XWAUCP 1.6 has been released

This is the XWA Upgrade Forums! In here you'll find some of the most talented 3D modellers and texture guys on the net!

Moderators: Darksaber, General_Trageton, K_Kinnison

Re: XWAUCP 1.6 has been released

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

Post by DTM » Sat May 18, 2019 8:28 pm

HERE the starfield fix for following missions:

- 1b5m1g
- 1b5m2g
- 1b5m3fg
- 1b5m4g
- 1b5m5g
- 1b5m6fg
- 1b5m7g
- 1b6m1b


Please unzip the .ini files in your mission folder, replacing the old ones.

MTD industries
WIPs: REBCP version 2

Rebelyell
Cadet 4th Class
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:35 am

Post by Rebelyell » Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:39 am

I was curious. If I wanted to add additional ships to the craft pack ( for my personal use) for instance like the N1 or E-wing what slots can be used. Looking through it looks like most if not all are occupied.

Any help would be appreciated

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

Post by Driftwood » Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:10 pm

If you are using xwaucp you will see empty slots you can fill in mxvted.

If you are using dsucp then all free slots are filled and you will have to decide what to overwrite, but the N1 and Ewing are already included

Rebelyell
Cadet 4th Class
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:35 am

Post by Rebelyell » Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:31 pm

Thanks for the info. Yes regarding the xwaucp I just wasn't entirely sure because using mxtved i noticed there are alot of spaces used for backdrops and so I wanted to clarify so as to not overwrite something the team had put in the game. :)

User avatar
Will T
Lieutenant Commander
Galactic Empire
Posts: 1200
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 11:01 pm

Post by Will T » Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:14 pm

Hey guys. It's been a while since I've posted, but I have been following things. Finally got around to doing a fresh install so I could update to version 1.6, and I wanted to give you my thoughts.

First up, you guys have done an absolutely fantastic job. I had it in my head that there hadn't really been all that much that had changed or been released since the previous version, but I was very wrong. Turns out that big changelog includes some seriously impressive stuff.
  • The HD textures are amazing. Thanks so much for your hard work going back and reviewing those old models after all these years. I'm looking forward to seeing what else you guys decide is worthy of a facelift.
  • The landing gear update is great. I have one minor niggle, but I'll come back to that later. For the most part, I'm amazed what a difference a small change makes (I know it wasn't small in terms of execution, just in concept). The hangar looks that much better for the shuttle sitting on proper landing gear now. I haven't had chance to start messing around with custom missions to see the Gunboat and Slave One in the hangar, but I'm looking forward to seeing them
  • The new planet dats. I'll be honest, I wasn't expecting much here but boy was I wrong. I loaded up the Kothlis mission because it uses the X-Wing and gets you into a fight quickly, and.... wow. I had no idea you guys had added massive orbital level planet views. It completely changed that mission for me. It actually felt like battling above a planet. Amazing change. Probably my favourite thing about the new patch so far.
  • The new models. I know we're long past the 'glamorous' ships to do, but I really appreciate the detail that's going into these 'background' opts. The new stations are all excellent. I'll admit I was skeptical of the Rebels Imp manufacturing platform replacing the Imperial Research Station, but I have to say the level of detail it allows over that very basic TG design is a big improvement. And you kept the hatch and core, which I'm a huge fan of.
  • The craft library renames. This one made me very happy. I know it shouldn't as it's so minor, but it was always something I did for myself manually after each install. Using the full 'official' craft names, you've actually ended up making all the same changes I used to do, which is nice. Even the ISDs. I thought that battle would go on forever. Everything just looks way more consistent now.
All that said, I do have some other feedback that's a bit more critical. I'm hoping to keep everything as constructive as possible, but my apologies in advance if I come across as too harsh.
  • The new explosion effects. I'm sorry, I really don't like them. I know they might be technically higher res, but I think they look worse than the original effects. Exploding starfighters look like they're leaking magic blobs, and cap ships look like an amateur fireworks display. The big, fiery explosion effects might not be realistic but they are more Star Wars-y. I was surprised that they weren't optional in the installer (unless I've been really stupid). The same is true for the laser impact effects. They dissipate way too quickly. The original effects just felt like they had way more... well, impact. Is it possible to revert these changes out myself using the backup dat files?
  • While I'm on the subject, the options page on the installer. Before I get into this, I want to state that I know maintaining the installer is a lot of work and I really do appreciate the time you guys (especially Darksaber, IIRC) put into it. I appreciate all the options you give us. I don't know how many countless arguments it must have saved. But at this point it's.... messy. The long list of checkboxes means there's a lot of information crammed into a small space, and the descriptions of what some of the options do are very brief. I understood most of them from following the project for a long time now, but I do think some of the options would be completely meaningless to someone who's just picked this up for the first time after a sale at GOG and a reddit thread recommending this mod. The choice of whether to install just lasers or lasers and S+M+L turbolasers, for example, isn't that clear. Someone new to the game and XWAU isn't going to know that the game has three different sizes of lasers cap ships use, or why that's an option. It might be a lot of work, but I think separate pages for each 'category' with longer descriptions and maybe some images would be a huge help. I'm not expecting anything there, just something to bear in mind if ever it becomes easier to do.
  • Some of the craft library stuff. Every single opt in the game has been set to Craft Library on and Known. I'm not sure why. The original game used models for a couple of things that weren't meant to 'count' the same way as normal ships. The cargo connector rods, for example, are just untargetable props used to make those cargo trains look good. I don't know why they're in the craft library now. There's even a ?Worker Droid object that uses the astromech model that shows up now with no data. It looks bad. Also, some of the ships encountered in the game aren't meant to be there at the start. They're supposed to be surprises for the player when you first encounter them, and then they show up in the tech library after your first mission with them. The Experimental TIEs are a classic example. They come out of nowhere in the campaign, and seeing them added to the craft library one by one was a cool experience. I think, as a mostly specifically visual upgrade, XWAU should keep as much of the original game intact as possible. I would argue that includes the TG setup for what is and isn't visible in the craft library.
  • Continuing with the Experimental TIEs, I have two points. Firstly, the names. They are not referred to by the opt names anywhere in game in the original game. The opt names (Bizzaro, BigGun etc) are clearly meant to be tongue in cheek names to make them distinct in the file structure and in dev terms. The same is true of the GR-75 Medium Transport. The opt in Flightmodels is called TUNABOAT. Clearly, that name is not meant to be used in game. The original craft library description simply refers to them as TIE Experimental M1 etc. The joke names look silly. Also, they're supposed to be remote controlled drone fighters. As of the most recent update, they use exterior models with see through cockpits showing pilots. There aren't supposed to be any pilots in them. I appreciate that latter point is probably much harder to fix if you want something of the detail of an exterior model, rather than just using the non transparent base model.
  • The Mon Cal Cruisers. This isn't new to this patch, just something I've been thinking for a while and thought I'd throw in here. I know the history of Mon Cal cruisers is a bit of a mess. I know the Home One scale issue is even worse. But I don't like the XWAU MC80A. The Chatnoir thing. It's a fan design based on a low res and highly inaccurate old model. I don't think it fits in anymore. The Defiance is clearly meant to be the same class of ship as Home One. TG just rendered its in game model really, really badly (by contrast, look at the cutscene model, it looks exactly like Home One). Every other source shows the Defiance as a Home One type cruiser. The Independence has also been said to be a cruiser of the same type. And honestly, the TG Winged Calamari Cruiser is about as accurate to the Liberty as their MC80A was to Home One (i.e not really very much at all), but XWAU has no issue switching to a much more accurate version of what we all know was the intended design. Yes, the TG version was too small. But that's not their fault. The official stats they were given were wrong, and have been forever. They're still wrong. The Armada miniatures version is too small because they were given the official stats. The canon reset has helped out even more now. The Home One type is now definitively the MC80A. Yes, it's still officially too small, but that might just have to be something we accept. That maybe ILM didn't built and composite everything in RotJ to perfect scale and that Saxton-esque frame by frame analyses might be looking too closely at a space fantasy film for kids.

