Rock Patch 1.10 development thread

[VK]

Did not. pd not release 14 versions in rapid succession which were all officially incompatible to each other. He also didn't rename stuff just for fun. pd tried to maintain compatibility as long as possible, and only broke it if it was impossible to maintain it. Unlike you, who just decided compatibility sucks, and declared everything incompatible.

sometimes you should break compatibility.
However, all my "renames" have a really reasons.
but PD's: "Change: Spyplane and SpyplanesNum are now SpyPlane and SpyPlanesNum"
have any reason?

As long as you stick to it.
But that doesn't change the fact that
RP_Summer_Edition_0050.exe
RP_Celebration_Edition_0050.exe
RP_Hells_Edition_0050.exe
still doesn't tell the user which one is the latest.

I find a good soulution:
Create OLD subfoler and move here all non-current RP version files.

Thanks for the insight on your future planned version names, though

this only preview.

Oooh...it still had bugs after three releases...how often, again, did you release CE?

As I see, you really think, that this is really easy, isn't it?  

Anyways... Are we gonna see drop pods back into RP?

Now development of RP 1.10 is stopped.
Maybe, I will return it in the next version.

First off, it's not an official page, as has been stated several times, so therefore does not have to reflect official information.

I create a official page RockPatch:VKVersions and did you see that King Ren do?
He simple don't allow me to create official page.
Again I talk this:
King Ren allow on ModEnc only things, which he likes or good in his opinion.
I am not first who said this however.
For example, look into AIGenerals. I had proved that this is totally bullshit.
No! King Ren, who know nothing about COM, don't think so.
He can't prove it and change it back.
...and a lot of another tags.

I coded Drop pods when it was first released then just yesterday i got around to testing it... and once the pods showed up and IE poped up... so thats when i went looking to see if i messed up codeing, but couldn't find anything... Then asked some
one and they said VK removed it because it didn't work and he didn't want to fix it.

It have no changes. I only delete it from help and write "unsupported".  

We've tried to persuade him, no results.

As I see, you forgot who is you, isn't?
Did you know assembler for x86? yes?
Did you know windows kernel system? yes?
Did you have any hacking experience? Yes?
I think: No (it's my suggestion however).
So never think about things which you really don't know at all.
main ideas:
1)Coders of patch don't need any demands.
2)NOT ALL things can be done! (in real time)
3)NOT ALL bugs can be fixed! (in real time)

[Marshall]

I intend to stay out of this debate, but I will say one thing, CnCVK, for which I concur with Renegade:

For example, look into AIGenerals. I had proved that this is totally bullshit.
No! King Ren, who know nothing about COM, don't think so.

The problem, CnCVK, is that it has been reported that AIGenerals do have an effect. Renegade is willing to acknowledge your findings, but all you have said is "bullshit bullshit bullshit". What we need is an explanation as to why it is 'bullshit', and more importantly an explanation for why some people have found that AIGenerals do have an effect?
My own personal experience trying to enable AIGenerals gave me an increased frequency of random Internal Errors, so I disabled AIGenerals. Maybe it was coincidence, but I'm not the only one to have seen an apparent effect with AIGenerals.
Why don't you indulge us and try enabling AIGenerals as some of us have, and see what happens by following the code in the engine? Maybe the section isn't parsed as you have said, but what other effect might an unused section cause - slap a trace in there and see if the output is any different. You disrespect those of us with some knowledge of programming and modding when all you say is "what you say is bullshit", implying that you think we are 'bullshit' in general.

Wouldn't it be nice if everyone was nice?

[Renegade]

sometimes you should break compatibility.
However, all my "renames" have a really reasons.
but PD's: "Change: Spyplane and SpyplanesNum are now SpyPlane and SpyPlanesNum"
have any reason?

You mean other than the fact that every other instance of "SpyPlane" in the rules is "SpyPlane", not "Spyplane"?

What, again, was the reason for your TUT1 renames?

I find a good soulution:
Create OLD subfoler and move here all non-current RP version files.

