Hard Light Productions Forums
Hosted Projects - Standalone => The Babylon Project => Topic started by: FUBAR-BDHR on January 25, 2008, 02:34:42 am
-
I saw it listed in the docs. Does it work? Doing some testing with FRED I tossed together a TvT (EA ships around B5) tonight but don't want to get into making them if they can't be used.
-
It should work.
-
I would do some multiplayer missions, if we manage to get support from http://fs2netd.game-warden.com ...
-
Support isn't hard. You simply have to have missions and prove that people want to play them.
-
Nobody makes missions because there's no support. There's no support because nobody makes missions.
-
that's the f*****g problem :mad: :mad: :mad:
-
OKAY, you know what? I'll fred some after FH2260. I want Fury dogfighting, especially since IFH multiplayer suffers from horrible lag and syncronisation issues and is even in LAN unplayable.
A deathmatch (around Liberty Port from FH2259), a TvT and some Vidmaster-style weirdness missions (Remember my idea with the Domination style fight for the GOD satellites?) :cool: I'll take a look at the FS2 and BtrL missions and try something. Just one question: How to TEST multiplayer missions best?
-
It's not much of a problem. There's nothing stopping you testing missions using the standard FS2 FS2NetD server. It will complain about hacked tables but that's always the case during development anyway. BtRL multiplayer was developed when FS2NetD wasn't even working by playing LAN games. Simply having to click one warning away and remembering to label your server as TBP development and perhaps password it is rather trivial in comparison.
The only support you really need is validation of missions and tables and your own FS2NetD process once you've finished making the missions. But that isn't something you need until they're done.
-
I'll get my first one tested and read to go tonight then. Should be able to fire out a few more real quick. Just change the loadouts and "borrow" some backgrounds for some more. I recall it's not very hard to change a TvT into a dogfight either.
Vid if my first mission tests out OK I can probably get you most of the Liberty Port death match tonight. You can make whatever final tweaks you want. Oh and for initial testing I just use 2 computers. Advanced testing is harder since you need to find some "victims" online.
-
You could probably port the FS2 gauntlet missions to TBP simply by using search and replace to alter the ships and weapons. They're very uncomplicated, but good fun and so would make a nice addition for coop play. And given the number of different races in TBP, you could get quite a few missions out of that. I certainly would like to play the Minbari Gauntlet, or the NTC (Narn-Terran-Centauri) Gauntlet :)
-
Found one major problem. The inferno build crashes in multi. Regular build seems to work.
-
Well my first TBP TvT and DF seem ready to go. Let me know if you find any problems.
---Files moved to new location. ----
Added a NWTR style TvT.
-
Found one major problem. The inferno build crashes in multi. Regular build seems to work.
Yeah, the multiplayer fix for Inferno builds is only in HEAD and not in 3.6.9 branch builds.
-
since I would never dare to modify stuff made by somebody else without permission, I only SUGGEST the following changes:
- remove the disruptor for god's sake, it's the most lethal weapon against fighters AND you actually would have to ram your opponent to death, if you are not in a Badger
- remove the Aurora MKI, it's almost the same as the standart Aurora only a little bit weaker and with fewer missiles. Nobody is gonna choose that fighter!
- the sentence "AI kills do not count" in the mission briefing seems to be out of place, since the description of the mission already states NO AI AT ALL and the AI jump out immediately
no problems otherwise, but this doesn't mean much since I had nobody to play with
-
OK I'll take the disruptor and Aurora thing under consideration. Anyone else have an opinion on these? Maybe I'll limit disruptor to 1 per team or something. Could remover them entirely from the dog fight. I look at having the MK1 in there as an "if your stupid enough to fly it you deserve to get killed" player option.
I originally had AI in the TvT but they were so stupid they just killed themselves by running into B5. I'll take that part out.
Anyone here that would actually want a TvT with AI fighters?
-
every player sends them out anyway (see BtrL) to reduce lag :)
-
I can't seem to get the multi-player working. :(
-
You have to play via IP address right now. FS2netD does not support TBP. Heck those might be the first ever multi player missions for TBP. Reminds me I have to make those changes and get started on a few more.
-
Those 3 fixed and added a 4th:
---Files moved to new location. ----
More coming soon........
---Files moved to new location. ----
-
Post your testing times ahead of schedule so people (me) can join in. Thanks. :yes:
-
I need some Minbari ship names to finish off 2 or 3 more missions. Need 3 for Sharlin class and 2 for Tanshai class. Also need a station name but I could just leave it as Shn'Tan. Come to think of it I could do that with one of the Sharlins and Tanshais too.
-
Found some names in the Wiki. Couple of minor changes to the previous ones but nothing game play wise.
---Files moved to new location. ----
New mission
---Files moved to new location. ----
Dogfight version coming very soon. Also I'm on IRC and chat if anyone wants to give them a try.
And here it is:
---Files moved to new location. ----
-
mind adding the Liberty Port Shootout? Since it's basicly your B5 dogfight mission just with different ships and background.
Let's pretend you made it :)
-
just playing TBP online (using the BtrL config pxo) :)
still some errors with the secondaries, but...
-
Do you guys fancy setting up a weekly multiplayer session at a named time? Perhaps with easy to follow setup instructions to get TBP multiplayer noobs (like me) up and running before the session is over? :)
A thursday evening might be good. Since everyone is always busy on a Friday.
-
it was more of a quick decision, I played with a friend (who actually still used 3.4a but no problems).
@Fubar:
- some missions have problems with the Secondary Weapons (for example b5 dogfight), the Thunderbolt starts with weird stuff
- Armed Turtleshell dogfight: the many unkown objects are very distracting while pressing "h" to search for your opponent. Might want to change them to "neutral"
@IPAndrews:
- TBP is mindlessly fun online, it plays great. BtrL is nice with its glide and thrusters but extremly fast. In TBP on the other hand, it's more tactical than about reflexes
- I used the following to play: I copied the (for example BtrL) multiplayer config file (which is in "data" and is named "fs2open_pxo") into the TBP/data. Then you need an account here http://fs2netd.game-warden.com , as usual. You start TBP (not Inf) and create a multi pilot, take care of all the settings under "mulit" and voilà!
@all: IT'S DAMN FUN
-
it was more of a quick decision, I played with a friend (who actually still used 3.4a but no problems).
@Fubar:
- some missions have problems with the Secondary Weapons (for example b5 dogfight), the Thunderbolt starts with weird stuff
- Armed Turtleshell dogfight: the many unkown objects are very distracting while pressing "h" to search for your opponent. Might want to change them to "neutral"
Dang I just changed those objects from hidden so you could see the names. I didn't notice the problem with "h" targeting them though. If I change them to neutral they will show up red when targeted. As for the Thunderbolts I don't think I can do much about that. It has to do with default vs dogfight secondaries. Other ships have the problem too but I haven't tracked them down yet. This is a know bug and I think it's already in Mantis. I'll probably just put a note in the mission description about it.
@IPAndrews:
- TBP is mindlessly fun online, it plays great. BtrL is nice with its glide and thrusters but extremly fast. In TBP on the other hand, it's more tactical than about reflexes
- I used the following to play: I copied the (for example BtrL) multiplayer config file (which is in "data" and is named "fs2open_pxo") into the TBP/data. Then you need an account here http://fs2netd.game-warden.com , as usual. You start TBP (not Inf) and create a multi pilot, take care of all the settings under "mulit" and voilà!
I didn't even go that far I just ran it without a config file. I got a failure to connect message but the server still showed up. I'll have to give that a try though.
Did you happen to try the Minbari TvT or dogfight? The TvT was fun even against the AI.
-
sorry no. We tried the b5, the Liberty Port and a gauntlet mission he made. I told him what to improve but it already looks good.
FUBAR, it might be a very good idea to add music. I prefer music. I REALLY prefer music. :) I WANT MUSIC !!! :nervous: :nervous: :nervous:
-
I knew I forgot something. Any suggestions on music for the missions?
Actually it seems I didn't forget to do it I just forgot I did it. Every one of them has music set. Vid the ones based on your backgrounds even have the same music set that you used in the missions. The NWTR one is set to Battle of the line.
Oh and I see what you mean by the "h" targeting thing. I'll work on that.
Looks like that is a game bug. In TvT they aren't targetable using "h" but in dogfight they are. Off to Mantis to see if it's know.
Well it wasn't in there but is now. On to the next question. Should I leave it that way and hope it gets fixed at some point or do I make them hidden from sensors again? I like the ability to see the ship names and stuff as it looks like a lot of work went into those stations. Guess I could just make and a version of the missions with them hidden and note the reason why. Then they can be deleted in the problem is fixed.
Is it considered loosing it when you talk to yourself in a thread?
-
Current versions:
---Files moved to new location. ----
Dogfight targeting bug versions
---Files moved to new location. ----
New for today:
---Files moved to new location. ----
I also did a Shadow dogfight but it isn't usable as no Shadow fighters have secondary weapons and there is a bug that prevents dogfights from starting unless all ships have secondary weapons.
-
IP, now that multiplayer is progressing nicely, we may try to ask to get official support from http://fs2netd.game-warden.com , instead of hijacking the BtrL or any other server place. It wouldn't require any additional work on the core or something. We only need a channel and bundle the corresponding pxo server config with the new version... ...AND EVERYBODY CAN PLAY TBP ONLINE!
one more thing: the single mission pack (still available here: http://www.filedomain.net/manager/ ) contains a multiplayer mission. FUBAR, since you seem practically in charge of multiplayer development so far, consider extracting it :)
It had speech and an interesting concept. Hopefully it's still compatible.
-
IP, now that multiplayer is progressing nicely, we may try to ask to get official support from http://fs2netd.game-warden.com , instead of hijacking the BtrL or any other server place. It wouldn't require any additional work on the core or something. We only need a channel and bundle the corresponding pxo server config with the new version...
Fubar. Vidmaster. Hip63. Can you guys make this happen between yourselves and the PXO people? I am happy for Hip63 to add the required files to the 3.4b release. I'd prefer this doesn't cause a huge delay though. Please can you get on this now with a view to releasing a multiplayer enabled TBP 3.4b next week?
-
I'll try, FUBAR you concentrate on missions.
EDIT: Sended request. Let's wait.
-
one more thing: the single mission pack (still available here: http://www.filedomain.net/manager/ ) contains a multiplayer mission. FUBAR, since you seem practically in charge of multiplayer development so far, consider extracting it :)
It had speech and an interesting concept. Hopefully it's still compatible.