    I'm rambling here, sorry. My point is that I think we can get away with using the Home One model for the Defiance without breaking anything and to avoid introducing a completely made up design (with a very silly name, IMO - Chatnoir, really?). I usually swap things around myself. The missions need a little tweaking to make space for the much larger Home One model, but there's only a few of them and its not hard. The bigger size doesn't make a difference, otherwise. There's one mission where the Defiance is in combat (last one before Endor), and I don't think the better stats make it any easier. It looks so much better, too.

    This is all opinion, I know. I'm not expecting you guys to change it. Just saying that I think your average fan (and they do still pick up this game occasionally, every time there's a Steam sale I see someone try it for the first time and they always get recommended to use XWAU by someone), would enjoy seeing the movie ships more in the missions than a fan design brought in as a compromise with a dodgy model from 1998.
  • Lastly, and as I alluded to earlier, this is the niggliest of my criticisms. I love the landing gear change, I really do. But it comes at a cost on the X-Wing. I actually switched to Spyder's model, as I also have the Bandai model kit and it is fantastic, but this applies to both Spyder's and DS' in the main patch. You now can't close your s-foils during a mission unless you want the X-Wing to look really silly flying around with its landing gear down. I'm sure this is something you guys discussed when developing the landing gear and s-foils hook. I'm sure you've made up your mind and my opinion won't sway you, but I really will miss the ability to have the closed s-foil look when flying around in missions. I know it's stupid, I know there's no gameplay point to it, but I'm here because it's still the best place for me to feel like I'm in an X-Wing from those movies I love. And I liked being able to manually close them at the start of a mission and only open them at a moment of my choosing when the combat starts.

    Also, am I right in guessing that as part of the change, you've disabled s-foils from closing when NPC ships enter hyperspace? Because I couldn't see them close when I was watching a couple of X-Wings, and I know they used to do it. Again, I think it looks silly for the X-Wings to go to hyperspace with wings open. I know nothing says they can't, but it's how Luke always flew it in the films.

