Need testers for new editor

CivAgamemnon said:
Steph, I've come across a little error:



After I click "OK", I'm able to use the editor without any problems. Is it possible to disable this warning or remove it entirely?

Several other people I know on another forum have mentioned they've encountered the same issue.
Click to expand...
I won't disable the message!

It means your unit32.pcx file is not correct, or one of the icon is not correct. If you set the proper search folder path, you will not get the error.

Remove the cause, not the consequence!


Ah...Thanks so much, I actually tried to get CEC from a different link than the one in your sig, but it hung forever and never connected. I think it was from somewhere on this site, and I think I found it from the modding wiki.

Umm...which file do I load into CEC? I haven't found a folder containing the Civolopedia...(sorry for being such a dunce)

Again, thanks so much for all this work!

I've modded a couple other games before, and it's really nice to be able to step right in and do what you want!

As for the regular editor, It wouldn't pull it up, I'll try again though, probably just something I missed or other.
Click to expand...
The civpedia.txt is in the text folder.

If you have conquest, it's in Conquest/Text.

If you want to make your own text without changing the default one, it should be in

Conquests/Scenario/MyScenario/Text.
 
re the units_32 issue -- the 518 image file is NOT the issue. trust me.

what CivAgamemnon is referring to is that he was working w/ your incomplete editor when there was a different units_32 sheet in there. and now there is a smaller one. and one that is perfectly fine :) so i would fix the error message issue b/c it's clearly not the units_32 sheet!
 
El Justo said:
re the units_32 issue -- the 518 image file is NOT the issue. trust me.

what CivAgamemnon is referring to is that he was working w/ your incomplete editor when there was a different units_32 sheet in there. and now there is a smaller one. and one that is perfectly fine :) so i would fix the error message issue b/c it's clearly not the units_32 sheet!
Click to expand...

Are you sure there is NO unit with a unit icon that would be invalid?
 
This biq is the biq of the new AoI v.4, that soon will be available for the public and I can tell you it´s running pretty fine. :D
 
thanks Steph. but i think we're alright w/ what we have. i mean, the fellas just use your little tool for kicks and giggles (that is, when it works). i can't say that i would use it for anything serious since it's so unstable...
 
I'm using it for my mod and I don't see any serious unstability. Beside, if the only think you have to say is "it's unstable", but are not willing to send something to help stabilize it, with possibly buggy files so I can check if there really is a problem to solve, your contribution in this thread is quite meaningless.
In case you did not notice, the thread is title "need testers", it's a version 0.7.3, not a version 1.0, it's still in C&C and not in the complete utilities, because there's still room for improvment.

I like criticism when it's constructive and can help improve the tool. Your remarks here are just offensive and contribute nothing.
 
That wasn't very nice. Anyway, I don't want to get involved in whatever is going on here.

Thanks steph, your CEC proved useful as well, and I realized after going back through the civ.txt file that indeed you were correct, I just wasn't patient enough to look further down when I scrolled through it the first time.

Your help and tips are appreciated!
 
my condolences if you're offended :) that was not the intent.

i am sure that the files in question are not buggy. so there's no need to send to you anything. again, thanks for the offer but i think we can determine what is buggy and what is not.

and yes, i did notice the "testers" title. i also noticed that it's not a finished product. so no need to point that out.

here's the real skinny if you really want to know:

a few of us have tried the "beta" editor and have had mixed results. it works for some things, crashes for others, and produces very inconsistent results. so that - to me - someone w/ piles of civ3 modding experience under my belt and several published, popular scenarios - tells me that the platform is unstable. and quite frankly, why work w/ instability when i can have guaranteed stability? really - ask yourself that for just a moment?

i really wish i could provide more constructive feedback for you. i mean, i admire your ingenuity. and i certainly don't want to come across as a wet blanket. however, the cold hard fact is that until all of the kinks are worked out, and all of the compatability issues are solved, the platform is no doubt unstable. there's no ifs, ands, or buts about it. perhaps in the future this will change. and i wish you the best in this endeavor. but in the meantime, the aforementioned kinks no doubt prohibit some of the best modders from using your tool. how is that for constructive criticism?
 
El Justo said:
i am sure that the files in question are not buggy. so there's no need to send to you anything. again, thanks for the offer but i think we can determine what is buggy and what is not.
Click to expand...
That's stupid. If you are sure your files are not buggy, it means the program is buggy. How am I suppose to reproduce your case to correct a possible bug if you don't send me the case for reproduction?
I'm using the editor for my game, it works fine. It means the problem is not a general problem but case specific.
Or are you afraid I discover the problem is indeed in your file?