I'll check it out. If it doesn't work I pretty sure I can get it working again.
-
Haven't had time to check that out yet but I just ran into 2 new problems. First TvT won't allow you to start without secondaries either that means shadow fighters are out for now. I suspect other races will have the same problems. Second there are ships that don't have tech info for multi player. Guess whoever was making them never thought there would be and multi-player. The following values are either totally missing from the ships or only some are there:
+Length:
+Gun Mounts:
+Missile Banks:
+Armor:
+Type:
+Manufacturer:
+Maneuverability:
Shadow and Vorlon fighters don't have and values. The Whitestar has only some of the values. Haven't checked the rest. I don't think it hurts anything other then the player deciding what ship to take but it will probably cause a million questions about it to be asked.
-
Adding 2 more to the list. One from me and one from Vid.
---Files moved to new location. ----
Make that 4.
---Files moved to new location. ----
-
Haven't had time to check that out yet but I just ran into 2 new problems. First TvT won't allow you to start without secondaries either that means shadow fighters are out for now.
When you say "won't allow you to start without secondaries". What does that mean exactly? Does this mean the mission gives you an error message if you try and start without actually carrying missiles on your ship? Or does it crash? What exactly happens?
It's also worth noting that to stop debug builds bugging me I made every class capable of carrying a secondary. Usually a Shokrai if there's nothing more appropriate. Although for ships where secondaries aren't appropriate at all I gave them SBank carry capacities of 0.
Please can you mess with the tables and figure out exactly under what circumstances the problem goes away. Then we can decide if it's a sacrifice we want to make. Personally I'd rather have no Shadow Fighters than Shadow Fighters carrying Minbari missiles.
Second there are ships that don't have tech info for multi player. Guess whoever was making them never thought there would be and multi-player. The following values are either totally missing from the ships or only some are there:
+Length:
+Gun Mounts:
+Missile Banks:
+Armor:
+Type:
+Manufacturer:
+Maneuverability:
Shadow and Vorlon fighters don't have and values. The Whitestar has only some of the values. Haven't checked the rest. I don't think it hurts anything other then the player deciding what ship to take but it will probably cause a million questions about it to be asked.
Does this data appear in single player also? Can you produce a ships.tbl with this data completed?
-
http://scp.indiegames.us/mantis/view.php?id=1278
When you try to commit the loadout it pops up a window that says something like "there are ships without secondary weapons" and won't allow you to continue. Although I did noticed one time I was able to bypass it by not going into the weapon selection screen in a TvT. I just locked and committed from the briefing screen and the message didn't come up. Strangely enough I did not think there would be a problem as I tested the Thunderbolt and did not get the message. I'll have to try that again.
Wonder if it's possible to make a weapon that can be loaded but not fired. Like a fire rate of 0 or something. Put a little N/A pic for it. Might be a workaround until the engine is fixed.
-
you may use the "lock secondaries" sexp :)
I had a bug with the Narn Seeker missiles too, when I spawned, the secondary bank showed blank (not "---", it was "2 ") and they could not be fired. After the first respawn, it worked.
still no answer from the GameWarden admin
-
You want to have a word with Taylor about that rather than MatthewPapa actually I suspect.
-
you may use the "lock secondaries" sexp :)
I had a bug with the Narn Seeker missiles too, when I spawned, the secondary bank showed blank (not "---", it was "2 ") and they could not be fired. After the first respawn, it worked.
still no answer from the GameWarden admin
Can't use lock secondaries as that doesn't take effect until the game starts. There would have to be a secondary in the first place to get into the game for the lock event to fire.
Well I still have ideas for more missions so I'll keep working on them. MT-07 is almost done. Needs briefing modified and tested.
-
I think I've found the cause of this and if I'm right it's a pretty trivial fix actually. I'll just blag on one Fubar's missions, add some spitfires to it and see what happens.
EDIT : Oh crap. Looks like I misunderstood the problem and fixed the Mantis bug while not actually fixing the TBP one. I was under the impression that the problem was that the SF had no secondary weapons. The problem is that it does and they're simply none in the mission. That presents a bigger problem because there's no easy way to distinguish between "No secondary weapons because I forgot to add some to my ship/mission/loadout." and "No secondary weapons because I didn't want them."
-
Well I just made a secondary that works around the problem.
#Secondary Weapons
;**************************************
;---Dummy MISSILES---
; Dummy - dummy missle to get around multi secondary requirenmt
$Name: Dummy
+Title: XSTR("Dummy", -1)
+Description:
XSTR(
"Standard Issue
High-Payload Dumbfire", -1)
$end_multi_text
+Tech Title: XSTR("Dummy", -1)
+Tech Anim: none
+Tech Description:
XSTR(
"Dummy missle to get around TvT secondary requirement.", -1)
$end_multi_text
$Tech Model: EAvenom1_tech.pof
$Model File: EAvenom1.pof
$Mass: 0.0
$Velocity: 0.0
$Fire Wait: 0.0
$Damage: 0
$Blast Force: 0.0
$Inner Radius: 0.0
$Outer Radius: 0.0
$Shockwave Speed: 0
$Armor Factor: 0.0
$Shield Factor: 0.0
$Subsystem Factor: 0.0
$Lifetime: 0.0
$Energy Consumed: 0.0
$Cargo Size: 1.0
$Homing: NO
$LaunchSnd: -1
$ImpactSnd: -1
$FlyBySnd: -1
$Rearm Rate: 0.0
+Weapon Range: 0
$Flags: ( "player allowed" )
$Trail:
+Start Width: 0.0
+End Width: 0.0
+Start Alpha: 0.0
+End Alpha: 0.0
+Max Life: 0.0
; +Bitmap: EAmissile2
$Icon: iconTempest
$Anim: Tempest
;$Impact Explosion: ExpMissileHit1
$Impact Explosion Radius: 0.0
#end
I didn't know what to do for the icons and animations but when you fire it just beeps like you don't have any secondaries.
-
Call it None rather than Dummy. :D
-
Call it None rather than Dummy. :D
Am I missing something here? Has it been done before? Is it already in there?
If your looking for something to test on these were ready for testing but I never posted them do to the bug:
fubar_md05.fs2 (http://fubar4.fubar.org/tbp/multi/fubar_md05.fs2) Shadow Slaying Grounds dogfight
fubar_md05a.fs2 (http://fubar4.fubar.org//tbp/multi/fubar_md05a.fs2) targeting fix version
Had a new minor problem earlier. For some reason while playing the mission I posted below when I had my engines knocked out I couldn't use the "e" key to target escort ships. Seemed kind of odd. Haven't confirmed this one yet as the AI forgot how to take out my engines with one shot the last 2 tests.
Confirmed this and it's not just the "e" key. Seems the only targeting that does work is the "h" key. "t", "e", "f", and "y" don't work. Don't know what this has to do with having your engine subsystem knocked out but it's happening. This time it was a Centauri ship.
Also one new one so far. Not quite doing exactly what I want and what I want may not be possible but it works just fine. Little nuts but fun. Was watching the AI duke it out.
---Files moved to new location. ----
Figured I might as well add a NWTR took longer to test it then to make.
---Files moved to new location. ----
Should have done these NWTR missions sooner.
---Files moved to new location. ----
On a role tonight.
---Files moved to new location. ----
Asteroids anyone?
---Files moved to new location. ----
Since there are getting to be quite a few I figured an archive download was in order:
---Files moved to new location. ----
-
Call it None rather than Dummy. :D
Am I missing something here? Has it been done before? Is it already in there?
Nope it's just that simply it looks better when playing the game to have your secondary entry say "None" or "No Missiles" than "Dummy"
-
Kara can you post your BTRL tested "dummy weapon" table entry for them to test?
I am happy to leave this with you guys but please can I ask the following?
1) Implement your table modifications using .tbm files in a seperate VP (a-multiplayer-patch-for-<insert TBP core vp name here>)?
2) Do your testing using the unreleased 3.4b "beta 2" Hip63 has. Ask him for the files.
3) Run the debug builds for the game and FRED to ensure they don't start throwing errors about dummy weapons. That's why I took them out. There's no point fixing one problem and introducing a worse one.
4) Ensure that dummy weapons aren't loaded onto ships by default in preference to real weapons. Yes I know that's an obvious one.
-
we got official support ! :nod: :nod: :nod:
Quote from: Vidmaster on 15 February 2008, 16:12:21
Kara pointed me to you.
The oldest TC mod for FS2, The Babylon Project, finally has multiplayer missions. It's already playable and fun ( we hijacked the BtrL pxo file for some testing) and now we would like to ask, if TBP could get support from GameWarden.
It's just that setting up games is much easier that way and more newbie friendly.
What do you say?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just use port 12004 and you should be good to go. Stats will be saved under the tbp mod, and it will show up on the FS2NetD website as "The Babylon Project".
attaching the pxo file, put it into TBP/data
EDIT: @FUBAR: great work on the lasted missions so far, I only got two complaints:
- all Ekalta system (brakiri vs drazi) missions: would you mind removing that ugly green planet you added?
- all shadow base missions: I would prefer the Shadow Servant replaced with another battlecrab
[attachment deleted by ninja]
-
OK I'll redo the background on the Drazi Brakiri missions. Must have missed something on the cut and paste. Well the shadow missions aren't usable yet anyway but I will change it. I put 2 of them in for a future attack/defend type mission and to keep from giving one side an advantage. I'll see what would work better.
Did you try the asteroid one? I'm thinking it might be too many asteroids for multi. Works fine on LAN but over the internet it might cause problems. Easy to change but wanted to get opinions first.
I'll give that mission a try tonight. I started to do the same thing last night (gauntlet not exact mission) but quit because my eyes couldn't take any more FRED for one night.
And finally. Great work getting us onto FS2netD!!! Now if there was only a time when some of us could get together for some testing.
-
; ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
; <None>
;
$Name: <None>
+Title: XSTR("Empty", 1224)
+Description:
XSTR(
" No weaponry
", -1)
$end_multi_text
+Tech Title: XSTR("Not full.", 1225)
+Tech Anim: none
+Tech Description:
XSTR(
"", -1)
$end_multi_text
$Model File: none.pof
$Mass: 0.1
$Velocity: 1.0
$Fire Wait: 20.0
$Damage: 0
$Blast Force: 0.0
$Inner Radius: 0.0
$Outer Radius: 0.0
$Shockwave Speed: 0
$Armor Factor: 1.0
$Shield Factor: 1.0
$Subsystem Factor: 1.0
$Lifetime: 1.0
$Energy Consumed: 0.0
$Cargo Size: 200.0
$Homing: NO
$LaunchSnd: -1
$ImpactSnd: -1
$FlyBySnd: -1
$Rearm Rate: 1.0
$Flags: ( "player allowed" )
$Icon: iconCrossbow
$Anim: cross
$Impact Explosion: ExpMissileHit1
$Impact Explosion Radius: 10.0
That's the BtRL dummy weapon. Between that and Fubar's it shouldn't be hard to get this working.
