EVN: Override port for Win question

slouch

I wasn't sure which forum was most appropriate for this question, sorry if it's in the wrong place.

I was looking at the data files for the Override port and noticed that most of the CompGovt fields in the mission resource seemed to be using govt index numbers rather than RID's. So, many missions aren't giving the legal reward they should be. Is this an error in the port? Granted it's been almost 5 years since I've had a Mac (and the original Override) so I don't remember what it was like in the original. Should I go through the missions and change the index #'s to RID's? Or would this be a disservice to the original scenario? Thanks.

------------------

Dr. Trowel

Sonofagun. Nova Bible says:

Quote

CompGovt : Which government to use in determining how your record changes on completing this mission
-1 Ignored (no reward other than pay)
128-383 Increase record with this govt

When I open the port's Override Data 1 using NovaTools, the numbers come up in the 128-383 range that Nova supposedly uses. When I open the same port file with the basic ResEdit templates, it shows that the file actually contains 0-127 numbers, as in the original pre-Nova EVO files and as specified in the EVO Bible.

My guess -- just a guess -- is that Nova is actually smart enough to correctly interpret either range of numbers, and that the Sutherlands knew that when they wrote NovaTools. I'd be curious to know if anyone has done (or will do) in-game testing of this.... The results might be something that should influence the next edition of the Nova Bible and/or the next edition of the official EVO port (which I think is in development).

As to where this topic belongs: yeah, it straddles the lines between EVN, EVO, and the Dev Corner board, doesn't it? It stands out on the EVO board simply because it's such a slow-moving board, but it might get more readers over on Dev Corner because it deals (in part) with a Nova Engine issue. The moderators have the power to move it if they want.

(This message has been edited by Dr. Trowel (edited 02-01-2004).)

slouch

Thanks for the response, I was beginning to think my copy was the only one like this. Anyway, when the data was opened using EVNEW, only about 10 or so missions had CompGovt values in the correct range. I did a small test to see if the index values worked properly, and they didn't. On the Windows version. Not sure how the Mac version of the engine might work. So, I went ahead and changed them to RID's. Seems to be working the way I remember the original Override worked.

------------------

Dr. Trowel

Quote

Originally posted by slouch:
**I did a small test to see if the index values worked properly, and they didn't. On the Windows version. Not sure how the Mac version of the engine might work.

**

If you can describe what you did for your "small test," I'll try to duplicate it on my Mac.

slouch

I did it the easiest way I could think of: just started a fresh pilot, landed on Earth and accepted the UE Shipping: Recruitment mission (128). Which should have a CompGovt for UE, and a CompReward of 4. Then I checked the pilotlog, and the active mission info showed a CompGovt of -1, and reward of 0. When completing the mission, sure enough, my legal rating with UE spobs didn't change. I pretty much assumed the rest of the index #'s would follow suit.

------------------

Dr. Trowel

Hmm. Excerpts from a pilotlog from the Override EVN port running on Mac OS 9, under slouch's conditions:

During UE recruitment misn (128):
Legal status: 0 (in system 128)
Active missions:
UE Shipping: Recruitment (128):
compGovt: -1
compReward: 0

After the mission (and a re-start of the EVN app):
Legal status: 0 (in system 128)

For original Override, MissionComputer says misn 128 should give a status change of 4 for govt 128. In the Nova port, it says misn 128 should give a status change of 4 for govt 0.

MissionComputer reports 128 (UE) as the govt of system 128 (Sol) in original EVO and in the port.

It looks to me like Matt Burch built an undocumented "safety" feature into EVN, but then left it incomplete. Since they were relying on an undocumented feature, I'd say the onus is more on the port-ers (soviet mikee et al) to change the compGovt fields (an extremely easy job with ConText), rather than on mcb to clean up his code. Does anyone else have a better explanation?

slouch

I'm thinking this has ventured into Developer's Corner material. I've also been referencing your topic here: (url="http://"http://www.ambrosiasw.com/webboard/Forum9/HTML/004570.html")http://www.ambrosias...TML/004570.html(/url) for other concerns in the port. Might be time to revive that thread.

------------------

Dr. Trowel

Quote

Originally posted by slouch:
**I'm thinking this has ventured into Developer's Corner material. I've also been referencing your topic here: http://www.ambrosiasw.com/webboard/Forum9/...TML/004570.html for other concerns in the port. Might be time to revive that thread.

**

Whether it makes a lot of sense or not, there seem to always be complaints when you re-open a topic that has been inactive for a while -- it would be better to start a new topic. Since you first brought up the issue, I'll let you have first crack at the "glory," such as it is, of being the one to start the Dev Corner discussion.

I do think this is worth raising over there, and will do so if you don't -- it's a problem of interest to those who made the port, to the designers and users of the EVONE and Port Authority porting tools, and maybe to the programmer of the engine.

I did one last test for myself, by the way, just to make sure I correctly understood how things are supposed to work: I made a plug for the port that modified misn 128 to have a CompGovt of 128 and a reward of 80. After running that mission, the pilotlog did indeed report a legal status of 80.

I wonder if the EV Classic port has the same problem? I haven't downloaded it myself.