    I personally would be okay with the X-Wing and B-Wing being the only ships to not have landing gear if it means I get my working s-foils back. Something tells me that won't be an option, though. I'm guessing that, because of the way the hook works, if the X-Wings and B-Wings close their s-foils to enter hyperspace, all ships will and you'll have Y-Wings dropping their landing gear to jump to hyperspace. If so, I'll understand. But I wanted to get it on record that I prefer working s-foils mid mission to landing gear in the hangars, even if that means no landing gear at all.
Formerly known as The 95 Headhunter

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

Post by ual002 » Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:01 pm

I agree with you about the landing gear, and even had a discussion with Jeremyafr about the sfoils auto opening and closing negating the need for user input in most cases.

I'd ideally like to see the landing gear separated from the sfoils someday.

The other change would be with ships like the lambda folding its wings when its following the order "parked at" and when doing boarding ops (if it doesnt already)
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 » Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:21 am

Thank you WillT for your detailed feedback. We really appreciate these analyzes, because they show that there is someone who greatly appreciates our work and helps us to improve ourselves.
Regarding landing gear: currently it is not possible to separate the control of the gears from that of the S-Foils.
Life is made of decisions. In this case we felt that the addition of the gears was more important than the flight with the S-foils closed. I understand that this idea is not shared by everyone ... I'm sorry, we hope that in the future we tend to separate the two functions.

I could remember badly, but I don't think the behavior of ships entering hyperspace has been changed by the hook. If I remember correctly the ships have always kept the S-foils open, with the exception of the entrance and exit from the hangar.

MTD industries
WIPs: REBCP version 2

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

Post by Phoenix Leader » Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:19 am

DTM wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:21 am
I could remember badly, but I don't think the behavior of ships entering hyperspace has been changed by the hook. If I remember correctly the ships have always kept the S-foils open, with the exception of the entrance and exit from the hangar.
That's correct. AI controlled crafts never close S-foils when entering hyperspace. In such circumstance the S-foils closure only happens for player's craft.

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

Post by JeremyaFr » Fri Jun 28, 2019 11:46 am

Thank you Will T :thumbs:
Feedbacks are always appreciated.

User avatar
Darksaber

Fleet Admiral (Administrator)
Posts: 10319
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2000 12:01 am
Contact:

Post by Darksaber » Fri Jun 28, 2019 11:52 pm

Will T wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:14 pm
  • The new explosion effects. I'm sorry, I really don't like them. I know they might be technically higher res, but I think they look worse than the original effects. Exploding starfighters look like they're leaking magic blobs, and cap ships look like an amateur fireworks display. The big, fiery explosion effects might not be realistic but they are more Star Wars-y. I was surprised that they weren't optional in the installer (unless I've been really stupid). The same is true for the laser impact effects. They dissipate way too quickly. The original effects just felt like they had way more... well, impact. Is it possible to revert these changes out myself using the backup dat files?
You can replace the *.dat files from the backup folder within the XwingAlliance folder, it's a hidden folder and will either be called BackupDSUCP or BackupXWAUCP depending on which craft pack you have installed

If you look in the Resdata Folder with in the backup folder you will see a list of the backed up *.dat files

Explosions = Explosions.dat
Laser inpacts = Animation.dat (also includes the Hyperspace animation)
You might also want to replace the Particles.dat and Sparks.dat

Sorry this wasn't and optional install

Will T wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:14 pm
  • While I'm on the subject, the options page on the installer. Before I get into this, I want to state that I know maintaining the installer is a lot of work and I really do appreciate the time you guys (especially Darksaber, IIRC) put into it. I appreciate all the options you give us. I don't know how many countless arguments it must have saved. But at this point it's.... messy. The long list of checkboxes means there's a lot of information crammed into a small space, and the descriptions of what some of the options do are very brief. I understood most of them from following the project for a long time now, but I do think some of the options would be completely meaningless to someone who's just picked this up for the first time after a sale at GOG and a reddit thread recommending this mod. The choice of whether to install just lasers or lasers and S+M+L turbolasers, for example, isn't that clear. Someone new to the game and XWAU isn't going to know that the game has three different sizes of lasers cap ships use, or why that's an option. It might be a lot of work, but I think separate pages for each 'category' with longer descriptions and maybe some images would be a huge help. I'm not expecting anything there, just something to bear in mind if ever it becomes easier to do.
First thank you, it's me that makes the installers so I basically decides what's in the installer, sorry if you think it's messy, I can do little with the way options are selected, I've tried to make it as user friendly as possible, I'm also limited to space for the descriptions, I'm limited to around 196 characters including spaces for the descriptions. Which makes it hard to fit in all the info that is needed, I do put in (See Readme) but obviously I may have left a lot out of the readme, or just totally forgot to put anything about the specific option in the first place, the lasers are a good example, it's needs more work I know.

Separate pages isn't an option, it would really mess up the installer, this is the reason for the readme file also images are not an option either.

