+- Renegade Projects Network Forums (https://forums.renegadeprojects.com)
+-- Forum: Inject the Battlefield (https://forums.renegadeprojects.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=60)
+--- Forum: Ares General Discussion (https://forums.renegadeprojects.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=19)
+--- Thread: Patching extra functionality into <gamemd.exe> (/showthread.php?tid=16)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
RE: Patching extra functionality into <gamemd.exe> - Renegade - 05.01.2007
The whole point of this is that there is no owner. If Damage is dealt by a Particle, that Particle is the owner of the Damage - it doesn't know the Particle is owned by a ParticleSystem which was fired by a weapon which belongs to a unit which has an owner.
So telling a weapon it is OwnedByFirer, when the Firer is FireParticle5, is no use at all
RE: Patching extra functionality into <gamemd.exe> - Nighthawk - 05.01.2007
Maybe I worded my reply wrongly. I meant that the tag tells the weapon that everything that is subsequently spawned by it, be that particles or debris or animations etc. will be owned by the house that fired the original weapon, so instead of the particle's firer being FireParticle5, it would be Player@A, or Player@B etc.
Also, why does this topic keep getting pinned then unpinned?
RE: Patching extra functionality into <gamemd.exe> - Renegade - 05.01.2007
Could be a problem with quick reply...only in this forum, all checkboxes are deselected on it by default...maybe it interprets a missing "stick thread" as an order to "do unsticky thread".
RE: Patching extra functionality into <gamemd.exe> - VK - 05.01.2007
Quote:Could a tag be used on a weapon to tell it that it is owned by the firer, something like OwnedByFirer=yes/no, then if that tag is present on the weapon, all effects (bounty, mutation, etc.) are applied to the firer's house.It's impossible!
Two new super weapons added:
1)DropPod
2)IonCannon
So, I rename ParaDropInf, ParaDropInfNum, ParaDropUnits, ParaDropUnitsNum tags
to DropInf, DropInfNum, DropUnits, DropUnitsNum.
DROPPODS AVAILABLE!
RE: Patching extra functionality into <gamemd.exe> - Nighthawk - 06.01.2007
CnCVK Wrote:So, I rename ParaDropInf, ParaDropInfNum, ParaDropUnits, ParaDropUnitsNum tagsWhy rename? Would that not interfere with the New Paradrop superweapons, not to mention all the mods it would mess up.
to DropInf, DropInfNum, DropUnits, DropUnitsNum.
RE: Patching extra functionality into <gamemd.exe> - TheMan - 06.01.2007
WOHO DROP POD
you rock VK , i have waited for this for a long timeBut what are a Ion Cannon? You can make these with any clone righ now
RE: Patching extra functionality into <gamemd.exe> - MCV - 06.01.2007
Is it planned or accidental that the Apocs don't have DropPods?
RE: Patching extra functionality into <gamemd.exe> - FS-21 - 06.01.2007
TheMan Wrote:...
But what are a Ion Cannon? You can make these with any clone righ now
If works like Tiberian Sun SW (local tags of AIIonCannonConYardValue=,AIIonCannonWarFactoryValue= ... ) will to be more customizable than an emulated Ion Cannon...
RE: Patching extra functionality into <gamemd.exe> - TheMan - 06.01.2007
MCV Wrote:Is it planned or accidental that the Apocs don't have DropPods?
Look at the picture:
Picture Wrote:DropPodUnit=APOC
CNCVK Wrote:So, I rename ParaDropInf, ParaDropInfNum, ParaDropUnits, ParaDropUnitsNum tagsLike Nighthawk200 said, what will then happens to Paradrop?
to DropInf, DropInfNum, DropUnits, DropUnitsNum.
RE: Patching extra functionality into <gamemd.exe> - 4StarGeneral - 06.01.2007
The apocs probably have problems because of the Drop Pods can only carry infantry. Not vehicles. Drop pods would have to be a vehicle to carry units, like amphib transport, not a plane. But, that is also fixable. Eh, VK?
And Ion Cannon just makes things easier, like if you try to add anim before it hits.
RE: Patching extra functionality into <gamemd.exe> - VK - 06.01.2007
Quote:Why rename? Would that not interfere with the New Paradrop superweapons, not to mention all the mods it would mess up.Because now it use by DropPod too
Quote:Is it planned or accidental that the Apocs don't have DropPods?However tanks have some problems
Quote:Like Nighthawk200 said, what will then happens to Paradrop?It's have the same INI tags.
Quote:If works like Tiberian Sun SW (local tags of AIIonCannonConYardValue=,AIIonCannonWarFactoryValu e= ... ) will to be more customizable than an emulated Ion Cannon...No. You can use AITargetingType
Changes: LStorm and Nuke Actions (Triggers) now is dependent from SW
so when you use Nuke trigger action -> the first SW with Nuke type will be used.
RE: Patching extra functionality into <gamemd.exe> - TheMan - 10.01.2007
will you add a new unhardcoded codes for stolentech that you told you would do long time ago?
RE: Patching extra functionality into <gamemd.exe> - VK - 11.01.2007
Quote:will you add a new unhardcoded codes for stolentech that you told you would do long time ago?No. Probably new stolen tech system comes.
RE: Patching extra functionality into <gamemd.exe> - Bobingabout - 11.01.2007
since you can have as many tech centres per side as you want (like CDA has 5) I'd say to do something like your new infdeaths, where the unit that becomes available has "RequiresStolenTech=TATECH" on it for example, then spying on TATECH will make the unit available.
RE: Patching extra functionality into <gamemd.exe> - MCV - 11.01.2007
In combinaion with the old stolen tech tags that would make for some awsome tech-combinations like stealing from ConYards to get buildings, tech centres to get special tech, airpads to get new aircraft, etc.
And it would be more useable than "RequiresStolenFourthSideTech="
(Which would be a pain to type also.)