Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
b172 & (b173 & b174)
Ok, gracias Guy. I'll fix that.
Yup, that worked just fine. Thanks a lot!
This post has been edited by Crashe : 20 August 2006 - 10:40 PM
Unlike normal boolean logic, there are no implied ANDs.
Yea, that's what I was thinking, that the AND was implied between the first bit and the parenthesis.... but no.. guess not.
NEW QUESTION
Ok, I've gotten to the point in my HG tech sub-plug to where I need the new spob to appear... do I need to make an entirely new system for each HG I would like to include. Because, from my knowlege, that would make the storylines become out of whack, because their planets wouldn't be there anymore! Help??
This post has been edited by Crashe : 21 August 2006 - 07:16 AM
No, you dont NEED to....but you can if you want. And easier way is just to create a spob and put a NCB in its visibilty field. Then you just put the spob into any system like you normally would, and when the NCB is activated, the spob will appear.
Ooh.. wow.. that makes complete and total sense. I can't believe I didn't think of that! Alrighty.. back to work...
@chronodrago, on Aug 21 2006, 11:21 AM, said in NEW Problem with mission bits:
Heh. That would work if there were Visibility fields on spobs. It's only systems that have that.
@dr-neverhood, on Aug 21 2006, 11:32 AM, said in NEW Problem with mission bits:
HAHAHA! Man, is my brain not working smoothly this morning. Even so, the thign Crashe wants to do is still simple, i htink. You dont need to redo all the hyperlinks when you use a system with visibility NCBs, right?
I think the only way to have a system which spawns a new spob is to swap out systems, using bits, with identical ones except for the new spob. This can catastrophically interfere with missions though, if after doing yours you are still able to do the defaults. For example, if you replaced Sol (130) with another system (X) then all of the missions intented to go to system 130 would be screwed since 130 no longer exists.
Wow... that sucks. I was hoping there was a way around that and, as chrono, my brain wasn't functioning either. I just took the first reasonable answer... I was tired And I guess I'll just have to put them in systems that don't have mission related things going to it...
@dr-neverhood, on Aug 21 2006, 12:07 PM, said in NEW Problem with mission bits:
For example, if you replaced Sol (130) with another system (X) then all of the missions intented to go to system 130 would be screwed since 130 no longer exists.
That would be true if missions went to systems, rather than planets.
@Crashe: Simply make a new system that is identical to the old one in everything except the Visibility and the one planet you need to change. Any planets that don't need to change should be left untouched, so that missions to them will be unaffected. The only planet that will have mission problems will be the one that changes, and even there the only problem should be that it won't be a destination for any random missions.
Edwards
Right, sorry. Don't know why I was thinking that.
Gosh.. I'm feeling really stupid right now. Lemme get this straight...
-I'm feeling really slow... -Systems are the resource that has a Visibility field, not spobs. -If I create a new system, missions will not function differently because they do not go reference the system, but rather the planet. -..Now I feel a bit better.
Incidentally, if you were to change a spöb pat the same time as the s˙st, the game is clever enough to realise that the spöb that's in the same place is supposed to be the name one. That is, any missions which go to spöb A will be completed when you land on the new spöb A - the only catch is that you won't be able to start a following storyline mission from the new spöb A.
Ahh, and what about hyperlinks. If the system is in the same spot and same name, could you just do "assume implicit hyperlink from ____ to Sol"? Bascially, when you have two of the same systems one visible and another not, will the hyperlinks spreading away ever change or be a problem? :huh:
You'd make the original system disappear by having it's Visibility be !bX and then have the mission set bX. Right?
Yeah, but the hyperlinks would chagne becuase the ID of the invisble syst would no longer "exist"
Um... no. The new system would be identical in every way except for the new spob. Including hyperlinks to any systems the original had.
Awesome, except mines a new gov't. Which reminds me, I need to change the desc of the planets. Darn it! <_<
Ahem. No new spöb or s˙st resources are necessary, nor are visbits, if I understand the situation correctly. What you want to do is repair the damaged hypergates, not build new ones, yes?
Take all the spöb resources that are destroyed hypergates and change them. For logic's sake I'd recommend the following:
Starts destroyed. Can't land if destroyed (can land only if not destroyed). Then in the mission to fix them use the Uxxx undestroy spöb command.
If the building of new ones is desired, but they are to be in systems that purportedly used to have them, ŕ la Sol, then just fudge things a little by making one new spöb that starts destroyed as above, and modify its s˙st to include it all the time. Should fit in pretty well. Maybe make the destroyed graphics look more ruined than the others.
To add totally new hypergates to places they've never been before... well this requires thought. First pick a system that's not vital to storylines. Maybe even something uninhabited. Then make a duplicate of it that includes your gate, and visbit swap the system at the appropriate time.
Further info: Swapping out systems can mess with missions, even if you leave all stellars in the duplicate, if the mission puts special ships for you to kill/disable/board/observe in a specific system. Be careful.