C2C Graphics

Liquidated · Jul 8, 2015

Is there someplace that actually sort of walks one though the varied landscape of the XML files? When I was trying to figure out the dreaded missing lizards issue I was quickly lost in a never ending maze of building and bonus xml windows :lol:

As a disabled vet in a bad spell, that was a bit too much for me at the time. Thankfully, something dancing mentioned to me, made me realize stone on a peak = no vicinity bonus for silk + stone. I WBed the peak into a hill and grabbed some workers to redo the quarry and bam, lizards. :crazyeye:

Regardless, I'm not one asking for commit privileges. I'm more than happy to explicitly spell out issues I find with the game I'm test running, as my coding skills are weak.

Cheers!
-Liq'd

Thunderbrd · Jul 8, 2015

You'd find XML is very easy once you get the gist.

In Assets/XML you'll find most of the CORE xml files. Files with names ending in 'infos' are where game objects are defined. You'd probably find the lizard in AnimalInfos.xml in Assets/XML for example. In Assets/Modules you'll find additional object files and if one of the objects defined there is also defined in a core file, it's likely there to edit the core object if the module is active (which is controlled in the MLF_ file in Modules.)

Take a look. I'll tell you more once you've found the lizard definition. Let me know if you have difficulty there.

Liquidated · Jul 9, 2015

Well Dancing just uploaded the fix to the mysterious no stone bonus on peaks and the issue is resolved thanks to a excellent spot by Stormwind.

I was more on about the Bonus lizards as opposed to the animals and the ultimate needle in that hay stack was the line.

<bBonusMakesValid>0</bBonusMakesValid> in the mountan_mine improvement.

The ultimate lesson for me with that bug was I now understand how the game treats improvements with regards to bonuses in that there is no ultimate distinction between a lumbermill or plantation, provided the two improvements can handle the bonus properly.

I doubt that makes much sense but I'm slowly working my way around the various tags starting with the infrastructure side of things.

Cheers!
-Liq

Thunderbrd · Jul 9, 2015

It does make sense. I think it wasn't set that way in concern that it may enable mountain mines to be built now in other places it shouldn't. We should watch out for that.

Much of learning to mod is a matter of figuring problems out one issue at a time. You give us a lot of issues and each takes a significant effort to resolve which is why it is good to keep a list for yourself and we can try to address one at a time. It takes patience.

As with my concern, sometimes what seems to fix a problem can break other facets of the situation. If that's the case here it will mean having to fix it on a much deeper level, like perhaps adding a tag to enable us the 'somewhere between' pt a and pt b of the situation. Wouldn't be hard but would be another grain of sand in very full barrel.

Arakhor · Jul 9, 2015

Thunderbrd said:
It does make sense. I think it wasn't set that way in concern that it may enable mountain mines to be built now in other places it shouldn't. We should watch out for that.

Maybe just allow quarries to be built on peaks and scrap mountain mines entirely?

Thunderbrd · Jul 9, 2015

I'm not entirely attached to the whole Mountain Mine concept. But it would take a lot of rethinking of that part of the structure. And there's other issues there that Mtn Mines do help resolve but I can't recall all of them at the moment. Just saying there's some complexities that lurk there.

That said, while I've come to kinda like the idea at the moment, the concept was ... odd to me at first. One should read the Improvements thread where it was discussed in detail before attempting to alter how it works I think. Arguments were made for it that I've forgotten at this point.

Dancing Hoskuld · Jul 9, 2015

Arakhor said:
Maybe just allow quarries to be built on peaks and scrap mountain mines entirely?

So you won't be able to get that copper then :mischief:

.

Thunderbrd said:
I'm not entirely attached to the whole Mountain Mine concept. But it would take a lot of rethinking of that part of the structure. And there's other issues there that Mtn Mines do help resolve but I can't recall all of them at the moment. Just saying there's some complexities that lurk there.

That said, while I've come to kinda like the idea at the moment, the concept was ... odd to me at first. One should read the Improvements thread where it was discussed in detail before attempting to alter how it works I think. Arguments were made for it that I've forgotten at this point.

If there is special code for the Mountain Mine then I think it is not needed. The problem is that we are not familliar enough with the XML for improvements and our expert appears to have left after sorting out a lot of issues.

