed for electronic war, or for reconnaissance (?) This could explain the absence of the torpedo tubes and those tiny lasers on the wing tips. Some say that the pods on either side of the fuselage could contain the torpedo launchers, but I disagree: their position is incompatible with the canard wings. Pods are more likely to contain sensors...

Perhaps it would be more interesting to know the design of the T-75 or the T-80 ...?
Is this just my impression or is the T-85 X-Wing designed to be superfast? It features a total of 8 engines (4 primary, 4 secondary).
The warhead load might have been sacrificed a little.
Sorry if this is out of topic now that the T-85 X-Wing is not included in the list.

baggy101
Cadet 3rd Class
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2015 9:32 am

Post by baggy101 » Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:26 pm

Well yes the possibility of legends ships becoming canon is a major problem, or separate era installations, which is also presents its own problems. Additional slots would be ideal. The ability to hook opts into missions is a revolution but you can’t study all the ships in the craft library. ( sorry I’ve suffered from completers compulsion with this game for 20 odd years, and the new canon gave me a new hope and a clean slate for this game).

User avatar
Driftwood
Lieutenant Commander
XWAU Member
Posts: 1712
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 11:01 pm
Contact:

Post by Driftwood » Sun Jun 30, 2019 1:14 am

I have currently two installs. Rebel themed, and Imperial Themed. DSCUP is of course the base of both. REBCP is on the rebel branch, but not on the Imperial for obvious reasons, though it is my intent to eventually integrate choice ships to the Imperial branch where it makes sense, though that frees up some slots.

It's easy enough, but it does make editing missions on the fly more difficult. Or making sure all your settings are 1:1 between versions. Multiplayer could be an issue.

That said, you could also create a standardized install for multiplayer, XWAU, DSUCP, or vanilla.

There has been some discussion in the past, mostly from myself, and largely one sided (hur hur hur), regarding creating "generic" ship slots based on a "ship class" with a generic loadout and weapon hardpoints; though hardpoints, laser colors, SLAM, and interdiction functionality can be determined via ini file, as well as I understand shield regeneration? So really the biggest stuff that the EXE per slot now affects is 1) What is displayed in the tech library, 2) hull, (shields?), maneuverability, points value, speed, gun/cockpit POV.

Unless more "stats" can be assigned via opt specific ini files, then there must be some standardization of a few things.

Firstly POV. There really isn't any reason POV can't necessarily be standardized across opts. This would of course require a recentering of opts/cockpits to fall within a "standard" set of POV coordinates. I can take for instance the "default" combat sim cockpit and use the coordinates for that, import the model into blender, merge all the meshes into one and then import any other cockpit, then align that cockpit mesh 1:1 with where the pilot's head POV would be. Delete the combat sim meshes, and export the freshly repositioned "other" cockpit. You can then use the "default" cockpit POV and shouldn't need adjusting at all, and would be correctly positioned if the hook was called.*

*I have not however, tested hooking a player craft in a mission with a different opt yet, so I'm not sure what the limitations of this are at this time.

Secondly, stats. Ships would in my opinion need to be broken down into categories by class.

Light (Z-95, TIE Fighter)
Medium (X-Wing, TIE Bomber)
Heavy (B-Wing, Y-Wing, Gunboat)
Interceptor (A-Wing, TIE Interceptor)
Corvette (CR90, DP20, Lancer)
Frigate (Nebby 1/2)
Cruiser (Carrack, Aquitens, MC40, Strike)
Heavy Cruiser (MC80, MC75, Dreadnought)
Destroyer (ISD 1/2, VSD, ect)
Dreadnought (SSD, ESD 1/2, Supremacy, Mandator, ect)
Freighter (Bulk, Cargo, Gozanti)
Light Transport/Shuttle (Lambda, CORT, ect.)
Station