-
I knew I couldn't have been the first one to have that idea. The reason I didn't want to call it none was is that you have to have at least 1 loaded. Actually the only reason I gave it a name was I got tired of picking the original Venom that I copied the entry from. Was more worried about making it work then the name.
How about calling it Locked? Then to be on the safe side lock the missiles in FRED as well. Quit modification to the briefings to add something like "Your secondary weapons will be locked for this mission".
-
EDIT: @FUBAR: great work on the lasted missions so far, I only got two complaints:
- all Ekalta system (brakiri vs drazi) missions: would you mind removing that ugly green planet you added?
- all shadow base missions: I would prefer the Shadow Servant replaced with another battlecrab
I just checked all the Brakiri vs Drazi missions. No green planet found in any of them. I even compared the background line for line with your missions and they match up perfectly. No idea why you saw a green planet.
What do you think about replacing the Shadow Servants with 2 SH Guardians?
-
I knew I couldn't have been the first one to have that idea. The reason I didn't want to call it none was is that you have to have at least 1 loaded.
Notice the really high cargo size? :D You can't actually load the weapon.
-
Wait so you have a weapon that you can't load but it keeps the error message that there are no secondaries from showing up. Logically that should be worse than no secondary slots. Of course since when is anything ever logical?
-
What do you think about replacing the Shadow Servants with 2 SH Guardians?
you tested enough of my missions to know how I desgin, I prefer the canon ships. But on the other hand, I said you may use my stuff freely. I would prefer a battlecrab since that would mimic the FH single mission but you are in charge here :)
Adding you to ICQ to organize some games in the future. Problem is the GMT difference of course, but...
-
made another test round, this time with IP:
- had some lags in Drazi vs Brakiri in Ekalta
- no problems at Liberty Port
- some ghosthit issues at the Minbari asteroid dogfight (pretty distracing with beamweapons) but no serious lags. Nevertheless, I think 12 players is madness
-
If you're getting lag add this to your command line -cap_object_update 0
That will automatically cap anyone joining a game you host to low object updates. Which should help a lot.
-
I didn't host and I always tell anybody to set it to low (but the host of course)
-
The ghost hits is because of the number of asteroids. I'll cut it down and it should fix the problem. May take a few tries to get a good workable number. I'd like the keep then number high enough to give the players cover but not so high that someone on a dial up shoots through everything.
-
Back to multiplayer. The rules of the game seem to be, the player has to have at least one missile available to start a multiplayer mission. Loading a missile with a carry size which is greater than the ship's sbank capacity won't work. Because there isn't enough sbank capacity to make one instance of the weapon available the game won't allow you to load it.
-
how to achieve that the AI stays, instead of warping out? I know it's impossible in dogfights, but...
-
It's doable in everything other than dogfights. In fact in in TvT and Coop the AI is actually told to warp out in the mission file quite often. If you took that out they'd stay.
-
damn it was in the wing's orders. I searched and searched... :mad:
FUBAR, you might want to change your background in MT02, that planet Earth doesn't seem fitting concerning the purple background ;)
refredded "Race" and done a new TvT. About that ftp server FUBAR, I think also it's a good idea.
-
I used the background right from the Battle of the Line mission in MT02. I'll double check it. Do you still have that green planet issue in the Drazi vs Brakiri missions? I didn't change a thing there but I don't have it. Starting to wonder if something isn't getting cleared from mission to mission with the backgrounds.
On the FTP a little later today I'll move my files to a new directory and set up an account for you to that directory. Have to remember how to do it it's been awhile.
-
Back to multiplayer. The rules of the game seem to be, the player has to have at least one missile available to start a multiplayer mission. Loading a missile with a carry size which is greater than the ship's sbank capacity won't work. Because there isn't enough sbank capacity to make one instance of the weapon available the game won't allow you to load it.
Noticed something else last night. First time I've seen this but the Whitestart loadout screen didn't have a secondary slot. Normally there is a blank bank but there wasn't for the Whitestar. I'll have to double check this but I don't know why it would happen. I wasn't using modified tables either.
-
New location for downloads: Multi Mission Pack (http://fubar4.fubar.org/tbp/multi/tbp_multi.rar)
This contains all the missions. Anything new or changed will be added to this file. I will be adding a readme file with know problems. If you find a bug or problem that isn't in the readme let us know.
-
send you my missions, since I have not yet access to the server.
have not been able to locate IP's fix either :hopping:
we got a gauntlet, a (EXPERIMENTAL) race, one updated and one new TvT and a Whitestar dogfight now :)
-
I suggest we my folder on Fubar's FTP for uploading/downloading files. I have no problem with all of you having the login details. Even Fubar :D.
-
Actually I prefer keeping the small stuff on my local server for now. I can have as many FTP logins as I want there and easily update the file. The only downside is that it is on a DSL line. Right now the TBP-Multi.rar is under 200k so it only takes a few seconds to download even on that. When it starts getting bigger I will move it up to my ISP server (the one you are using IP). Somewhere I have a script that syncs a directory on my local server and the ISP server. I will probably go that route and still keep the master copy on my local server. It will just upload to the ISP server every time it is updated. Always good to have a backup anyway. I also set that directory up as a group share so that if anyone else got involved I could easily give them access. IP if you want FTP access to that directory let me know it will take about 30 seconds to add another login now that I remember how to do it.
-
No time to fred now. My crazy ideas about weird types of multiplayer must wait a little.
Nova Encounter, Whitestar Standoff and Race are still broken, if you can afford the time, take a look at them.
Gauntlet and Liberty Port Shootout work and of course everybody still may use any backgrounds, ship setups or related stuff from my campaigns.
EDIT: just for fun (and since I don't have time to fred the next week), I am telling you some of my more unconventional ideas (seems like Vid's ideas are always a bit bonkers, just remember "bullettime" ;) )
- domination: already tried but failed. TvT: Each team has a capship. You have to take control of GODs positioned between by approaching them. The satellites will then start to fire at the enemy capship.
Controlling means: if it's neutral, you have to stay for ten seconds in a 300m radius (and make sure that there are no enemy ships in the same radius), then it changes to your side. To neutralize a god, you have to shoot it (LOWER HITPOINTS, GUARDIAN AND SUBSYSTEM GUARDIAN). It's repaired and set to neutral. The team which first looses their capship is defeated.
- the Holy Slauter: basicly a Nial gaunlet but with more story elements. You attack a EA fleet (which does get a lot of reinforcements during the mission). Your goal is to score as more kills as your teammates (do something against traitors!)
- more attack - defend: my game type of choice. I'll try to fred real tactical large scale battles (I think I've proofed that I am quite good at those). But just more "encounter" style missions would be cool too. Only work with races that have a balanced (no Brakiri Meteor Storm) torpedo-style weapons. Narn vs EA for example would be cool.
- DEFEND b5: Gauntlet. The goal is to keep B5 alive against an enormus number of enemy wings and CAPSHIPS from all races !!! The trick is that all players fly Whitestars.
-
How come Domination failed?
-
lack of concentration. I've just to much do to for school now. :blah:
-
Ah. I thought you meant it failed for technical reasons.
-
Couple of questions. First are there any other wingman personas? Seems kind of strange flying a Minbari fighter with Human wingmen personas. I also don't want to use anything that's not included with 3.4b for compatibility reasons. Second is kind of the same question but with event messages and ani files. Last if they exist where are they stored in the VP and is there anything special that needs to be done to use them?
-
Possible new bug. For some reason I can seem to get the Minbari support ship to do anything. If I call it it arrives and immediately give the the aborted message. Try to call it again and same thing. Support ship in transit followed by the aborted message.
-
Possible new bug. For some reason I can seem to get the Minbari support ship to do anything. If I call it it arrives and immediately give the the aborted message. Try to call it again and same thing. Support ship in transit followed by the aborted message.
Does it work in single player?
-
Possible new bug. For some reason I can seem to get the Minbari support ship to do anything. If I call it it arrives and immediately give the the aborted message. Try to call it again and same thing. Support ship in transit followed by the aborted message.
Does it work in single player?
Yep works in single. More of a controlled crash then a dock but it works.
Just did some more testing on this. It does work in multi as well except when your engine subsystem is disabled. Doesn't work in single with engines disabled either. Possibly related to the targeting problem when engines are disabled? I also doubt it's just a problem with the Minbari support now.
Confirmed in single with EA support as well.
-
I guess this has to do with the new glide. Before, your ship just STOPPED when disabled, now it actually contiunes its rotation (very cool). Problem is you cannot call for Support to repair it now :)
-
If that's true then why does it happen when I disable engines at the start of the game and there is no rotation?
-
Please can someone Mantis this. Unfortunately it doesn't sound TBP related. I say unfortunately because if it was I would have a fighting chance of fixing it. This though sounds game engine related. In which case this should affect other mods running on the same game engine build.
-
OK I put that and the targeting not working correctly one in there too.
-
Well ran into a new weird problem today. Playing around with making Vid's DC 3 mission into a multi player. Trying to make it look like alpha and beta are arriving from the hangers. Positioned one in each hanger with a waypoint just outside the exit of the hanger since arrival from docking bay isn't an option for all of the hangers. Now for the weird part. Alpha 3 launches just fine. I think one or 2 of Beta wing also start out OK. The rest just do circles inside the hanger until they die from crashing into the walls. Now for the neat part. When they respawn they fly right out of the hangers via the waypoint with no problems. Tried single player and they also exited the hangers pretty much OK (some minor damage but all above 90%). Tried no dynamic goals, and different AI levels. Same thing. Repositioned and rotated ships. Same thing. Any ideas on this one?
-
I suspect they're trying to avoid crashing into the other members of Beta wing. Since not flying into things is an innate part of the AI (even if they don't do it well) setting no dynamic goals won't help. If you can position them further back they'll probably be fine.
-
I've tried all the way to the back and moving them forward. Still do the same thing. Beta comes out the opposite side of Alpha so there is no chance of Alpha and Beta colliding. The real question is why does it work fine after respawn and in single but not at the game start in multi?