Will T wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:14 pm
  • Some of the craft library stuff. Every single opt in the game has been set to Craft Library on and Known. I'm not sure why. The original game used models for a couple of things that weren't meant to 'count' the same way as normal ships. The cargo connector rods, for example, are just untargetable props used to make those cargo trains look good. I don't know why they're in the craft library now. There's even a ?Worker Droid object that uses the astromech model that shows up now with no data. It looks bad. Also, some of the ships encountered in the game aren't meant to be there at the start. They're supposed to be surprises for the player when you first encounter them, and then they show up in the tech library after your first mission with them. The Experimental TIEs are a classic example. They come out of nowhere in the campaign, and seeing them added to the craft library one by one was a cool experience. I think, as a mostly specifically visual upgrade, XWAU should keep as much of the original game intact as possible. I would argue that includes the TG setup for what is and isn't visible in the craft library.
This I can fix, but one question for you, are you using the included pilot file or creating your own, I only ask as the included pilot file has all the slots enabled so you should see all craft and objects in the library, the temp pilot files are only for this reason. they are not really to be used as a permanent pilot file, I expect the user to use there own pilot file of create there own.

I have also looked through the original txt files and the Craft Pack Fix patch (available below) fixes most of the problems you describe,

When the Fix is applied the Tie Experimental will have there original names, you won't see them in the craft library until you come across them in the mission, then they should appear in the library.

Proximity Mine, Homing Mine won't be available in skirmish

Other objects like the connector rod and worker droid and pilot are back to there original TG setup.

Will T wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:14 pm
  • Continuing with the Experimental TIEs, I have two points. Firstly, the names. They are not referred to by the opt names anywhere in game in the original game. The opt names (Bizzaro, BigGun etc) are clearly meant to be tongue in cheek names to make them distinct in the file structure and in dev terms. The same is true of the GR-75 Medium Transport. The opt in Flightmodels is called TUNABOAT. Clearly, that name is not meant to be used in game. The original craft library description simply refers to them as TIE Experimental M1 etc. The joke names look silly. Also, they're supposed to be remote controlled drone fighters. As of the most recent update, they use exterior models with see through cockpits showing pilots. There aren't supposed to be any pilots in them. I appreciate that latter point is probably much harder to fix if you want something of the detail of an exterior model, rather than just using the non transparent base model.
Fixed the names of the experimental ties, I'm not sure why you think the Medium Transport is referred to as the Tunaboat, I never liked that name for the Opt, so I renamed the Opt to MediumTransport.opt along time ago, no reference to Tuna is in the description and never has been, it was the same for the PiggyBack.opt, I renamed that to PinookFighter.opt along time ago.

Also the Experimental Ties will no longer have visible pilots and No Exterior models, though if you wish to in skirmish they will still be flyable originally they are not.

Will T wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:14 pm
  • The Mon Cal Cruisers. This isn't new to this patch, just something I've been thinking for a while and thought I'd throw in here. I know the history of Mon Cal cruisers is a bit of a mess. I know the Home One scale issue is even worse. But I don't like the XWAU MC80A. The Chatnoir thing. It's a fan design based on a low res and highly inaccurate old model. I don't think it fits in anymore. The Defiance is clearly meant to be the same class of ship as Home One. TG just rendered its in game model really, really badly (by contrast, look at the cutscene model, it looks exactly like Home One). Every other source shows the Defiance as a Home One type cruiser. The Independence has also been said to be a cruiser of the same type. And honestly, the TG Winged Calamari Cruiser is about as accurate to the Liberty as their MC80A was to Home One (i.e not really very much at all), but XWAU has no issue switching to a much more accurate version of what we all know was the intended design. Yes, the TG version was too small. But that's not their fault. The official stats they were given were wrong, and have been forever. They're still wrong. The Armada miniatures version is too small because they were given the official stats. The canon reset has helped out even more now. The Home One type is now definitively the MC80A. Yes, it's still officially too small, but that might just have to be something we accept. That maybe ILM didn't built and composite everything in RotJ to perfect scale and that Saxton-esque frame by frame analyses might be looking too closely at a space fantasy film for kids.

    I'm rambling here, sorry. My point is that I think we can get away with using the Home One model for the Defiance without breaking anything and to avoid introducing a completely made up design (with a very silly name, IMO - Chatnoir, really?). I usually swap things around myself. The missions need a little tweaking to make space for the much larger Home One model, but there's only a few of them and its not hard. The bigger size doesn't make a difference, otherwise. There's one mission where the Defiance is in combat (last one before Endor), and I don't think the better stats make it any easier. It looks so much better, too.

    This is all opinion, I know. I'm not expecting you guys to change it. Just saying that I think your average fan (and they do still pick up this game occasionally, every time there's a Steam sale I see someone try it for the first time and they always get recommended to use XWAU by someone), would enjoy seeing the movie ships more in the missions than a fan design brought in as a compromise with a dodgy model from 1998.
There isn't much I can do about this as I'm not mission maker, someone else would have to alter the missions.

Do you have any suggestions what the Moncals should be called??? Any input would be grateful as in the past I've tried to research the names myself, and obviously failed.