These are just examples. 13 "generic" slots let's say for sake of argument at this point with a "baseline" set of stats that could be used for any number of ships within those class categories that would be reasonable for any ship hooked to overwrite the "base" opt that is in place. There would also have to be some decisions made about how to handle ships with turrets as those POV would need to match up with the "parent" opt stats also. Assuming we're using a player craft at the very least. Otherwise, I don't know if it matters since the interior isn't visible and the turret arcs match up to avoid odd behavior. (shooting through hull or at weird angles)

Thirdly Descriptions

Generic descriptions would need to follow the class list above and noted as such in the shiplist/specdec, ect. You could have the Y-Wing B installed as the "Heavy" fighter as the base, but you wouldn't put in the Y-Wing B description necessarily; however this is open to debate since realistically if you're in mission as long as it says "Heavy Fighter" on the HUD when it's targeted, who cares since the description only "matters" in the tech library. This would eliminate "Y-Wing" showing up for say the Havoc Bomber that would be hooked in over it.

The Tech library is "cool", but frankly who cares outside of the craft you encounter in the campaign. I'd almost be fine if that area of the concourse didn't even exist. In an ideal world we could just endlessly integrate ships into more slots but this is a hard limitation at this point.

Fourth Dat pictures
These would need to display the "parent base opt" for sake of sanity within the skirmish editor. Mission wise either using Justagai's expanded skirmish functionality, this is still largely irrelevant, as is it also in the campaign.

Fifth vanilla limitations

Are these a factor? Do you want to preserve all the vanilla XWA ships to be used, or not, in the context of the vanilla campaign? Do you want to get rid of now "non-cannon" ships where it makes sense and only use "nu-canon" ships in the vanilla campaign?
Are you even going to play the vanilla campaign? Or are you making your own that will function outside of the combat simulator campaign functions (COOP) that will overwrite the default campaign? Say for instance, the etherial unfinished TFTC? Or maybe DTM's campaign for another instance exceeds the post vanilla campaign missions and he does a Total Conversion?

In the context of the XWAUP, obviously this is a major consideration; on the other hand though, since the XWAUP is not adding ships not otherwise available in the base game with the exception of the TIE Advanced x1, and the Starviper (I presume) then this discussion is entirely moot and does not apply to the diagnostic critera since slot availability is a non-issue.

Goals

What are you trying to achieve? Yes I would love to have ALL the ships available at any point without having to do any hook editing or pick and choose what stays or goes, but that's just not where we're at right now.
I'd love to play more custom missions, but generally speaking nobody seems to be making them, or perhaps making them public in any significant quantity. Others are just gone.

TFTC, doesn't work for some reason anymore and is pulled offline as a result. The TFTC update is years in the making, and likely isn't anywhere near re-release. (I'd settle for just getting it functional at this point)

TBPP, Vince is busy with life and making some significant to his ships and background from the sound of it, probably won't see much there in the long run. But at least he's still chugging along.

Abolisher's campaign, also gone too as far as I can tell and would need significant updates to get functioning with the new changes.

ALL the random missions from people on the internet, well frankly they all probably need updated and improved which is viable, if you can find them. Most of the websites are gone and so are the files.

EH TIE Corps, frankly is one of the only places I've found that has an extensive mission library but you pretty much need to be a member of the TC and use their mods and launcher program which I'm not sure are compatible with the new changes here. Would also likely need an update too.

Randoms who make missions, but haven't release them. Pretty obvious the issue here is, I don't need to expand on that.

User avatar
Jaeven
Ensign
Galactic Empire
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 3:18 am

Post by Jaeven » Sun Jun 30, 2019 2:02 am

Phoenix Leader wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 2:28 pm
DTM wrote:
Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:00 pm
I'm going to pray in T-85 X-wing :D
I am very very uncertain about the T-85 X-Wing ... because it's ugly! Very ugly. Some say it could only be an artistic choice of the art-designer of the TV-show, but I disagree. All the other spaceships on the show are drawn in a very detailed way.
I'm not sure what to think about its design, but I have a theory:

Perhaps the T-85 X-Wing is used only by the New Republic (not by the Resistance), because it was designed after the disarmament treaty signed by the New Republic. The T-85 may not be equipped with heavy weapons, because it has been designed for electronic war, or for reconnaissance (?) This could explain the absence of the torpedo tubes and those tiny lasers on the wing tips. Some say that the pods on either side of the fuselage could contain the torpedo launchers, but I disagree: their position is incompatible with the canard wings. Pods are more likely to contain sensors...