-
additional question: FUBAR, got any idea to fix the arrival bug in Vidmaster's MAJOR Challenge (the new 6 player gauntlet) ?
-
I've tried all the way to the back and moving them forward. Still do the same thing. Beta comes out the opposite side of Alpha so there is no chance of Alpha and Beta colliding. The real question is why does it work fine after respawn and in single but not at the game start in multi?
I can't imagine that they'd all respawn at the same time. It could also be that Beta 3 and 4 are too close to each other.
-
@Vid: Not really sure. It might not even be a problem. Have you tired playing it a few times to see if it happens? You could always add some sort of object (jumpgate, asteroid base, etc) and have the ships arrive near it.
@Kara: What doesn't make sense is that it is the same mission in multi and single no changes to ship positions. All the ships start out just fine in single. They don't in multi. I could understand if they screwed up in both. Wonder if the player flag is causing some sort of different AI behavior. I'll have to try making all the ships except alpha 1 non player ships to see what happens.
-
Well that test had entirely different results. 7 out of the 8 AI had no problems on mission start but went nuts on the second wave. Exactly the opposite of them being flagged as player ships. Think I'll just see if I can make it a no AI mission or a 4 player instead of 8.
-
Hi all. I'm back from my long weekend and I need you guys to start feeding me information on what does and doesn't need updating to make multiplayer work in the core. Kara you mentioned compiling a new build to get around our weapon quanitiy issue. Will this be multiplayer compatible with standard releases. I ask because I know the Inferno builds have tweaked limits and are not multiplayer compatible.
-
I've already posted a fixed exe that solves that problem on another thread so that we can play without the problem on Thursday. If you can tell me when you want the build for the final TBP release I'll get it done a few days before that date so it can get some extensive playtesting.
Until then I'm going to keep fixing multiplayer problems as TBP going multiplayer has made several old bugs more obvious (For instance the invisible weapons bug was caused by having more than 128 weapons. Since no one before TBP ever had that many weapons and multiplayer missions the bug was dormant).
So far nothing I've added should have broken multiplayer. If you host on an old exe you will still cause the bug for any clients regardless of which build they use. If the host is fixed and client is old you'll still get the problem on that client. Anyone using the fixed build will see things correctly.
-
Really we need to test the build intended for the TBP final release as soon as possible. Since me release schedule for TBP final is as soon as possible. After all everything was 100% complete until everyone suddenly took an interest in multiplayer. So we're playing overtime here. I appreciate the TBP executables are starting to get very specialised now. We have ai type bugfixes, BTRL glide thrusters, special icons, and now weapon limit fixes. So I really appreciate all this work. If we have a build ready in time for a Thursday multiplayer session I can push the build with the pre-game patch I release on the evening.
-
I'm probably never going to compile another BtRL patch based on the 3.6.9 codebase anyway as we're supposed to be moving to 3.6.10 for patch 3. As far as I'm concerned the BrRL builds are only going to be needed for TBP's final release. That makes it a little easier to work with it for me.
As for the final build FUBAR's reported a lot of new bugs and I'm not sure which ones are critical and which are merely annoyances. Decide which ones you need fixed for release and which ones you can live with and I can give you the final build as soon as I've fixed them.
-
As for the final build FUBAR's reported a lot of new bugs and I'm not sure which ones are critical and which are merely annoyances.
Me neither in all honesty. The bugs have been reported in a bit of an bewildering scattergun fashion all over the multiplayer threads. Don't get me wrong I'm glad we have the feedback but I'm short on free time and it's going to take me quite a bit of time to sift through the threads in a thorough fashion compiling a list of problems. The plan as always is to get it done as quickly as possible under the circumstances.
-
Well FUBAR's probably in a better position to say which ones are serious since he's the one making the missions anyway so I'll wait and see what he says. Anything not fixed in this build will probably get looked at for 3.6.10 and so far I'm finding that debug 3.6.10 may actually pop up a few more errors than 3.6.9 but it's about as successful at actually running the game.
-
After all everything was 100% complete until everyone suddenly took an interest in multiplayer. So we're playing overtime here.
TBP absolutlf final incoming! finally.
-
oh man, I give up. Most of my multiplayer missions include bugs that are an absolute mystery to me. Sending the stuff to FUBAR, I'll stick to singleplayermissions and backgrounds :sigh:
-
@Kara: Sorry I didn't get a chance to try that build yesterday. Boredom of sitting in the waiting room for a doctor's appointment resulted in me coming home and sleeping instead. I'm heading over there in about 20 minutes so I'll get some testing in.
@Vid: I'll try to have all of those fixed by Thursday except for Race which I haven't even looked at in weeks.
@All: As for the bugs none are critical. I look at it this way if it effects both teams equally then it's not a big deal. I don't think there is anything I reported that involves data changes. Probably the biggest annoyance of the ones left is the support ship not being able to dock with disabled ships.
I just checked Mantis and that looks I only have 2 bugs encountered in TBP multi that I thought critical enough to report that aren't fixed. The one stated above and the targeting when engines disabled one which I classified as trivial.
I think the biggest thing right now is mission testing. I can only test so much playing against myself. I would suggest a 6 minute run through of all the TvT and a quick run through of the dogfights. Of course the gauntlets could use a full run too. I've seen people playing them from time to time. More feedback from them would help. Am I correct in assuming we have more time to test the missions since they don't need to be included in the final release just ready in time for the DVD?
-
Those are the two bugs I planned to look at tonight anyway. :D
-
Good new / bad news / good news / bad news etc:
Good news: Tests of the new build didn't turn up any problems.
Bad news: It's snowing and my bar trip will be a short one
Good news: More testing time for tonight
Bad news: Found a new quark. Doesn't hurt anything but I've notice that the AI will start shooting primaries when they get into secondary range instead of primary range. Wonder if this is related to that not firing secondaries bug I saw in mantis. Maybe they are trying to fire secondaries but firing primaries instead.
Good news: Think I have Vidmaster_MG01 working.
Bad news: My furnace went out at home and it's going to be very cold tonight.
Good news: That means I'll be staying over here drinking and working on missions.
-
Bad news: Found a new quark. Doesn't hurt anything but I've notice that the AI will start shooting primaries when they get into secondary range instead of primary range.
This could well be down to table entries. Weapon lifetime * speed vs range.
More good news: Kara is seemingly demolishing your game engine bugs.
-
This (http://www.freespacefaq.com/Misc-Downloads/Builds/DisabledTargetting&SupportFix.7z) should fix both of the disabled bugs.
-
I think the biggest thing right now is mission testing. I can only test so much playing against myself.
I have this whole week off, so just let me know if you need someone to shoot at for testing, as I can log on at pretty much any time I'm not sleeping.
-
This (http://www.freespacefaq.com/Misc-Downloads/Builds/DisabledTargetting&SupportFix.7z) should fix both of the disabled bugs.
I'll give it a try but I found a bug with your bug fix for the client side secondaries. Anything on the client side with the "nothing" weapon doesn't show a secondary slot and the player starts with an EA Vengence secondary. You can see it in any of the Vorlon or Shadow TvT's
-
Bad news: Found a new quark. Doesn't hurt anything but I've notice that the AI will start shooting primaries when they get into secondary range instead of primary range.
This could well be down to table entries. Weapon lifetime * speed vs range.
More good news: Kara is seemingly demolishing your game engine bugs.
Well the ship I have notice this with the most is the MF Nial so it could well be just a few ships.
Keep up the good work Kara only about 25 more on my Mantis list.
Just tried that build and it as far as the engine problems go it looked good. Only tried it in single though.
-
I'll give it a try but I found a bug with your bug fix for the client side secondaries. Anything on the client side with the "nothing" weapon doesn't show a secondary slot and the player starts with an EA Vengence secondary. You can see it in any of the Vorlon or Shadow TvT's
Damnit! I realised that might happen when I had a chat with IP Andrews yesterday. It's pretty easy to fix I suspect. The game is probably passing -1 as the weapon number for None. It's easily fixed if that is the case though.
Is this with the new dummy weapon you were using or when you have actually given the ship no weapons?
-
Is this with the new dummy weapon you were using or when you have actually given the ship no weapons?
Ships could have either. Although player ships are required to carry a (dummy) weapon AIs are not and may well have no such requirement.
-
one step closer to TBP final :)
let's see what the session tomorrow discovers, hopefully most missions will work (my do not, already called FUBAR)
-
I'll give it a try but I found a bug with your bug fix for the client side secondaries. Anything on the client side with the "nothing" weapon doesn't show a secondary slot and the player starts with an EA Vengence secondary. You can see it in any of the Vorlon or Shadow TvT's
Damnit! I realised that might happen when I had a chat with IP Andrews yesterday. It's pretty easy to fix I suspect. The game is probably passing -1 as the weapon number for None. It's easily fixed if that is the case though.
Is this with the new dummy weapon you were using or when you have actually given the ship no weapons?
It was with the dummy weapon but I suspect that it will happen with other weapons. Like you said probably anything above 127. Ships I tested and actually looked for that issue:
Aurora: Works
Nial: Works
SH Fighter: Doesn't work on client does on host.
VE Fighter: Doesn't work on client does on host.
-
That build should have fixed the error with the Nothing weapon. I just tested it and it worked fine. It won't work if you have no secondaries at all but it looks like my earlier attempt to fix that with a little hack was masking that issue by making it possible to start the game with no secondaries. I've removed the hack cause it was not really meant to make it into a final build anyway as was just shown can cause issues.
I'll post a new build in a little bit (I'll just test those two fighter) and we'll see what happens.
EDIT : Okay new version of the fix is here (http://www.freespacefaq.com/Misc-Downloads/Builds/DisabledTargetting&SupportFix.7z).
-
Ok guys I need the latest versions of all your missions before I build the patch for the multiplayer session tomorrow night. I need the files a good couple of hours before the session starts. Kara seems to have the engine nailed. It's missions we need to focus on now. I'd like a handful of proven missions we know work nicely to release with the core by the end of tomorrow night.
-
That build should have fixed the error with the Nothing weapon. I just tested it and it worked fine. It won't work if you have no secondaries at all but it looks like my earlier attempt to fix that with a little hack was masking that issue by making it possible to start the game with no secondaries. I've removed the hack cause it was not really meant to make it into a final build anyway as was just shown can cause issues.
I'll post a new build in a little bit (I'll just test those two fighter) and we'll see what happens.