Yes. Because forcing every single user independently from each other to start version management of your releases is so much better and easier than just adding a version number to the releases.

What color is the sky in your world?

I create a official page RockPatch:VKVersions and did you see that King Ren do?
He simple don't allow me to create official page.

You mean this page, that, according to the history, no one but you touched?

Again I talk this:
King Ren allow on ModEnc only things, which he likes or good in his opinion.
I am not first who said this however.

Sooo...who else says that? And do they have proof to support that claim?

For example, look into AIGenerals. I had proved that this is totally bullshit.
No! King Ren, who know nothing about COM, don't think so.
He can't prove it and change it back.
...and a lot of another tags.

Those who want to see how VK "proved" AIGenerals are "totally bullshit" can take a look here and here.
His strongest arguments:

• "And AIGeneral, which is totally bullshit."
  
• "Rename ai.tlb to aimd.tlb ? - I can laugh only "
  

Impressive, aren't they?
If you watch at the top of Talk:AI, you'll see that, after reverting his first change, I quite clearly say that I don't think he's lying, I'd just like him to go into more details before deleting stuff.

But hey...asking for reasons for deletion and dictatorship are one and the same, right?

This man is soooooooo delusional.

We've tried to persuade him, no results.

As I see, you forgot who is you, isn't?
Did you know assembler for x86? yes?
Did you know windows kernel system? yes?
Did you have any hacking experience? Yes?
I think: No (it's my suggestion however).
So never think about things which you really don't know at all.
main ideas:
1)Coders of patch don't need any demands.
2)NOT ALL things can be done! (in real time)
3)NOT ALL bugs can be fixed! (in real time)

And, as usual, you fail to say how that is in any way connected to the fact that they tried to persuade you to support them again.

Am I the only one who finds it ironic he calls me "King Ren" for no reason at all (and without even trying to remove the evidence that it was the other way round), only to then start another of his "I R TEH CODAR AND I DON'T GIVE A FUCK FOR YOUR OPINIONS" tirades?

[MadHQ]

So RP 1.10 has stopped what are you working on... ETS? I would still love to see multiple mcvs.

So your saying the newist RP still has Drop pod capability...?

[VK]

What, again, was the reason for your TUT1 renames?

It's already renamed back.

You mean this page, that, according to the history, no one but you touched?

I about Template:RockPatch.

His strongest arguments:

My first argument for you: string AIGeneral don't exist in file.

why some people have found that AIGenerals do have an effect?

which effect?
AI build five power plants instead of two?

some effect, some unknown effect -> there no effect of course.

[Bobingabout]

What, again, was the reason for your TUT1 renames?

It's already renamed back.

the fact that you renamed it back after the comunity complained has nothing to do with it. PD's plane -> Plane rename was to maintain continuity.

1 of these would be if you renamed FthParaDrop* to FourthParaDrop*. it fits in with every other Fourth Side tag, and maintains original continuity with YuriParaDrop* etc, its a logical change that people would accept.

the motivation from TUT1 -> THD1 isn't clear, it was already widly used which would have meant more than a simple search and replace inside your rules file, that seemed ultimatly pointless.

i don't care anymore, this was in the past, all we need is #0052 is it we are upto now?

also, the fact that he released 14 versions after 1 another in is not the problem, thats a natural beta process, the problem was with the lack of compatibility between them.

[Marshall]

My first argument for you: string AIGeneral don't exist in file.

...which doesn't automatically mean that adding the section, or the tlb file, can't have an effect on the way the program works.

[Renegade]

...which doesn't automatically mean that adding the section, or the tlb file, can't have an effect on the way the program works.

Or, as I put it: Just because he can't find it, doesn't mean it's not parsed.
After all, he wouldn't insist the hacking is oh-so-hard if he could read the code like book.
Face it, VK: You're not God. You make mistakes. A lot of them. So the fact that you are convinced to be right, especially after this discussion, is not proof enough to declare something void that was handled as "known" in the community for years.