Perhaps it would be more interesting to know the design of the T-75 or the T-80 ...?
Is this just my impression or is the T-85 X-Wing designed to be superfast? It features a total of 8 engines (4 primary, 4 secondary).
The warhead load might have been sacrificed a little.
Sorry if this is out of topic now that the T-85 X-Wing is not included in the list.
The thing is that every time it has been brought up, the T-85 has been described as more advanced than the T-70. That wouldn't line up with an X-wing that now somehow doesn't have warhead launchers.

User avatar
Phoenix Leader
Ensign
Rebel Alliance
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2018 2:20 pm

Post by Phoenix Leader » Sun Jun 30, 2019 8:53 am

Driftwood wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 1:14 am

Secondly, stats. Ships would in my opinion need to be broken down into categories by class.

Light (Z-95, TIE Fighter)
Medium (X-Wing, TIE Bomber)
Heavy (B-Wing, Y-Wing, Gunboat)
Interceptor (A-Wing, TIE Interceptor)
Corvette (CR90, DP20, Lancer)
Frigate (Nebby 1/2)
Cruiser (Carrack, Aquitens, MC40, Strike)
Heavy Cruiser (MC80, MC75, Dreadnought)
Destroyer (ISD 1/2, VSD, ect)
Dreadnought (SSD, ESD 1/2, Supremacy, Mandator, ect)
Freighter (Bulk, Cargo, Gozanti)
Light Transport/Shuttle (Lambda, CORT, ect.)
Station
I "theoretically" agree with this idea, but the problem is that there is the risk shields and hull stats would be broken.
I remember something similar happened with the CR90 corvette in one of the older craft packs.
I don't know if assigning stats with the craft .ini file would solve this problem though.

User avatar
Phoenix Leader
Ensign
Rebel Alliance
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2018 2:20 pm

Post by Phoenix Leader » Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:04 am

Jaeven wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 2:02 am
Phoenix Leader wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 2:28 pm
DTM wrote:
Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:00 pm

I am very very uncertain about the T-85 X-Wing ... because it's ugly! Very ugly. Some say it could only be an artistic choice of the art-designer of the TV-show, but I disagree. All the other spaceships on the show are drawn in a very detailed way.
I'm not sure what to think about its design, but I have a theory:

Perhaps the T-85 X-Wing is used only by the New Republic (not by the Resistance), because it was designed after the disarmament treaty signed by the New Republic. The T-85 may not be equipped with heavy weapons, because it has been designed for electronic war, or for reconnaissance (?) This could explain the absence of the torpedo tubes and those tiny lasers on the wing tips. Some say that the pods on either side of the fuselage could contain the torpedo launchers, but I disagree: their position is incompatible with the canard wings. Pods are more likely to contain sensors...

Perhaps it would be more interesting to know the design of the T-75 or the T-80 ...?
Is this just my impression or is the T-85 X-Wing designed to be superfast? It features a total of 8 engines (4 primary, 4 secondary).
The warhead load might have been sacrificed a little.
Sorry if this is out of topic now that the T-85 X-Wing is not included in the list.
The thing is that every time it has been brought up, the T-85 has been described as more advanced than the T-70. That wouldn't line up with an X-wing that now somehow doesn't have warhead launchers.
T-85 X-Wing: a fighter faster and more maneuverable than the T-70 X-Wing, and probably also with better shields; but due to the disarmament treaty signed by the New Republic the T-85 just features the same laser cannons equipped on the T-70 and NO warheads. It makes sense, and honestly who cares about warheads in a game where 99% of the warheads launched against capital ships are destroyed much before they can reach the target?