EDIT : Okay new version of the fix is here (http://www.freespacefaq.com/Misc-Downloads/Builds/DisabledTargetting&SupportFix.7z).
Nope still getting the same thing. I did notice that if you change ship types that it will show the secondary loadout box with a weird secondary (possible the vengeance) that has no label or specs. Still no secondary weapons showing on the left hand side. Host works just fine. Tried to take screen shots but they came out all black.
-
Well this one isn't multi related but I think I might have found another problem. I can't give the DH Mothership any initial orders. All I want to do is tell it to play dead. Looks like it has engines so that should be possible. Although after looking at the size of that thing I might not use it anyway. Don't know if this is a table problem or a FRED problem.
-
I can't give the DH Mothership any initial orders.
Check ships.tbl. It's a Supercap. Check objecttypes.tbl. It has valid goals to do most things. So it must be a game engine limitation. Nothing I can do about it.
Edit: Actually this rings a bell. I think I've been through this and may even have Mantised this problem a long time ago. You might want to search Mantis for mention of Supercap. It you absolutely must have the ship moving I suggest using a modular table to add a copy of the ship to ships.tbl (don't override ships.tbl completely!). Give the copy a Corvette class.
-
That build should have fixed the error with the Nothing weapon. I just tested it and it worked fine. It won't work if you have no secondaries at all but it looks like my earlier attempt to fix that with a little hack was masking that issue by making it possible to start the game with no secondaries. I've removed the hack cause it was not really meant to make it into a final build anyway as was just shown can cause issues.
I'll post a new build in a little bit (I'll just test those two fighter) and we'll see what happens.
EDIT : Okay new version of the fix is here (http://www.freespacefaq.com/Misc-Downloads/Builds/DisabledTargetting&SupportFix.7z).
Nope still getting the same thing. I did notice that if you change ship types that it will show the secondary loadout box with a weird secondary (possible the vengeance) that has no label or specs. Still no secondary weapons showing on the left hand side. Host works just fine. Tried to take screen shots but they came out all black.
Which mission are you getting it with? I'm just not seeing it.
-
I am getting it on MT19 and MD19 for sure. That's the Vorlon Shadow TvT and Dogfight. I've also seen in on just the Vorlon missions too.
-
I don't actually have that one. MT17 worked fine for me though. Have you updated both client and server?
-
TBP fredding master FUBAR has done it again and managed to make all of my released multiplayer missions PLAYABLE!
All hail FUBAR :nod: :nod: :nod: Great work dude.
-
New missions included in the multiplayer patch for tonight (28/02/08) available in the multiplayer setup thread.
-
I don't actually have that one. MT17 worked fine for me though. Have you updated both client and server?
Yes I have updated both. Trying a reboot of them now just in case. I'm going to even re-download the fix.
OK neither of those things helped so I tried copying over the whole data directory. That fixed it. After looking at the save I made before it looks like I had a corrupted weapons.tbl (0 length) on the client side. So it looks like the fix works just fine.
Now for the next question. If the client doesn't have a ship or weapon in the game shouldn't there be some sort of error? I know when things are validated you will get the hacked tables thing. I think an situation like this shouldn't be bypassable though. Guess I should request this in the multi feature thread.
-
Now that IP has posted the new mission set for tonight's game I could try it. Worked fine for me. I guess we'll have to see who gets the error when we play the mission.
-
You posted while I was editing. See above. It was a corrupted weapons.tbl on client side.
-
The game should definitely have responded to a 0 length weapons table. I'll try making a dodgy one after the game tonight and see what happens.
-
Maybe I should have said 0k instead of 0 length. There might have been something in there just not enough to show up as 1k.
Any ideas on the player beams not scoring as shots, hits or kills? Spawn points for dogfights not being the ones set in mission? Vorlon base crash?
Found another problem. In MD05 (and I assume MD07 and MD15) two heavy fighters (SH Guardian) self destruct at the beginning of the mission for no reason. I thought I had the teams set to friendly or hostile but they were set correctly to unknown, have no departure cue, and are flagged indestructible.
-
Any ideas on the player beams not scoring as shots, hits or kills? Spawn points for dogfights not being the ones set in mission? Vorlon base crash?
Let's be careful not to overstate the problem. In the Drakh dogfight mission we tried our Drakh Raiders were not scoring kills. But I don't remember anyone complaining about it being a problem in the Nial missions and Nials use beams? So it could be Drakh Raider weapon specific. That said I'm not sure what that specific difference is.
The spawn point behaviour reminded me of arrive within Xm of nearest enemy. You sure that's not in your mission file?
Found another problem. In MD05 (and I assume MD07 and MD15) two heavy fighters (SH Guardian) self destruct at the beginning of the mission for no reason. I thought I had the teams set to friendly or hostile but they were set correctly to unknown, have no departure cue, and are flagged indestructible.
:doubt: :)
-
You can't respawn within the bounding box of any other object even if there isn't actually anything there. That means if you have a very large object (Like the Drakh mothership) you can have a lot of empty space near it which you can't respawn in.
We've already got a partial fix for that worked out for 3.6.10 though.
As for the self destructing I'm willing to bet the game is rather stupidly blowing up anything that is a fighter or bomber regardless of the team it's on. I'll check into that tonight since if it is what I think it is it will be pretty easy to fix.
-
the game is rather stupidly blowing up anything that is a fighter or bomber regardless of the team it's on.
Please forgive the multiplayer FREDing noob but... why is it blowing anything up?
-
Dogfight missions aren't meant to have any AI ships in them. In a 12 player dogfight you'd have 12 player starts. If only 3 people play the game then you'd spend most of your time having to fight the remaining 9 computer controlled ships rather than the actual human opponents you joined the online game to play against.
:v: decided to simply blow up the extra player starts after the game begins. I don't see anything wrong with that but I suspect that they didn't actually check the team of the ship before blowing it up. If the cause is what I think it is then the fix is pretty simple.
-
Why didn'y they just have them warp out with no warp effect? :wtf: Pyrotechnic fans?
-
I suspect it was simply quicker to blow them up. :D
Warping out would require packets to be sent to the clients telling the ships to jump out. I suspect blowing them up and not respawning them simply requires the game to blow them up on the server and let it propagate to the clients.
Speaking as a BtRL dev I'm glad they picked that route. With a few changes it means I can make the game simply end and not have anything warp out in the entire mission. Which is good since Viper's don't have jump drives.
-
Wonder if setting ship-vaporize? (the one that isn't single player only) would look better. I think there is already a way to tell if the ship has a player so a start event might fix the explosions. As for the SH Guardians I was thinking the same thing. It's probably just looking for the player-ship flag. If it exists boom.
On to the beams. I wonder if them not getting counted is a result of a flag on the weapon. Don't have time to look right now but maybe the Minbari beam doesn't have a particular flag. In TvT it isn't as much of a problem since there is a bonus for the team with the most kills at 6 minutes that should result in a win anyway. I did notice on my single pilot that shots weren't being counted either so it's not just a multi issue it just shows up there.
I don't remember the spawn point problem in retail FS2. Of course the ships weren't as big. I remember spawning 3 or 4k from the pack sometimes. Heck we even tried to make it so players would spawn closer and have to stay near the cap ships instead of heading off into open space but could never get it to work.
-
Let's be careful not to overstate the problem. In the Drakh dogfight mission we tried our Drakh Raiders were not scoring kills.
see FUBAR? I were right. NO KILLS AT ALL. (problem is I got no solution :sigh:)
Send you a list of working missions. I hope we are able to increase it. Did exclude the Minbari ones, because of the frequent ghost hits, which is extremely distracting when using beam weapons.
-
see FUBAR? I were right. NO KILLS AT ALL.
Well I should be careful to point out that I really don't know if that's true or not. Do we really have verification of this? If you guys believe this is so I'll take your word for it.
-
From what I saw you get kills but not score for the kill (at least in TvT). I'll try some testing runs with and without beams to see what happens.
Nope don't even get kills. So far the Drakh one is the only one that doesn't work. I tried:
MF Neutron Gun: Works
VE Lightning Cannon: Works
SH LiteAAA: Works
SH HeavyAAA: Works
BI XRay Gun: Works
DH Light Neutron Beam: Fails
Log file just shows the ship as destroyed but does not say what destroyed it
-
Okay, new build (http://www.freespacefaq.com/Misc-Downloads/Builds/IndestructableAI&SelfDestructingFighterFix.7z) to test with. This should take care of the self_destructing AI ships and the not at all destructing ones (when a player drops).
I haven't actually tested either fix yet myself and I'm somewhat nervous about the former fix having a knock on effect since it's obvious that :v: never expected AI fighters to exist in a dogfight mission. On the other hand no one else but TBP has AI fighters in a dogfight mission so I thought "**** it!" :D
-
New info on the Drakh Raider Beam issue. I ruled out the beam. The beam works. I made it an available weapon for the DH figther and that scores kills so it's something with the DH Raider.
If the AI ships in a dogfight are that much of a concern I can easily edit them out. They are just background. I could see the use of things like the Whitestar as background in missions as well so it's kind of a 50/50. Other mods might want the same thing.
-
Drakh Raider is a gunship. See if the problem goes away if you modify ships.tbl and make it a fighter or a bomber. I expect it will. Hard coded limitation that says only fighters or bombers can score kills. Number one suspect. :hopping:
(actually I'm not that mad, I just like the smiley)
-
Already tried and yes that is the answer. Looks like it will affect the Whitestar as well. Those the only 2 player ships I saw with the gunship flag. I didn't check the tbm though.
-
Okay, new build (http://www.freespacefaq.com/Misc-Downloads/Builds/IndestructableAI&SelfDestructingFighterFix.7z) to test with. This should take care of the self_destructing AI ships and the not at all destructing ones (when a player drops).
I haven't actually tested either fix yet myself and I'm somewhat nervous about the former fix having a knock on effect since it's obvious that :v: never expected AI fighters to exist in a dogfight mission. On the other hand no one else but TBP has AI fighters in a dogfight mission so I thought "**** it!" :D
Just downloaded it. Got a quick question. Do these builds have any new sexp's over the old ones. For instance the multi player death counter?
Off to install and restore the working tables so I don't get shot. :D
-
No but I can add them fairly easily tomorrow if you want them.
-
It's not that important. I just had a special ending in mind for MT07. It works half way right now but the other half needs some way to tell if the other team is dead. I just put a note in the comments to fix it later. Mission plays fine the way it is.