There are tags for limiting improvements by terrain and terrain feature. The terrain tags were not used on the Mountain Mine :eek:

Thunderbrd · Jul 9, 2015

Probably because Peak is not a terrain (sortof). However, it MAY count as one in THIS case due to a special provision to count where a peak is as being of the Peak terrain. There IS a definition of a Peak terrain but it's not technically applicable in all situations where a peak exists to be used as the definition. Peaks were made strange in RoM or AND I think, not sure which one. It was done to allow a terrain to exist where a peak also exists.

Dancing Hoskuld · Jul 9, 2015

Thunderbrd said:
Probably because Peak is not a terrain (sortof). However, it MAY count as one in THIS case due to a special provision to count where a peak is as being of the Peak terrain. There IS a definition of a Peak terrain but it's not technically applicable in all situations where a peak exists to be used as the definition. Peaks were made strange in RoM or AND I think, not sure which one. It was done to allow a terrain to exist where a peak also exists.

Peaks are strange in BtS! They are both a base terrain and a terrain type.

Liquidated · Jul 11, 2015

Remember, you can plant new cities on top of peaks as well. :crazyeye:

Oh, and the Barbs can too!

Cheers!
-Liq

HiFiPanda · Jul 16, 2015

Will I get option to build Myth of Flying Walrus once I will get it in city vicinity?

dexter_inside · Jul 17, 2015

HiFiPanda said:
Will I get option to build Myth of Flying Walrus once I will get it in city vicinity?

How about the flying flax field? Does it count?

Liquidated · Jul 17, 2015

Not sure how this Barb managed it, but look at that Tzar fly!

Bigger than a mountain I tell ya!

I find it interesting that the Great Wall is almost a timeless wonder when you have barb tanks rolling about sacking AI towns.

Cheers!
-Liquidated

JosEPh_II · Jul 17, 2015

dexter_inside said:
How about the flying flax field? Does it count?

You guys are using battlefield damage option. Bad decision there. It's not been updated for many a version. Maybe you all should PM Sparth and see if he is willing to look into it. He's been busy on a Polish Conversion for C2C though.

JosEPh

Sparth · Jul 17, 2015

Liquidated said:
Not sure how this Barb managed it, but look at that Tzar fly!

Ill resize Tzar Tank model but for now SVN is broken.

As for flying resources after brief checking I can only says that is beyond my skils

Its seems that NIF files used to generate mountains are taken from original Civ4/BTS from this directory art\terrain\features\peak\
This 3D model is not designed to be "usable" and neither units or resources should be on the plot with Peak. As we know C2C added usable mountains options and here we have flying units/features.
Hard to say but I think if we want nice looking features in mountain terrain then all 3D models should be redesigned to create additional verision for mountain terrain. Its a lot of work (dunno who can do this) and in the end IMO its not worth of our time.

Liquidated · Jul 17, 2015

I fully expect things to look bizarre around peaks, like the cities that sort of crowd around the peak proper like a monolithic block just plunged up and impaled the town.

The Mark V (Early Tank) can stand to be a bit smaller too, btw.

Cheers!
-Liq

Thunderbrd · Jul 17, 2015

Sparth said:
Ill resize Tzar Tank model but for now SVN is broken.

As for flying resources after brief checking I can only says that is beyond my skils
Its seems that NIF files used to generate mountains are taken from original Civ4/BTS from this directory art\terrain\features\peak\
This 3D model is not designed to be "usable" and neither units or resources should be on the plot with Peak. As we know C2C added usable mountains options and here we have flying units/features.
Hard to say but I think if we want nice looking features in mountain terrain then all 3D models should be redesigned to create additional verision for mountain terrain. Its a lot of work (dunno who can do this) and in the end IMO its not worth of our time.

Yeah, it's REALLY not worth it imo.

Toffer90 · Sep 11, 2015

Experimenting on the mountain mine.

It might end up quite different though.
Any suggestions or ideas?

Dancing Hoskuld · Sep 11, 2015

That looks OK in shape but in colour it is a bit hard to see.

Sparth · Sep 11, 2015

Yea more visibility and will be good. Just change texture to brown or black colour.

C2C Graphics

Goofed Up on Cough Syrup!

C2C War Dog

Goofed Up on Cough Syrup!

C2C War Dog

Dremora Courtier

C2C War Dog

Deity

C2C War Dog

Deity

Goofed Up on Cough Syrup!

Chieftain

Warlord

Attachments

Goofed Up on Cough Syrup!

TBS WarLord

C2C Team Member

Goofed Up on Cough Syrup!

C2C War Dog

C2C Modder

Deity

C2C Team Member

Similar threads