User avatar
Driftwood
Lieutenant Commander
XWAU Member
Posts: 1712
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 11:01 pm
Contact:

Post by Driftwood » Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:02 pm

Shield and hull stats would not be broken, you just need to apply common sense when hooking the appropriate "class".

Gameplay > fluff would take place. Omg y wing has 20 and and 50 hull, cloakshape should have 21 and and 45 hull. The stats are broken! It's not what weg/wiki states it should be. Omgomgomg.

I'm being a little facetious and pulling numbers out of thin air for sake of argument here but what the hell is the point of crying "broken" at this point?

If you're talking about the game not writing the stats to the exe correctly, that could happen at any patch update or post install user input/modification of the exe regardless of if this is ever theoretically applied beyond conceptual discussion. Every time we edit something, we risk literally breaking the game, but this as an argument not to implement (something)? Really? Really? Really.

/endgrump

User avatar
keiranhalcyon7
Ensign
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:41 am

Post by keiranhalcyon7 » Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:57 pm

Phoenix Leader wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:04 am
honestly who cares about warheads in a game where 99% of the warheads launched against capital ships are destroyed much before they can reach the target?
Only if you don't dumb fire them.

User avatar
ual002
Ensign
Galactic Empire
Posts: 488
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:23 am

Post by ual002 » Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:12 pm

Well the default rate of fire on a lot of the ships varies wildly already. I don't want to get near corvette sized ships, but I think that is the intended effect. The only problem is, for story sake sometimes you want to go up against a smaller anti-starfighter ship that maybe isn't being used in that role in that specific mission. Maybe its a courier ship with limited crew and terrible gunners.

But I understand default mission balance is also a thing.
For the glory of his majesty Emperor Palpatine! Image Image Image Image

User avatar
DTM
Lieutenant Commander
XWAU Member
Posts: 1312
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 11:01 pm
Contact:

Post by DTM » Sun Jun 30, 2019 7:06 pm

I have a vague idea of how to add all the ships necessary to ensure that the new REBCP contains the most important ships of four eras: KOTOR, Clone Wars, Rebels and Resistance. I will work on it as soon as I'm back home.
I don't believe in a radical solution, like the one suggested by Driftwood, but I will certainly have to use the hook system and replace some stations and small objects from the original game ... something nevere used in skirmish mode ...

MTD industries
WIPs: REBCP version 2

User avatar
DTM
Lieutenant Commander
XWAU Member
Posts: 1312
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 11:01 pm
Contact:

Post by DTM » Sun Aug 25, 2019 10:01 pm

I would like to use the following slots to add more ships in REBCP:
- Derylin Platform
- Processing Plant
- Satellite 3

These three objects are rarely used in Azzameen missions, so it would be easy to replace them with a Hook. Can anyone confirm that these objects are only used in the following missions?

Derylin Platform: b0m8
Processing Plant: b6m7
Satellite 3: b0m2

Thanks!

MTD industries
WIPs: REBCP version 2

User avatar
Driftwood
Lieutenant Commander
XWAU Member
Posts: 1712
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 11:01 pm
Contact:

Post by Driftwood » Sun Aug 25, 2019 11:00 pm

Can't speak for the Sat. But Derylin is only featured in 1 rebel training mission, and the PP as I recall is only in one, I think it's the one you drop off the container of spice at the Viraxo station and the Venix gets destroyed.

User avatar
Jaeven
Ensign
Galactic Empire
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 3:18 am

Post by Jaeven » Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:06 pm

DTM wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2019 10:01 pm
I would like to use the following slots to add more ships in REBCP:
- Derylin Platform
- Processing Plant
- Satellite 3

These three objects are rarely used in Azzameen missions, so it would be easy to replace them with a Hook. Can anyone confirm that these objects are only used in the following missions?