Will T wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:14 pm
  • Lastly, and as I alluded to earlier, this is the niggliest of my criticisms. I love the landing gear change, I really do. But it comes at a cost on the X-Wing. I actually switched to Spyder's model, as I also have the Bandai model kit and it is fantastic, but this applies to both Spyder's and DS' in the main patch. You now can't close your s-foils during a mission unless you want the X-Wing to look really silly flying around with its landing gear down. I'm sure this is something you guys discussed when developing the landing gear and s-foils hook. I'm sure you've made up your mind and my opinion won't sway you, but I really will miss the ability to have the closed s-foil look when flying around in missions. I know it's stupid, I know there's no gameplay point to it, but I'm here because it's still the best place for me to feel like I'm in an X-Wing from those movies I love. And I liked being able to manually close them at the start of a mission and only open them at a moment of my choosing when the combat starts.

    Also, am I right in guessing that as part of the change, you've disabled s-foils from closing when NPC ships enter hyperspace? Because I couldn't see them close when I was watching a couple of X-Wings, and I know they used to do it. Again, I think it looks silly for the X-Wings to go to hyperspace with wings open. I know nothing says they can't, but it's how Luke always flew it in the films.

    I personally would be okay with the X-Wing and B-Wing being the only ships to not have landing gear if it means I get my working s-foils back. Something tells me that won't be an option, though. I'm guessing that, because of the way the hook works, if the X-Wings and B-Wings close their s-foils to enter hyperspace, all ships will and you'll have Y-Wings dropping their landing gear to jump to hyperspace. If so, I'll understand. But I wanted to get it on record that I prefer working s-foils mid mission to landing gear in the hangars, even if that means no landing gear at all.
Again not a lot we can do about the sfoils, it would be great if we could split the sfoils from the landing gear.

Other fixes in this patch include fixed Naboo Fighter as it was only firing from one laser hardpoints (not sure why) but this will only be installed if installing this fix to the DSUCPv2.6


Link Removed

Please goto Craft Pack Fixes for DSUCPv2.6/XWAUCPv1.6 to Download fix
.
.
“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”.”
- John Lydgate

Good Things Come To Those Who Wait....
Darksaber's X-Wing Station

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

Post by keiranhalcyon7 » Sat Jun 29, 2019 5:01 am

Will T wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:14 pm
(with a very silly name, IMO - Chatnoir, really?)
So you're an ailurophobe, then? ;)

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

Post by JeremyaFr » Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:05 am

Thank you Darksaber

Bman
Lieutenant JG
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 11:01 pm

Post by Bman » Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:21 am

For landing gear issue, all Will T. has to do is just edit the .txt or .ini file and comment out the line that activates the mesh index number. Problem solved.
Another idea, toying with the mesh's LOD distance. He could cloak the landing gear mesh(es) the farther you move away from player's X-wing ship when the S-Foils are closed during flight. So it's only visible up close say for example when in the hangar bays, or parked/orbit on a platform. Best of both worlds ?
W-I-P: ISD-II, XQ-1 Platform1, (Imp) Escort Carrier, Misc, & TFTC.

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

Post by keiranhalcyon7 » Sun Jun 30, 2019 6:50 am

Would it be possible for the s-foils hook to detect flight mode vs. hangar, and deploy the landing gear only in the hangar? Although then the deploy/retract animations would never play.

Different question on a similar topic - are YT transports able to have s-foils (landing gear), or is there some incompatibility?

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 3:52 pm

Anything can have it, but at the moment nothing has been made for them.

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

Post by Phoenix Leader » Mon Jul 01, 2019 2:44 pm

Though the YT transports having s-foils doesn't make much sense, the possibility to add s-foils could be exploit to give them landing gear, which they are supposed to have.

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

Post by ual002 » Mon Jul 01, 2019 3:27 pm

Interesting. Like, what if the model had a static landing gear addition only in the hangar, and when viewed anytime outside the hangar, s-foil in the open or closed position, they were not visible. They wouldn't even need animations but you could make them anyway just in case you find a better solution later. It's easy enough to comment the lines out in the INI for single player in the mean time, its just a shame cause they look so pretty in the hangar. Guess we cant have our cake and eat it too.


EDIT:
Spitballing here. Can a single ship slot load 2 opts in the same space at the same time? What if any ship that needed landing struts got a "ModelLandingStrut.opt" that was just the landing struts and an 'invisible' craft. In the Hangar it loads ModelExterior.opt overlayed with ModelLandingStrut.opt, and then when it leaves the hangar the game unloads ModelLandingStrut.opt. If you want to get fancy, make the landing strut animation close (with like a second of delay) when you hit space to launch, and open when you start the landing scene sequence.

Hell, if that worked in concept you could potentially expand on it. I'm not sure where the landing animation lives for each craft or if it even differs, but if you could change that, you could use the "ModelLandingStrut.opt" to somehow replicate the specific clamps for specific TIE fighters, and hang them from the ceiling in landing and takeoff. Have the game check if the hangar opt is type star destroyer, if so hang from ceiling, otherwise park on ground.
For the glory of his majesty Emperor Palpatine! Image Image Image Image

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

Post by Driftwood » Tue Jul 02, 2019 12:50 am

Phoenix Leader wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 2:44 pm
Though the YT transports having s-foils doesn't make much sense, the possibility to add s-foils could be exploit to give them landing gear, which they are supposed to have.
Gebus.
keiranhalcyon7 wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 6:50 am
Would it be possible for the s-foils hook to detect flight mode vs. hangar, and deploy the landing gear only in the hangar? Although then the deploy/retract animations would never play.