Forgot to mention new build is working fine so far.
-
Adding the SEXPs would take me all of 3 minutes to do. :)
-
More Whitestar problems. Seems client side can't handle 3 primary weapons or something as it assigns the ships a standard Nial loadout. It also show the hosts ship as firing the main beam even when it's only firing bank 2 or bank 3. Strangely enough it did count kills even flagged as a gunship. Maybe it's a dogfight instead of TvT thing.
Surprisingly it looked like special hits for player ships works in a dogfight. At least for the client dying from the host. Didn't try it the other way around.
It does work both ways. I wasn't able to duplicate the Whitestar ending up with the Nial loadout but the other primary bug still exists.
-
More Whitestar problems. Seems client side can't handle 3 primary weapons or something as it assigns the ships a standard Nial loadout. It also show the hosts ship as firing the main beam even when it's only firing bank 2 or bank 3.
this would explain why everybody just used their beams at the last session (from my point of view).
Still, I have to ask if this is absolutly confirmed!
-
The Nial part isn't I only had it happen once. The other I tried several times and it happened every time and that's over LAN so it's not a lag issue. Also even thought the client is assigned the nothing weapon it shows none in his secondary list. That doesn't really hurt anything but is probably a symptom of the same problem. I have no idea what client firing at client will do. Might have to do a 3 computer test on that one.
-
I'll be spending a quite large chunk of tomorrow fixing bugs so give me details on which issues are currently the biggest problems and I'll try to concentrate on them.
Better yet, stick them in Mantis. I find it much easier to fix bugs based on a Mantis report than I do from forum chat.
BTW I added the num_assists, ship_score, player-deaths and respawns-left SEXPs to the BtRL build. As I said it took me all of about 3-4 minutes to do. I'll stick a build up later today or early tomorrow. :D
-
The real question is which ones are actually bugs and which ones are just table problems or maybe both? If I thought it was an engine bug it would be in Mantis already. How about I make a list of everything that is still a problem and then if you say Mantis it I will.
-Three primaries on Whitestar. All kinds of stuff with this one. Player loadout screen is messed up on both host and client. Using red-alert to bypass loadout results in client side primary issues such as wrong secondary weapons display, showing first primary (beam) firing when only primary bank 2 or 3 is firing, and the yet unconfirmed Nial loadout glitch.
-Gunship flag results in hits and kills not counting in coop and TvT. Seem to work in dogfight though. Fixable by changing to fighter flag in tables but is it a code problem too? I only know of 2 player ships with the flag: DH Raider and the Whitestar (starting to hate this ship)
-The Vorlon splat. No idea what is causing this one yet. Can't reproduce it over a LAN game. Also didn't notice it in coop so I don't think it's anything with the fighter itself. Possibly something to do with the VE Dreadnought?
-Respawn points and large ships. When flying the SH Heavy Assault no matter how far apart I put the ships in FRED they respawn on top of each other. I did not notice this in testing with only 2 ships but when there are more players it happens. It just hit me I wonder if they are all trying to spawn on Alpha 1's spawn. I have Alpha 1 and Alpha 2 set to spawn on opposite sides of the base but the rest are mixed up. If I kill Alpha 2 it will spawn where Alpha 1 originally did. At lest it did last time. Might have to play with this one some more.
Also one question on asteroid fields. I noticed that if I make a passive field that the asteroids will start real close together then spread out. For instance I made a field with density around 180 and a box 4x4x4 thousand. At start they are all bunched up. 5 minutes into the game they are 10000+ away which is not in the box limits. Now if I make the field active they all stay so close together that you can't move. Is this intended behavior? This is in a dogfight if that makes a difference.
-
I'll take a good look at them but I'll point out that the vorlon dreadnought gives a whole sequence of errors in debug 3.6.10 (and I don't mean the null MOI error that just about everything gives) so there is a good chance something is wrong with either its model or the table. I can't remember off-hand which errors it gives though.
I'll look into the others and see if I can figure out where the problem lies.
-
The real question is which ones are actually bugs and which ones are just table problems or maybe both? If I thought it was an engine bug it would be in Mantis already.
If it works in single player and doesn't work in multiplayer it's not a table bug.
-Three primaries on Whitestar. All kinds of stuff with this one. Player loadout screen is messed up on both host and client. Using red-alert to bypass loadout results in client side primary issues such as wrong secondary weapons display, showing first primary (beam) firing when only primary bank 2 or 3 is firing, and the yet unconfirmed Nial loadout glitch.
The Whitestar works in single player therefore it's not a table bug.
-Gunship flag results in hits and kills not counting in coop and TvT. Seem to work in dogfight though. Fixable by changing to fighter flag in tables but is it a code problem too? I only know of 2 player ships with the flag: DH Raider and the Whitestar (starting to hate this ship)
I don't see how this can be easy to fix. Fighters and bombers only scoring kills to me appears to be hard coded. I can't confirm that because I haven't checked the code. I'm concerned about hacking in a "solution" where gunships or whatever are added to the list. I think we should just exclude the ships from mutliplayer missions and add a warning to the FAQ.
-The Vorlon splat. No idea what is causing this one yet. Can't reproduce it over a LAN game. Also didn't notice it in coop so I don't think it's anything with the fighter itself. Possibly something to do with the VE Dreadnought?
Take the VE Dreadnaught out of the mission and see if it happens. We need confirmation rather than more questions or we'll be here all year :(.
Also one question on asteroid fields. I noticed that if I make a passive field that the asteroids will start real close together then spread out.
That's just what the game engine does. It's a pet hate of mine about asteroid fields. I asked the SCP to do something about it but nothing ever happened and I would rather a hacky fix wasn't thrown into 3.6.9.
-
I'll take a good look at them but I'll point out that the vorlon dreadnought gives a whole sequence of errors in debug 3.6.10 (and I don't mean the null MOI error that just about everything gives) so there is a good chance something is wrong with either its model or the table.
The model has a few issues but the game really shouldn't CTD because of data fed into the system. There seems to be a culture started by kazan of blaming data for CTDs. It's just not good programming practice. Debug warnings are fine and really very useful. Game stopping errors and CTDs are not. No personal offence intended.
-
My opinion tends to be a little different. Nothing, but nothing should CTD a debug build with no error. However if you run a standard build with bad data then yes, it's a perfectly reasonable outcome. The only way to completely avoid the problem would be to include all the debug warning in the release builds which sort of defeats the point of having debug builds in the first place. I'm all for extra bulletproofing but there is a limit on the amount you can do.
Many of the CTDs are caused by bad data which the debug builds do pick up. If someone simply clicks no on the warning and carries on it's hardly surprising if the game then crashes on the bad data it's been fed. That's why I've always said that you should be able to run the game without any debug warnings before you complain to the SCP about bugs. TBP is actually pretty good at that in 3.6.9 builds as it only really complains about trying to read the extra ships (which shouldn't cause errors as ships after 130 will be ignored).
There is another error about a couple of the EFF files actually. I forgot about that one cause it annoyed me enough that I simply fixed it myself.I can give you the fixed EFF files if you don't already have them.
That said 3.6.10 is even stricter than 3.6.9 is and it throws up a whole bunch of null MOI errors. I'm not certain what effect those are having.
-
Ok let's agree to disagree and move on. Though the direction you are headed re-enforces my assumption that TBP doesn't have a rats ass chance of running on 3.6.10. You have to understand that from a developer's point of view it does seem that very little is done by the engine to be tolerant or helpful and the goal posts do seem to move on a frighteningly regular basis. On the other hand I'm not looking past 3.6.9 so I guess it doesn't matter to me or TBP so just ignore my grumpiness today.
-
I don't know why you're so pessimistic about it running on 3.6.10. It does at the moment. And all the extra warnings are actually things that are still an issue in 3.6.9.
-
The multiplayer setup thread has a new patch. This introduces a new IFF called Non Combatant. This appears as Blue when targetted. It is not attacked by any other teams including traitor. The only thing is it doesn't have a hotkey for cycling through ships of that type. So if you want to target a ship of non combatant IFF you have to do it by getting it in your crosshairs and pressing Y.
-
Thanks. Just downloaded it and I'll get those changed today.
I was speculating that the VE Dreadnought is causing the problem as I haven't seen the problem in the NWTR Vorlon mission which is a copy of the base mission without the Dreadnoughts. Also haven't seen it in testing of any of the Gauntlets that have the VE Fighter. I've run the Vorlon Base TvT a dozen times on my LAN with no crashes so it makes it hard to narrow down. I'll make a test version and see if I can get someone to host tonight while I run debug build.
IS that asteroid behavior retail FS2? I don't remember it working that way in V's Light Asteroid Dogfight.
-
The multiplayer setup thread has a new patch. This introduces a new IFF called Non Combatant. This appears as Blue when targetted. It is not attacked by any other teams including traitor. The only thing is it doesn't have a hotkey for cycling through ships of that type. So if you want to target a ship of non combatant IFF you have to do it by getting it in your crosshairs and pressing Y.
Just tried it and in a dogfight shipw with that IFF still target with the H key. :( I know it was the right one because the ships target blue now. Haven't tried using it in anything else.
Works fine in single with the player set to traitor.
-
I don't know why you're so pessimistic about it running on 3.6.10. It does at the moment.
Yep. In fact, as far as my testing goes, it doesn't just run - It runs perfectly. 3.6.10 is not some demon that will swallow otherwise working mods and spit them out in little, broken pieces :)
-
Thinking forward compatability. This H key "problem". Two questions:
1) Is this behavour that is seen in Volition's own multiplayer missions. If not, how do they get around the problem? For instance I remember a dogfight around an Arcadia station. Did that station come up when the H key was pressed?
2) If we remove the behaviour that selects all ships with the H key we are taking a step away from the behaviour of the standard builds. I would want to be sure that this is seen as a *bug* and we are not tying ourselves to special builds. In fact this goes for all bugs that kara has fixed for us especially in the 3.6.9 branch. But especially for ones we can work around like this one. It is not high prority to have non-combatant (background) vessels targetable in multiplayer by any means.
-
Just checked the mission file for the [V] mission. The Arcadia is set as hidden from sensors, which would be the reason it is not targeted by H.
-
I wouldn't stick a bug fix in the BtRL build unless
a) The same fix is going in 3.6.10
b) A better but 100% compatible fix is going in 3.6.10
It's too much of a headache for me otherwise to deal with all the "Why doesn't this work in 3.6.10" posts.