Derylin Platform: b0m8
Processing Plant: b6m7
Satellite 3: b0m2

Thanks!
Can confirm.

JeremyaFr
Lieutenant Commander
XWAU Member
Posts: 1607
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:52 pm
Contact:

Post by JeremyaFr » Tue Aug 27, 2019 3:14 pm

Hello,
Here is a list of crafts that are used only 1 or 2 times:

Code: Select all

C F R Id Name Missions
2 0 2 9 TIE Defender 1B2M4G 1B2M6G
2 1 1 11 Toscan Fighter 1B4M1FB 1B5M1G
1 1 0 13 Twing 1B5M6FG
2 2 0 15 R-41 1B1M5FG 1B2M3FG
1 0 1 18 Escort Shuttle 1B1M4G
2 1 1 20 Scout Craft 1B0M5FW 1B5M1G
2 1 1 30 Heavy Lifter 1B1M5FG 1B2M2G
2 2 0 33 Cargo Ferry 1B0M3FW 1B4M1FB
2 0 2 43 Mod Neb B Frigate 1B1M4G 1B5M4G
2 0 2 45 Carrack Cruiser 1B0M8W 1B6M6B
1 0 1 47 Escort Carrier 1B3M4B
2 1 1 58 CN/H Gem 1B5M2G 1B5M3FG
1 1 0 62 Platform 3 1B3M2FB
2 2 0 64 Platform 5 1B1M2FG 1B6M2FB
2 1 1 65 Platform 6 1B3M6B 1B5M6FG
1 1 0 66 Asteroid Hangar 1B6M7FB
2 1 1 67 Ast Laser Bat 1B5M7G 1B6M7FB
1 0 1 68 Ast Warhd Launcher 1B5M7G
2 1 1 71 Satellite2 1B0M2FW 1B1M7G
1 1 0 72 Satellite3 1B0M2FW
2 1 1 75 Mine1 1B3M4B 1B3M5FB
2 1 1 81 Probe Capsule 1B1M3G 1B1M5FG
1 0 1 91 Repair Yard 1B0M8W
2 0 2 95 Assault Frigate 1B0M8W 1B0M9W
2 1 1 98 Assault Shuttle 1B0M8W 1B3M5FB
1 0 1 101 Imp Research Ship 1B2M6G
1 1 0 107 Freight Transport/C 1B0M6FW
2 0 2 111 YT-2400 1B4M4B 1B6M5B
2 0 2 112 Suprosa 1B4M4B 1B6M5B
2 0 2 115 TIE Experimental M2 1B2M2G 1B2M6G
1 0 1 117 TIE Experimental M4 1B2M5G
2 0 2 118 TIE Experimental M5 1B2M5G 1B2M6G
2 2 0 121 Planetary Fighter 1B1M2FG 1B1M5FG
2 2 0 122 Supa Fighter 1B3M2FB 1B4M1FB
1 0 1 132 Derilyn Platform 1B0M8W
1 0 1 133 Sensor Array 1B1M7G
1 0 1 135 Space Colony 1 1B5M2G
1 1 0 137 Space Colony 3 1B0M6FW
2 1 1 139 Cargo Facility 1 1B0M4FW 1B2M4G
2 1 1 141 Ast Mining Unit 1B6M7FB 1B7M4W
1 1 0 142 Processing Plant 1B6M7FB
1 0 1 144 Imp Research Center 1B3M3B
2 2 0 146 Family Repair Yard 1B0M7FW 1B4M1FB
2 2 0 147 Pirate Ship Yard 1B4M1FB 1B4M3FB
2 1 1 148 Industrial Complex 1B4M1FB 1B7M4W
2 1 1 157 Lrg Gun/Wrhd Empl 1B0M5FW 1B1M7G
2 0 2 161 Homing Mine B 1B3M7B 1B4M4B
1 0 1 165 *Cargo Freighter 2 1B5M5G
2 1 1 178 ZeroG Stormtrooper 1B3M5FB 1B7M4W
1 1 0 180 Emkay 1B5M6FG

User avatar
DTM
Lieutenant Commander
XWAU Member
Posts: 1312
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 11:01 pm
Contact:

Post by DTM » Tue Aug 27, 2019 4:03 pm

Thank you! Thos list will be very usefull!