Different question on a similar topic - are YT transports able to have s-foils (landing gear), or is there some incompatibility?
Driftwood wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 3:52 pm
Anything can have it, but at the moment nothing has been made for them. (YES)

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

Post by Driftwood » Tue Jul 02, 2019 12:59 am

ual002 wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 3:27 pm
Interesting. Like, what if the model had a static landing gear addition only in the hangar, and when viewed anytime outside the hangar, s-foil in the open or closed position, they were not visible. They wouldn't even need animations but you could make them anyway just in case you find a better solution later. It's easy enough to comment the lines out in the INI for single player in the mean time, its just a shame cause they look so pretty in the hangar. Guess we cant have our cake and eat it too.


EDIT:
Spitballing here. Can a single ship slot load 2 opts in the same space at the same time? What if any ship that needed landing struts got a "ModelLandingStrut.opt" that was just the landing struts and an 'invisible' craft. In the Hangar it loads ModelExterior.opt overlayed with ModelLandingStrut.opt, and then when it leaves the hangar the game unloads ModelLandingStrut.opt. If you want to get fancy, make the landing strut animation close (with like a second of delay) when you hit space to launch, and open when you start the landing scene sequence.

Hell, if that worked in concept you could potentially expand on it. I'm not sure where the landing animation lives for each craft or if it even differs, but if you could change that, you could use the "ModelLandingStrut.opt" to somehow replicate the specific clamps for specific TIE fighters, and hang them from the ceiling in landing and takeoff. Have the game check if the hangar opt is type star destroyer, if so hang from ceiling, otherwise park on ground.
I think the only viable way to do that would be to do up a landing gear model as a separate mesh and create an LOD that's only visible from like 1-5m. But then if you ever got close enough ingame, it'd clearly show.

One could do up "landing gear props" for in the hangar only for parked ships that is not attached to a model easy enough so they aren't just floating.

If one is going to that kind of trouble to model and texture something though, it'd make more sense to utilize the S-foil hook function to access it. As it stands, there's only four ships that use "actual" strike foils anyways, and we obviously know the "issue" we have inflight related to opening/closing on the fly. The only trick then is you have to make sure to animate the landing gear correctly, which is arguably the hardest part of the entire process. It's extremely tedious.

I know I can make textures 100% invisible using blank textures. But that would not work in your proposed idea. I also don't believe your idea is functionally viable loading two separate opts for one ship.

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

Post by ual002 » Tue Jul 02, 2019 2:26 am

Just an idea. The main concern is just the ships with sfoils, namely the xwing and b-wing that historically have flown with folded sfoils outside a landing sequence. And since the AI never fold for cruise or hyperspace you cant see it unless you're out of the cockpit, which in turn makes the whole process tedious like you'd said, unless you make movies or machima... at which point you can edit out the lines in the ini for specific scenes.

The long term concern would be:
1. If we can tie sfoils on the X-wing and B-wing AI ships to fold outside combat (cruise or patrol) or during the hyperspace runup. (Which I think would boost immersion)
2. If we can make the AI transports with folding wings fold when using the "parked at" or any "board to" order. (Again, immersion boosting)
For the glory of his majesty Emperor Palpatine! Image Image Image Image

User avatar
Will T
Lieutenant Commander
Galactic Empire
Posts: 1200
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 11:01 pm

Post by Will T » Tue Jul 02, 2019 12:50 pm

Wow, that's a ton of detail in the responses, thanks guys. To go through them:
DTM wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:21 am
Thank you WillT for your detailed feedback. We really appreciate these analyzes, because they show that there is someone who greatly appreciates our work and helps us to improve ourselves.
Regarding landing gear: currently it is not possible to separate the control of the gears from that of the S-Foils.
Life is made of decisions. In this case we felt that the addition of the gears was more important than the flight with the S-foils closed. I understand that this idea is not shared by everyone ... I'm sorry, we hope that in the future we tend to separate the two functions.
Yeah, I really do appreciate the effort you guys are still putting into a 20 year old game. It's honestly remarkable this community is still going. Seeing all the additions in the latest patch got me to play around with some missions again and this game is still enjoyable. A lot of that is down to you guys.

I figured you must have had that conversation. I totally understand.

It's only two ships. I'll make peace with it. I think you're right that it does make all those ships in the hangar look so much better.
DTM wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:21 am
I could remember badly, but I don't think the behavior of ships entering hyperspace has been changed by the hook. If I remember correctly the ships have always kept the S-foils open, with the exception of the entrance and exit from the hangar.
Phoenix Leader wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:19 am
That's correct. AI controlled crafts never close S-foils when entering hyperspace. In such circumstance the S-foils closure only happens for player's craft.
I checked in a vanilla install, and you guy are absolutely correct.

My apologies, consider that comment retracted. I was sure I remembered seeing B-Wings coming out of hyperspace with s-foils closed, but I'm obviously wrong.