And, I ask again, even though I don't expect a useful answer from you: If AIGenerals is bullshit and doesn't exist...where does all the info DeeZire wrote come from? Are you saying he made that up?

And all of that doesn't take into account that DZ says it was created for TS - so even if it really isn't in YR (which I'm not convinced of), the page and info would still have a right to exist as information for TS modders.

Get some proof or quit editing those pages.


btw, in case you want to complain about ModEnc suppressing your page again: As long as you're banned, any change by you will be reverted. Simply because you're banned. That's the concept of banning people - not having them there. Continuing to edit will only extend your ban, which already is long enough. If you seriously want to make a change, let your ban expire and start a discussion. Further vandalism will only lead to further defense.

[4StarGeneral]

@MadHQ - What do you mean by multiple MCV's? One for each side? Because that will call for a grand overhaul of the engine since much of the coding pertains to this system of the bases. Or just multiple MCV's at start (I hope not).
@Renegade - It is in YR, just extremely annoying to work. Had it working once out of the ten different times I've tried. BTW, AI coding is hard! Harder than ASM! (at least to me)

And my comment here is that this is turning out to be a great argument, in which VK has to inevitably win because no one else can do this coding crap. (And I sure as heck don't want to anymore even though I sorta could, I mean look at the crap I'd have to take!) So again, this is not the easy plug and play system of the .ini's, it takes a long time and if there are ANY errors, it WILL have bugs. Even if you cannot notice in the coding. Just EVERYONE remember this when posting please.

Turning back to the reason of this thread, I think you should stick to inserting the things in the Vote List first, though I understand why it is impossible to have everyone put suggestions on the Vote List. Anyway, those votes have been there awhile, and I have been cleaning that place up since no one else seems to... >.>

[~Guest~]

This is ridiculous! Remove the stupid page.
It is just version names and dont take more than a minite to understand them

[Renegade]

Oooh, now if Anonymous Coward commands we take down that page, that's a whole different issue...off, to the ModCave!

[MadHQ]

@MadHQ - What do you mean by multiple MCV's? One for each side? Because that will call for a grand overhaul of the engine since much of the coding pertains to this system of the bases. Or just multiple MCV's at start (I hope not).

Yes it would be nice to have two (or more) possible mcv's/conyards (Conyards probably isn't needed as if you have two mcvs DeploysInto= would tell them apart and Prerequisite= would define the rest of the tech tree.). I tbh wouldn't imagine it would be all that hard to do... You most likely could use the Ra2 engine as a reference... And I'm not to sure that there would be to much of a grand over-hall... As it would only require to change the starting units. As once you have the mcv for that side the rest can fall onto Prerequisite=, and deploys into (simple INI tags). But I will say I have no idea how to do any programing so I wouldn't know...

Hell I'm hoping for a yes, no, or even maybe from CnCVK... I have posted about this quite a few times... no sign of interest... And its not like I'm the only one that would want some thing like this. I can tell you that most TS moders want this done... Hell I have talk to PD who said its probably possible but he wasn't even gonna attempt since CnCVK took over.

I don't care about ETS and all it other features (though there are nice and use able) I just want multiple mcvs... So if any one made a test patch just for that... even if it was a bit buggy I would be happy as a pig rolling in its own shit!

[VK]

And all of that doesn't take into account that DZ says it was created for TS - so even if it really isn't in YR (which I'm not convinced of), the page and info would still have a right to exist as information for TS modders.

no, TS don't use it too.

to declare something void that was handled as "known" in the community for years.

..something happen..
What is really happen?
Write about changes, not just some effect !

about multi-MCV:
As I see, you want have one-MCV per county, isn't it?

btw, in case you want to complain about ModEnc suppressing your page again: As long as you're banned, any change by you will be reverted. Simply because you're banned. That's the concept of banning people - not having them there. Continuing to edit will only extend your ban, which already is long enough. If you seriously want to make a change, let your ban expire and start a discussion. Further vandalism will only lead to further defense.

