JCivED - a toolbox for Civilization

[darkpanda]

Got it, it's because I was actually using 475.01. It's looking for the resource DM_EXE_EN47501.txt. Which checking the source code on source forge, only exists for 474.01.

So user error after all!

I am pretty sure the only difference in CIV.EXE between 474.01 and 475.01 is the "4" digit replaced by a "5" digit... The file "DM_EXE_EN47401.txt" could be just copied and renamed "DM_EXE_EN47501.txt", and it would work...

Unfortunately I cannot test this, since it seems I don't have every version of every CIV.EXE at hand to make the comparison...

Also you encounter this problem because I optimistically marke the patch023 as compatible with both versions 474.01 and 475.01, so JCivED wrongfully allowed you to configure this patch... This can be prevented by restricting the patch compatibility directly at line 11 of file "patches/patch023_game_cfg.xml":
- Before

    <data versions="EN47401,EN47501"> <parts><part>    <offset> 0x23859 </offset>

- After

    <data versions="EN47401"> <parts><part>    <offset> 0x23859 </offset>

 

[darkpanda]

Ok so I took the opportunity to make another JCivED release, now 0.0.25a, focused on fixing bugs in patches (download here: https://sourceforge.net/projects/jcived/files/JCivED-0.0.25a.zip/download )

• Added 2 patches by YurArm, 53 fixes pollution bug, while 54 fixes negative scores
• bug fix: fixed incorrect support of patch 23 (experimental) for CIV 475.01
• bug fix: tupi's F10 PowerGraph patch (204) had a wrong offset for v01, now fixed
• bug fix: patches 38 and 39 had typo which made them unusable for v03 and v05, now fixed

I am considering spending a little time improving the patch 23, considering more data is already mapped out from the EXE file (such as: building costs, unit cost/attack/defense/move, tech prerequisite/obsolete, wonder prerquisite, etc.), so in theory only the UI is missing to be able to modify those values hard-coded in the CIV.EXE

 

[Lord_Hill]

Sounds awesome!

 

[lilni2024]

Fantastic thanks - absolutely spot on