So yes, even less for me to worry about with the new landing gear change.
JeremyaFr wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 11:46 am
Thank you Will T :thumbs:
Feedbacks are always appreciated.
My pleasure, Jeremy. And seriously thanks so much for all your work expanding the game's capabilities. Everything looked a bit daunting with the hooks at first, but I read through a few readmes and soon figured out how to switch out the shuttle in the hangar with DTM's U-Wing and it worked perfectly. It's amazing how simple you've made the implementation of this, the scope for even a fairly casual player to customise elements and do things with the game previously thought impossible is fantastic.
Darksaber wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 11:52 pm

You can replace the *.dat files from the backup folder within the XwingAlliance folder, it's a hidden folder and will either be called BackupDSUCP or BackupXWAUCP depending on which craft pack you have installed

If you look in the Resdata Folder with in the backup folder you will see a list of the backed up *.dat files

Explosions = Explosions.dat
Laser inpacts = Animation.dat (also includes the Hyperspace animation)
You might also want to replace the Particles.dat and Sparks.dat

Sorry this wasn't and optional install
Firstly DS, thanks so much for taking the time to go through my long winded comments. It really is much appreciated.

And thanks for that. I figured it would probably be a simple dat file swap out, but I wasn't sure exactly which files and if there were changes needed to one of the .txt or mission.ini files. And thanks for setting up backup folders as part of the install process, it makes things so much easier for the picky among us who like to customise a little.
Darksaber wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 11:52 pm
First thank you, it's me that makes the installers so I basically decides what's in the installer, sorry if you think it's messy, I can do little with the way options are selected, I've tried to make it as user friendly as possible, I'm also limited to space for the descriptions, I'm limited to around 196 characters including spaces for the descriptions. Which makes it hard to fit in all the info that is needed, I do put in (See Readme) but obviously I may have left a lot out of the readme, or just totally forgot to put anything about the specific option in the first place, the lasers are a good example, it's needs more work I know.

Separate pages isn't an option, it would really mess up the installer, this is the reason for the readme file also images are not an option either.
Yep, totally understood. I figured it must just be a limitation of the installer tool itself.

It's not something I was expecting to be changed, just a suggestion for something that could maybe be looked at in future if another solution to the install method comes along.
Darksaber wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 11:52 pm
This I can fix, but one question for you, are you using the included pilot file or creating your own, I only ask as the included pilot file has all the slots enabled so you should see all craft and objects in the library, the temp pilot files are only for this reason. they are not really to be used as a permanent pilot file, I expect the user to use there own pilot file of create there own.

I have also looked through the original txt files and the Craft Pack Fix patch (available below) fixes most of the problems you describe,

When the Fix is applied the Tie Experimental will have there original names, you won't see them in the craft library until you come across them in the mission, then they should appear in the library.

Proximity Mine, Homing Mine won't be available in skirmish

Other objects like the connector rod and worker droid and pilot are back to there original TG setup.
This was using my own pilot file, yes. I did double check after you mentioned, as I was briefly confused by the temp pilot after XWAU install, but yes my pilot file still had all of the craft library additions.

There might have been some weird stuff happen as a result of specific install order. I copied my pilot file into a clean install of XWA and loaded it, but the game still asked me to create a new pilot file on launch the first time. I switched over to my pilot file then installed XWAU, but the new pilot seemed to become the default when I checked some things in MXvTED later. I've since deleted it but... I don't know, maybe that caused some unintended behaviour?

Amazing, thanks so much for making those tweaks.

I haven't had chance to check out the craft pack fix yet, but I'll be sure to report back when I do.
Darksaber wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 11:52 pm
Fixed the names of the experimental ties, I'm not sure why you think the Medium Transport is referred to as the Tunaboat, I never liked that name for the Opt, so I renamed the Opt to MediumTransport.opt along time ago, no reference to Tuna is in the description and never has been, it was the same for the PiggyBack.opt, I renamed that to PinookFighter.opt along time ago.

Also the Experimental Ties will no longer have visible pilots and No Exterior models, though if you wish to in skirmish they will still be flyable originally they are not.
I think you might have misunderstood, DS. I was referring to the TG opts, not to any of your work. My point was that TG clearly threw some less serious joke names into the file structure. I was drawing a connection between those opts and the Experimental TIEs, as the names of the experimentals also never appeared anywhere else in the game. My point was that I don't believe, way back in 98, that TG intended those TIEs to ever be called things like 'Bizzaro' anymore than they intended the Medium Transport to be called 'Tunaboat'. They were joke names in the backend .

For that reason, it's strange to me that a lot of the extended Star Wars community took those names at face value. Even the wookieepedia entries reference them.

But thanks for correcting them. And thanks for hearing me out on the cockpit issue. I know that means we won't get to see those opts in quite the best detail you've made for them, but I think it's the best step to stay accurate to the original intention of the game.
Darksaber wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 11:52 pm
There isn't much I can do about this as I'm not mission maker, someone else would have to alter the missions.

Do you have any suggestions what the Moncals should be called??? Any input would be grateful as in the past I've tried to research the names myself, and obviously failed.
I might have spoken a little too soon with this, actually.