-
Okay, Looking at the bug now. It's pretty easy to fix but I might as well clean up a few other little bugs while I'm at it (For instance the F key shouldn't target traitors either).
-
Yea I saw that too after I sent you the PM. I'll go ahead an change the rest of the missions to use the non combatant IFF I just won't pack them up yet. I'll probably even do that in the TvT missions just because it looks better then unknown and should take all of 30 seconds a mission after I test the first one.
-
Tis fixed (http://www.freespacefaq.com/Misc-Downloads/Builds/Friendly&HostileTargetingFix.7z).
Ironically the exact same code that was causing the problem if (!iff_matches_mask(shipp->team, team_mask)) {
// if we're in multiplayer dogfight, ignore this
if(!((Game_mode & GM_MULTIPLAYER) && (Netgame.type_flags & NG_TYPE_DOGFIGHT))) {
continue;
}
was found in 3 places in the code and you'd picked the only one of those that the game would never run due to dealing with the IFFs correctly. :D Nonetheless as soon as you'd pointed that one out I checked the other functions with similar code and found the two which were actually causing the problem. :)
-
Well at least I got it in the ballpark on my firs swing at the code. Maybe I should retire while I'm ahead. :lol:
Just tested the dogfight I modified yesterday. Works just fine. One minor quark but it only occurs under a circumstance that should never happen. You can target yourself with the E key if you are the only ship in the game. Don't know how many people play dogfights by themselves that would notice that. Also tried it with two computers and it worked on the client side as well.
Time for some hardware work then I'll do some TvT testing.
-
Stick it in Mantis as a trivial bug and I'll fix it eventually.
-
I don't think it's even Mantis worthy. The only time you can do it is if you are the host and there are no clients. Kind of make a dogfight pointless. If all clients are at respawn you can't target yourself or anything like that.
TvT also works fine. All dogfight missions are already changed and test loaded. Will be changing the rest of the TvT missions in a little while.
Did you do any work on the Whitestar loadout? I just tried selecting it in a gauntlet mission and it came up with a correct loadout screen.
-
Did you do any work on the Whitestar loadout? I just tried selecting it in a gauntlet mission and it came up with a correct loadout screen.
To be honest Fubar I'm prepared to release and just put comments in the FAQ saying the Whitestar and Drakh Raider don't score kills in multiplayer and probably won't work. Neither of them are particularly exciting ships in multiplayer anyway.
-
Well that Drakh one is fun. Is there any reason they are classified as gunships? It's not like the player knows that info. I agree on the Whitestar it's just too much trouble for now.
BTW: We have a game up doing some testing.
-
=================== STARTING LEVEL LOAD ==================
ANI 2_Loading.ani with size 43x43 (32.8% wasted)
Starting model page in...
Beginning level bitmap paging...
BMPMAN: Found EFF (particlesmoke02.eff) with 98 frames at 30 fps.
cf_get_file_list_preallocated looking for type=7, filter="*-fbl.tbm"
BMPMAN: Found EFF (JumpIn01.eff) with 61 frames at 22 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (JumpOut02.eff) with 61 frames at 22 fps.
loading warp modelLoading model 'warp.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'warp.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 3400428489, IBX checksum: 3824136535 -- "warp.pof"
128
BMPMAN: Found EFF (shieldhit01a.eff) with 23 frames at 21 fps.
SHOCKWAVE => Loading default shockwave model...
Loading model 'shockwave.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'shockwave.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 3254423745, IBX checksum: 3812486643 -- "shockwave.pof"
SHOCKWAVE => Default model load: SUCCEEDED!!
MISSION LOAD: 'FUBAR_MD18a.fs2'
Hmmm... Extension passed to mission_load...
Starting mission message count : 196
Ending mission message count : 196
Current soundtrack set to -1 in event_music_reset_choices
Loading model 'v-dread.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'v-dread.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 55268276, IBX checksum: 119262136 -- "v-dread.pof"
BMPMAN: Found EFF (vorlonblue-glow.eff) with 21 frames at 84 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (ea-debris01-glow.eff) with 55 frames at 7 fps.
DDS ERROR: Couldn't open 'ea-debris01-glow_0053' -- File not found
Warning: Ignoring unrecognized subsystem petal01a, believed to be in ship v-dread.pof
Warning: Ignoring unrecognized subsystem petal02a, believed to be in ship v-dread.pof
Warning: Ignoring unrecognized subsystem petal03a, believed to be in ship v-dread.pof
Warning: Ignoring unrecognized subsystem petal04a, believed to be in ship v-dread.pof
Warning: Ignoring unrecognized subsystem petal05a, believed to be in ship v-dread.pof
Warning: Ignoring unrecognized subsystem petal06a, believed to be in ship v-dread.pof
Warning: Ignoring unrecognized subsystem petal07a, believed to be in ship v-dread.pof
Subsystem turret27-destroyed in ships.tbl not found in model!
Subsystem turret28-destroyed in ships.tbl not found in model!
Subsystem turret29-destroyed in ships.tbl not found in model!
Subsystem turret30-destroyed in ships.tbl not found in model!
Warning: Ignoring unrecognized subsystem antennae01a, believed to be in ship v-dread.pof
Warning: Ignoring unrecognized subsystem antennae02a, believed to be in ship v-dread.pof
Subsystem engine01 in ships.tbl not found in model!
Subsystem engine02 in ships.tbl not found in model!
Subsystem engine03 in ships.tbl not found in model!
Subsystem engine04 in ships.tbl not found in model!
Int3(): From d:\c++\freespace\fs2_open 3.6.9 - btrl\code\globalincs\windebug.cpp at line 1040
Strange thing is I got that at mission load not during play where the crash is occurring. The NWTR style mission with the Vorlon fighters works so it almost has to be something with the Dreadnought.
-
One of those errors could easily be the cause of the crash though. Although the game warns you that there is an error you click no and continue playing. All goes well until some part of the game actually tries to do something with the petal01a subsystem. At that point the game finds that it doesn't exist and that it's now accessed either a null or wild pointer and falls over.
Short of testing every single piece of parsed data for validity before actually using it there's very little you can do to stop that kind of error. The secret is to trap out and squash bad data during development. Which is why I always have a go at people who ignore table errors on the grounds that they probably aren't important if they only come up in debug.
-
What's really weird though is that the host doesn't crash only the clients. Wonder if there was a fix for the problem in single which also takes care of the host end bud doesn't take into account clients. Host passes them the data they can't handle and crash.
-
I will have a look at the dreadnaught this evening. Though none of those errors are serious. I've seen missing subsystem errors a bazillion times and they've never caused a crash. Nor should they. If my pof editting doesn't fix it we put crashes with the Vorlon Dreadnaught in multiplayer into the FAQ as a known bug.
Fubar. Please can you have a set of multiplayer missions outfitted with the Non com IFF ready for Thursday. Also please select a subset of the missions we have which we have confidence in. We need to draw the line and drop the buggy multiplayer missions now. You can always continue development and add to/override the multiplayer missions in the 3.4b core at a later date.
Let's tidy up and release now please.
-
Well that Drakh one is fun. Is there any reason they are classified as gunships?
Yes. It's to do with how the AI handles them in battle and what ships they engage. The gunship AI class exists for a reason. That's why we waited god knows how many years for it :-). It's a shame Inferno doesn't work with multiplayer because you could just create a Bomber clone of the ship in the additional ships table.
-
Inferno HEAD builds do work in multiplayer.
Not that it's of any use to you to know that. :D
-
No put Fubar might be happy to know that a simple game engine swap will ressurect his Drakh Raider barge battle somewhere down the line.
For now and TBP's 3.6.9 build I think the mission should be left out. As it does not function.
-
Inferno HEAD builds do work in multiplayer.
Not that it's of any use to you to know that. :D
well, it WOULD give us fredders the possibility to add Dilgar, FirstOnes and more exotic ships :blah:
-
Yeah but it's going to be quite a while before 3.7 is ready. So it's not something that has much bearing on this release.
-
Very true Kara. Let's focus here. :)
-
just wanted to point out that it's not completly useless ;7
sure, let's finish multiplayer support
-
No put Fubar might be happy to know that a simple game engine swap will ressurect his Drakh Raider barge battle somewhere down the line.
For now and TBP's 3.6.9 build I think the mission should be left out. As it does not function.
I'll just copy it and redo the loadout to omit that ship in the current one. Can always add the gunship version later and it's already done.
@IP: Did you get the file I sent you last night? It has all the non comm IFF versions in it and the duplicates removed.
@Kara: Can you point me in the direction of a version of FRED that has the multi sexps in it or give me the basic syntax so I can notepad it in. I just need a basic everyone in a wing is dead or departed including AI.
-
Hmmmm. You might actually be opening a can of worms using those SEXPs now that I think of it. I made those SEXPs assuming that the original :v: num-kills SEXP worked in multiplayer. I've got a funny feeling it might not now that I look at the code again.
I'll test them out heavily and try to get a build to you tonight.
-
No hyper experimental cutting edge thrown in at the last minute with minimal testing stuff in 3.4b please guys. Let's stick with the existing SEXPs. The absolute last thing we need is to sabotage our nice stable game with big can 'o worms.
-
I have a feeling that your filling might be correct. Vid tried to use the num-kills sexp and it didn't work too well. Well the mission works the way it is so it's not a real problem. It just has 2 event's that only half work that don't effect the outcome at all. It can always be released the way it is and fixed somewhere done the road.
I just looked at the asteroid field in V's Lite Asteroid dogfight. It doesn't have the same behavior as TBP's asteroid field even when run in FS2_Open 3.6.9. Could the behavior have something to do with the size of the asteroids? This is for an active field. Didn't' try a passive one in FS2.
Going to finish checking a couple of missions, split the Drakh ones into a gunship and regular versions and work on the gauntlet and asteroid fields. If I get those behaving then that will only leave something like 6 missions that don't do what they are supposed to. 2 Vorlon base ones, the Whitestar one, and the Shadow heavy dogfight spawn points.
-
Ick. Took a look at the code and I don't think :v: ever really tested the SEXP in multiplayer to be honest. For a start it completely screws up when the ship is respawning. If Alpha 2 is respawning the game will look on the ship list for Alpha 2's object realise it can't find it (since it doesn't have one as it's respawning) and then simply return 0 as the answer. In most cases the game should ignore respawning ships named in SEXPs but in this case it really shouldn't.
Even if I fix that I suspect it will still give the wrong answers if the player drops. I don't think I'm gonna fix this one for TBP. Too much needs to be done.