MTD industries
WIPs: REBCP version 2

Rookie_One1
Lieutenant Commander
Rebel Alliance
Posts: 1331
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 12:01 am

Post by Rookie_One1 » Tue Aug 27, 2019 5:47 pm

What about those that are not used at all ? (some arent at all as far as I know)
Rookie One, is that you?? - Ru Merleen, Rebel Spy at Imdaar Alpha
Current Holder of the Frying Pan of Death

JeremyaFr
Lieutenant Commander
XWAU Member
Posts: 1607
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:52 pm
Contact:

Post by JeremyaFr » Tue Aug 27, 2019 5:57 pm

Those that are not used are:

Code: Select all

C F R Id Name Missions
0 0 0 12 Missile Boat
0 0 0 25 Combat Util Vehicle
0 0 0 31 Mole Miner
0 0 0 69 Factory
0 0 0 73 *Satellite4
0 0 0 74 *Satellite5
0 0 0 76 Mine2
0 0 0 77 Mine3
0 0 0 79 *Mine5
0 0 0 80 Probe1
0 0 0 82 *Probe3
0 0 0 84 Buoy2
0 0 0 87 Planet
0 0 0 90 Shipyard
0 0 0 92 *Mod Strike Cruiser
0 0 0 108 Freight Transport/H
0 0 0 109 Freight Transport/K
0 0 0 123 Pinook Fighter
0 0 0 124 *Booster Pack
0 0 0 126 *StarViper
0 0 0 149 *Pirate Junkyd Base
0 0 0 158 Proximity Mine A
0 0 0 159 Proximity Mine B
0 0 0 160 *Homing Mine A
0 0 0 162 New Laser battery
0 0 0 163 New Ion battery
0 0 0 166 *Cargo Freighter 3
0 0 0 167 *Cargo Freighter 4
0 0 0 168 *Cargo Freighter 5
0 0 0 170 *Cargo Tanker 2
0 0 0 171 *Cargo Tanker 3
0 0 0 172 *Cargo Tanker 4
0 0 0 173 *Cargo Tanker 5
0 0 0 174 Escape Pod Type 2
0 0 0 175 *Rebel Pilot
0 0 0 176 *Imp Pilot
0 0 0 177 *Civ Pilot
0 0 0 182 Worker Droid
0 0 0 184 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 185 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 186 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 187 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 188 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 189 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 190 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 191 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 192 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 193 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 194 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 195 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 196 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 197 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 198 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 199 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 200 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 201 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 202 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 203 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 204 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 205 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 206 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 207 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 208 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 209 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 210 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 211 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 212 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 213 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 214 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 215 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 216 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 217 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 218 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 219 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 220 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 221 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 222 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 223 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 224 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 225 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 226 *DontUseMe
0 0 0 227 Death Star II
0 0 0 231 *DontUseMe

User avatar
Driftwood
Lieutenant Commander
XWAU Member
Posts: 1712
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 11:01 pm
Contact:

Post by Driftwood » Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:29 pm

Dont the prox mines show in skirmish auto generation mine missions?

JeremyaFr
Lieutenant Commander
XWAU Member
Posts: 1607
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:52 pm
Contact:

Post by JeremyaFr » Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:34 pm

The list is based on the mission .tie files.
There are a few opt that are not referenced by the mission file but are referenced by the game engine.

User avatar
Driftwood
Lieutenant Commander
XWAU Member
Posts: 1712
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 11:01 pm
Contact:

Post by Driftwood » Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:43 pm

So would overwriting those slots mess up the exe based references?

Post Reply