I've been playing around with some missions, and I hadn't realised that you'd thrown the Home One opt in as the Independence. The new hangar hooks have kinda made my original argument a little irrelevant, as it's not so vital for the movie opts to be in the two specific slots with hangars anymore. I guess an extra model is an extra model

I still think the Defiance should also be set to a Home One type, but after seeing it done with the Independence I know I could just swap the model in Allied and everything would still work because of the hooks.

I wouldn't say it's a question of research, exactly. The Mon Cal cruisers were a total mess throughout the Legends continuity, I don't you think you would find a straight answer. It's been cleared up a bunch in Disney canon (though there's still some questionable elements - Home One's size is still contentious nearly 30 years after those WEG sourcebooks).

I don't want to bore you with a nerd overdose, but I guess the question is whether you want XWAU to stick firmly in the Legends continuity that XWA was part of, give it a bit of a spruce up to the new continuity in some areas (which would also be the easiest way of saying 'just make it look like the films', but would make the information something of a hybrid) or stick even more rigidly to TG's version and ignore all the continuity snarls they caused with inaccurate models and stats.

Based on the inclusion of the Home One type and the Reef Home type, I feel XWAU as a whole wants go with the 'make it look like the movies' approach. But if that's the plan, I think you should go with the new canon designations (that sort of almost make sense).

That would be as follows:

TG's 'Winged Calamari Cruiser' = MC80 Star Cruiser (Liberty type) (already done)
TG's 'MC80a Calamari Cruiser' = MC80A Star Cruiser (a.ka. Home One type) (already done for the Independence)

+ MC80 Star Cruiser (Reef Home type) as a new ship, because they were already in the films (already done)

The existing MC80a Chatnoir-class that DTM made based on JM's old model isn't a ship that appears in the films, or anywhere else. I know it's a nice, convenient solution to not changing the missions with the Defiance in them to account for it nearly tripling in size, but my personal take is that it isn't needed for XWAU to feel like a true 'they look like the films now' upgrade.

Again, that's just my take. If you hate the idea, I can swap things around to personal taste on my own time, it's fine. If you need tweaked copies of the B1 missions with a bigger Defiance, I can do that too.
Darksaber wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 11:52 pm
Again not a lot we can do about the sfoils, it would be great if we could split the sfoils from the landing gear.

Other fixes in this patch include fixed Naboo Fighter as it was only firing from one laser hardpoints (not sure why) but this will only be installed if installing this fix to the DSUCPv2.6


Link Removed

Please goto Craft Pack Fixes for DSUCPv2.6/XWAUCPv1.6 to Download fix
.
.
As I said earlier, it's not a deal breaker. I'll get used to it.

Thanks again for offering up this fix patch DS, I'll be sure to check it out as soon as I get chance.

And thanks again for helping to keep this community going. I'm very grateful for all the otherwise free time you dedicate to this.
Bman wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:21 am
For landing gear issue, all Will T. has to do is just edit the .txt or .ini file and comment out the line that activates the mesh index number. Problem solved.
Another idea, toying with the mesh's LOD distance. He could cloak the landing gear mesh(es) the farther you move away from player's X-wing ship when the S-Foils are closed during flight. So it's only visible up close say for example when in the hangar bays, or parked/orbit on a platform. Best of both worlds ?
Amazing Bman, thanks for this.

I hadn't realised they were dependent on .ini files. Yeah, if ever I really want X-Wings flying with closed s-foils and no landing gear. I guess I'm kinda faced with the same decision as you guys now, after having seen how good those parked X-Wings look in the hangar, I'm no longer so sure if losing that is worth something I only do now and then for a little bit of very meaningless entertainment.

But it's good to now the option is there, and is an easy (and temporary!) solution. Seriously, these hooks are enhancing this game so much.
Formerly known as The 95 Headhunter

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

Post by ual002 » Tue Jul 02, 2019 2:47 pm

Yea, you can do exactly what you wanted commenting out the INI lines. Also replacing the shuttle with the U-wing in my rebel install is an awesome idea.
For the glory of his majesty Emperor Palpatine! Image Image Image Image

Commander_Camm
Recruit
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2014 4:46 pm

Post by Commander_Camm » Sun Jul 28, 2019 2:46 am

best update yet! Thank you so much for the hard work. The gameplay is everything I have been hoping for for a long time.

User avatar
Griffin
Lieutenant JG
Posts: 587
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 11:01 pm
Contact:

Post by Griffin » Sun Jul 28, 2019 7:01 am

Got around to installing XWA on my new PC, and then installed the XWAUCP 1.6 - it is amazing! Thank you everyone involved for your hard work! Going to see if I can load in some old crusade missions and have some fun.

eddybruch
Recruit
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:30 am

Post by eddybruch » Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:42 am

I just stumbled around in the www and found your site - reinstalled xwa and WOW! Its amazing you what you folks did to the game. It is pure awesomesauce!
I wished i had expirience in 3d stuff to help out but unfortunatly I am not artisticly inclined :(
However - while looking throu the ship library i noticed there is some clipping with the tie-bombers pylons, nothing that bothers me realy, but maybe i found some bug you wanted to know about.

Big thank you for all your work and a big thumbs up. Im back to playing the game. :)

Post Reply