No. and at first you must prove it

[DCoder]

This is getting retarded. You know it was you who committed those edits, we know it was you, now you're just being Bart Simpson, "I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, you can't prove anything".

I can even predict your next act, by the way. When we pull out the logs, you're going to act dumb and claim you are running unpatched Windows and open Wi-Fi so your pc has been hacked by someone who just wants to make you look bad.

[Bobingabout]

about multi-MCV:
As I see, you want have one-MCV per county, isn't it?

this is already possible with the Owner= tag. its how i emulate 8 sides. my area of expertise in RA2:YR modding

note: last time i tested this was back in 1.07(although the side was incomplete, i was testing its doability), unless CnCVK has changed the BaseUnit= code, after PD's change, to limit it to only 4 units(i think PD said he made it work for upto 32), you shouldn't have any problems, not even short game explosions.
note: my yuri county is no longer YuriCountry, but YuriPrime and YuriElite. YuriCountry is my yuri subside.

Code:

[General]
BaseUnit=AMCV,SMCV,PCV,TMCV,EMCV,VMCV,PMCV,RMCV

[Sides]
GDI=British,French,Germans,Americans,Alliance, EinsteinCountry
Nod=Russians,Africans,Confederation,Arabs,Ukraine, RussiaElite
ThirdSide=YuriPrime,YuriElite,YuriCountry
FourthSide=CDA,CivicRepublic

[AMCV]
Owner=British,French,Germans,Americans,Alliance

[VMCV]
Owner=Russians,Confederation,Africans,Arabs, Ukraine

[PCV]
Owner=YuriElite,YuriPrime

[TMCV]
Owner=CDA

[EMCV]
Owner=EinsteinCountry

[VMCV]
Owner=RussiaElite

[PMCV]
Owner=YuriCountry

[RMCV]
Owner=CivicRepublic

result is that allied start with AMCV, soviets SMCV etc, einstein starts with EMCV etc
allies and einstein share AIBasePlanningSide=0, and other allied tags, so, the ai will always build the allied powerplant, and get GIs from sold/destroyed buildings etc.
the rest of the rules is a complete mingle of AlternatePrerequisite=, the first 1 to note(and possibly the only 1 on the allied side) would be [GAPOWR] having Prerequisite=GACNST and AlternatePrerequisite=EACNST.(see problem 1)(simular problem to why in the original rules all allied radar prerequisites use RADAR instead of GAAIRC, they also have AMRADR)
also, Owner= is a bit complex too, because if you want einstein AI to be able to have something, but not Allied AI, you have to make sure it reads Owner=EinsteinCountry, and vica versa for allied but not einstein.(see problem 2) unless you do lots of ForbiddenHouses= and RequiredHouses=, but that makes capturing other sides or subsides pretty much impossable.

the only 2 real problems to note are:
1. only 1 AlternatePrerequisite= tag means only 1 subside per side. which is 1 reason why i asked for multiple alternate prerequisite tags, not just the 1. it also poses a problem for things like Prerequisite=GAWEAP,GATECH AlternatePrerequisite=EAWEAP,EATECH, because you must own either the allied war factory and the allied battle lab, or the einstein war factory and the einstein lab, and it doesn't work if you own the allied war factory with einstein lab, or einstein war factory and allied battle lab.
2. with the seperation of owners it forces allied units to come from allied factories, soviet units from soviet factories, etc, basicly, another sinkhole for NCO mistakes, although the effect of building a grizzly followed by a rhyno, and the grizzy coming from the allied factory, then the rhyno coming from the soviet factory is pretty neat.(see my Dog Kennel Tutorial.)


what he might mean is being able to start with more than 1 MCV, like unholy alliance, however in UA you start with all listed MCVs, i'm thinking mad wants you to be able to select a specific 2, which would require a change in the way MCVs are chosen. the most simple 1 i can think of is that it gives you ALL units on the BaseUnit= tag with the correct owner, and not just the first 1 it finds.

No. and at first you must prove it

IP address Logging?