El Justo said:
quite frankly, why work w/ instability when i can have guaranteed stability? really - ask yourself that for just a moment?
Click to expand...
The fact that trying to use it, point to instability or bug so they can be corrected, would lead in the end to a stable tool did not cross your mind?
The regular editor has also some problems. Like the impossibility to delete a civ if you have preplaced cities.
The goal of my editor is to solve these issue. Of course, it may not work immediately. It's a large project, and I'm working alone on it. I don't have a quality team. Because you are the quality team.
Beside, the tools already proposes many options that the regular editor doesn't allow. All these new features can be really useful, and IMO it's more than worth a little temporary instability.

El Justo said:
however, the cold hard fact is that until all of the kinks are worked out, and all of the compatability issues are solved, the platform is no doubt unstable. there's no ifs, ands, or buts about it. perhaps in the future this will change. and i wish you the best in this endeavor. but in the meantime, the aforementioned kinks no doubt prohibit some of the best modders from using your tool.
how is that for constructive criticism?
Click to expand...

That's not constructive criticism, that's negativism. Constructive criticism would be to say "we tried to do that, it didn't work, here is the file we use, here is the problem, solve it".
So far, almost every bug found by a user has been corrected almost immediately.

But I see you are expecting a free tool working perfectly from the start, and are not ready to commit anything to help making. That's a stupid and egoist attitude.
 
I can understand both of you guys, and I hold you both in high esteem. If I would have spent countless hours on a new program like Steph, I would be easily annoyed as well, but I would also use the techniques I learned to work with best for making a mod of that epic size like EJ does.

My 5 cents: I use Steph's editor a lot, even though it has no "save before quit" autoprompt (which I learned the hard way after putting 2 dozens of units in and having to do so again), and even there's no recent files list and some of the ini's aren't recognized after putting the units in "on the flow". But I still consider it a very needful tool that works for me.

I just wanted to say that I would find it quite sad if two of the most creative people of CFC fell out with each other.
 
I know my editor is not yet perfect. I don't have enough time to work on it and everything else as I'd like, and my computer is a bit to old to be comfortable. Anytime I change a little things, it needs a few seconds to react as the tool starts to be quite big.

However, I try to make it better. What really annoys me (and it's a general statement, I see it a lot in my job also) is people saying
-"Your tool has 10x more features than what we had before, but I won't use it because there's one little thing I don't like" and
-"It doesn't work. I won't tell you what I did, or send you anything, I'm sure what I did was 100% right, but your program doesn't work, now fix it without any clue".

Fixing a problem is generally fast when you know how to reproduce it and find where it is.

Without a little help from the person who discovers the problem, it is a lot more difficult and time consuming.

some of the ini's aren't recognized after putting the units in "on the flow".
Click to expand...
Can you be more specific about that?
 
I have to agree with Steph here - you can't say there is a "need to edit that error message" when you aren't willing to send him the file that is displaying the error message. It's possible the error is in the new editor, perhaps even likely if Civ3 and the original editor don't see any problems, but if as a programmer someone tells you there is a bug in your program but won't give you the necessary tools to reproduce it, it can be very difficult to even find out where the bug is, let alone fix it. And what assurance does the programmer have that it is actually a bug and not user error? Sometimes it may be obvious, but in this case, when the error message has a reasonable explanation and the programmer has never seen the BIQ in question, of course he's not going to just disable the error or something of that sort (which will allow real errors to go uncaught). I wouldn't bother to try to fix a "bug" with such little documentation, either. Maybe glance through a small portion of the code to see if I made an obvious error, but nothing that took any significant amount of time.

I can understand why you might not want to send out a prerelease version of Age of Imperialism - it isn't finished or public release, after all. But in that case you shouldn't harp on Steph for not fixing this "bug" that he can't even verify is a bug. Just report the bug, say that you don't want to send out the BIQ yet, and post back when the AoI 4 beta is released (provided the BIQ still doesn't work with the new editor). If you've been having "very inconsistent" results, where many people seem to be having consistent results, you might be able to help Steph a lot, but he will need the necessary information to improve the editor and that information really is in the BIQ (and possible in other files such as the units32.pcx in this case).
 
I think it may be link to the order in which you out the entry in the civpedia / pedia icons.

If you have a civpedia text that is not found when it should, you can email me the sample.

I'm programming the editor using my own mod as an example. It's a relatively big mod, so there's material to test, but it also follows my own modding method, and way to organize the civpedia and pediaicons. If you do it differently, there may be a bug I wouldn't see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

livinginaz
Trying to remember bug in the original Editor
Replies
5
Views
337
Ozymandias
Ozymandias
SayHayKid
[C3C] C3C Enhanced Edition - Preview Discussion
Replies
1
Views
85
SayHayKid
SayHayKid
Quintillus
Sticky Re-Org
Replies
2
Views
287
Quintillus
Quintillus
Predator145
Can't export storyboard on Flicster
Replies
12
Views
198
AnthonyBoscia
AnthonyBoscia
timerover51
Modding Storm Over the Pacific
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
timerover51
timerover51
Top Bottom