-
OK I will just leave it the way it is then with the comment to change it later.
-
Just change in an update to your multiplayer missions at a point where the game engine supports what you want to do. Also I should be more available tonight for testing. As my PC is pre-assembled.
-
Hey guys: I added the multi game to my calendar in the multiplayer section, but I need to know who is the host, and where is the server located, and if they'll have problems hosting the full amount of people.
And @kara: Could you sticky my new topic on GW (http://www.game-warden.com/forum/showthread.php?p=93352#post93352)?
-
Follow the instructions in the multiplayer thread. There are usually a few of us online and if you follow the instructions you'll see games listed at the correct time.
-
Which thread?
-
The one stickied at the top of the forum: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,52243.0.html
-
Just change in an update to your multiplayer missions at a point where the game engine supports what you want to do. Also I should be more available tonight for testing. As my PC is pre-assembled.
That's what I plan to do. I just put a note to do it in the comments section under mission specs in FRED.
Should be on testing if my sinuses ever decide to cooperate today. Little too lightheaded to play at the moment. The banned smoking in bars but they should have banned perfume.
-
Ok chaps. Help me (and TBP) out here and let Fubar call this shots this evening. This is an opportunity to playtest and prove the final set of missions. Assuming there is a set everyone is happy with at the end of the night I can start uploading TBP 3.4 (final?) on Friday.
-
So why is it, I can see Captain Custard's game but not Fubar's game?
-
So why is it, I can see Captain Custard's game but not Fubar's game?
try like me create a game then log out , some times this helps but generally the problem is that you need to log on to the server list before the game is logged in , its annoying , kara please correct me if im wrong .......
just a quick question , i would love to play just once or twice with 3.6.10 just to see the full graphics if any one is interested thqt would be great , pm or mail me...... and this way we could start the bug testing for when fsnet goes 3.6.10....
-
Check to see if the problem affects 3.6.10 builds.
-
yeah, it as follows: if others want to see your game, they have to be in the lobby when you open yours :mad: same holds true (at least for my PC) for every FS2 mod and FS2 itself.
Any major mission related problems yesterday, FUBAR ?
-
No it all went really well. Expecting to see a final mission set in my mailbox when I get home.
-
So why is it, I can see Captain Custard's game but not Fubar's game?
try like me create a game then log out , some times this helps but generally the problem is that you need to log on to the server list before the game is logged in , its annoying , kara please correct me if im wrong .......
just a quick question , i would love to play just once or twice with 3.6.10 just to see the full graphics if any one is interested thqt would be great , pm or mail me...... and this way we could start the bug testing for when fsnet goes 3.6.10....
I think it may be a problem on his end, as I sometimes can't see him when he's on the same game as me (neither of us as host)
-
I saw this with Fubar. It would probably help if someone from that session who also had the problem when they first logged on sent me their multi.log (Edit out your password if you post it here!)
-
I backup up mine after we ended. Attached below.
[attachment deleted by ninja]
-
@IP : That mission pack is going to be delayed an hour or two. Nothing major just need to load missions one more time to check for typo's.
@Vid: Not really. Just know stuff. Bluestar didn't work either because it has the same spawn point problem as the SH Heavy Assault. Two minor bug in your MG02. Idiot move on my part put the message in but fogot to add it to the sexp. Also forgot to beam free the new death ship. Just need to run it one more time.
@Kara: Did you notice that the second time you showed up for the session that you didn't have the problem? That's what is really strange it's like once you can see the game you can see it the rest of the day. Probably hasn't been noticed in FS2 since the host usually restarts the server after just about every game. I'm wondering if it has to do with the machines having 2 IP addresses. I know Taylor worked on that for 3.6.10.
-
Now you mention it, I could see the server right off after logging back on after a CDT.
-
I've also noticed in the past when I've installed a new exe that my firewall will sometime ask for internet connections and sometime for local network. I have to go in and manually configure the other one. It's become second nature to just do it but there probably is a reason for it.
-
Fubar, I could really use your multi log from that session, if you haven't played a new game online since then make sure you get me a copy.
@Kara: Did you notice that the second time you showed up for the session that you didn't have the problem? That's what is really strange it's like once you can see the game you can see it the rest of the day. Probably hasn't been noticed in FS2 since the host usually restarts the server after just about every game. I'm wondering if it has to do with the machines having 2 IP addresses. I know Taylor worked on that for 3.6.10.
Actually that's the least strange thing about it.This is looking very much like a NAT issue. I'd expect exactly this behaviour if Shade's requests were bouncing off your router due to NAT or if your replies to him were bouncing off his router. As soon as one gets through you'll remain visible until the offending router removes the entry from its NAT tables (which happens after 24 hours on most routers).
What was puzzling me is why his packets (or your reply) weren't getting through your NAT when you are already hosting a game but suddenly can when you restart. Looking at Shade's logs though it's clear why you suddenly became visible to him. It's all to do with the fact that he was hosting a server at the time you restarted (or maybe ended a mission). At 9:08 your machine suddenly started sending server queries to his machine. The router which was previously bouncing signals in the opposite direction is forced to register the port in its NAT table which means that when Shade then tries to join your game he'll be able to see you all of a sudden.
So that much is easy for me to understand. What is puzzling me is if there was anyone who had this visibilty problem who didn't try making a server and yet saw the problem vanish when you restarted. I know IP was having trouble seeing you at first, I wonder if he also tried making a server at any point just before he could suddenly see you. I know I did and I know it had the same effect it did for Shade.
-
quick one for kara, just quickly played one with fubar , same server problem cant see his game untill he logs into one ive created then logs out , i shut down and there he is , anyway to cut a long story short he said i should post my multi log here so here it is...............
[attachment deleted by ninja]
-
Log from my side.
[attachment deleted by ninja]
-
Yep. That's exactly what I was expecting was the problem. Fubar's NAT isn't letting you through until he's opened a port by trying to connect to andicirk.
Turey has the code for a partial solution for this problem. With luck it will be in 3.6.10.
-
I seem to recall something about another multi mission existing. Anyone have it so I can take a look at it and see if it works or I can get it working?
-
New missions to play with. Medium Fighter Dogfight (http://fubar4.fubar.org/tbp/multi/fubar_md23.fs2)
Medium Fighter TvT (http://fubar4.fubar.org/tbp/multi/fubar_mt23.fs2)
Now what are the rules of that game you guys wanted? Background for that mission would be a start.
-
Going forward I think more missions along the lines of the Nova encounter would be good. Where both teams have a goal beyond just blowing up the other team's players.
-
already done. Problem is I only release missions that are balanced. And there's the problem.
Give me some more days, okay?
Also, FUBAR: Remember the multi I mentioned?
http://www.filedomain.net/manager/download.php?id=8
-
@Kara: Did you notice that the second time you showed up for the session that you didn't have the problem? That's what is really strange it's like once you can see the game you can see it the rest of the day. Probably hasn't been noticed in FS2 since the host usually restarts the server after just about every game. I'm wondering if it has to do with the machines having 2 IP addresses. I know Taylor worked on that for 3.6.10.
As karajorma said, it is likely a NAT issue. There is no point in restating that really, but I have some to add to it. I recently found a bug in the server code that would make it not be able to properly distinguish between multiple games running from the same place (same IP, as far as the server is concerned if you are dealing with NAT). It's quite possible that this is the heart of the problem you are seeing. I have fixed this by doing two things: 1) I added a disconnect packet so that when a host game ends it will send a disconnect right then and you won't be left with host games being there until timeout or just remaining stale, and 2) game listings are now maintained with identification based on IP and port number. #2 is going to be the big one here, since now you should be able to successfully run multiple games from the same IP, but on different ports (the -port cmdline option), and both the client and server sides will be able to keep track of it all properly.
Right now those changes (plus a bunch more) are currently just in testing, and usable only with the 0306 Xt build, on a separate server daemon. I had planned on replacing the existing v.2 daemon (for 3.6.10) with the newer version over the weekend, but I couldn't get all of the code worked out in time. The IP/port fix should be hitting the v.1 daemon as well, but the disconnect packet obviously will not. Both the v.1 and v.2 daemons should be replaced with their newer counterparts this coming weekend, so you can test it all out at that point and see if you can still replicate the problem.
Turey has the code for a partial solution for this problem. With luck it will be in 3.6.10.
I've been trying to integrate that code in, but it actually needed a rewrite. That little bit of code actually managed to contain every single bug that the original FS2NetD code had both client and server side. It was quite amusing. :) But anyway, during the restructure of that code I got a "WTF?" feeling about it, and after re-checking the RFC to be sure, I'm sure that it wouldn't have actually worked. It was basically correct in theory but had several flaws which would have prevented it from ever working properly. Fixing that calls for a slight redesign though, so I'm trying to work out how to go about that and still have it work together with FS2NetD as it is designed.
It is still slated for 3.6.10 though. I'll get the issues worked out and have it in working builds within the next week or two.
-
that's the only one really working so far, even if it's damn fast paced ;7 . Still working on the Narn variant, Race vs Race versions of these missions are extremely unbalanced.
EDIT: Problems fixed, look newer post below! Removed attachment :rolleyes:
-
@IP: I do plan on doing an attack / defend style mission for each race. Started yesterday by playing with the waypoints trying to get 2 ships to move without going nuts. Found out the problem is the speed of the ships. Fast moving caps like to miss waypoints after making a turn. Have those 2 Minbari cruisers circling. When they were at default speed (45 I think) they missed the waypoints and did loops. Dropped them to 25 and they worked but were a bit jumpy. 22 seems to be working OK but that is for 45 degree turns not 90.
@Vid: Thanks. Tried the previous link the other day and got some file list that I couldn't download anything off of. Special hits and anti-fighter only weapons might help on the mult race missions. Kind of a stand off mission where your bombers have to go blow up their cap while you protect yours. Easy way to test them if you have 2 computers is to just self-desturct both players and let the AI duke it out.
@Taylor: I was starting to wonder if that standalone running on my network was causing some kind of issue. Although both machines do have dedicated WAN IP address as well as their LAN IP addresses they do go through the same router.
-
Special hits and anti-fighter only weapons might help on the mult race missions. Kind of a stand off mission where your bombers have to go blow up their cap while you protect yours.
that's the plan with the Narn :)
to help you with the link, I've extracted the files. sending the file via email
-
Kara can we sort out Fubar and Vid with honorary TBP avatars in recognition of their hard work on multiplayer support? Also along the same lines I've got no problem with you giving yourself one - so to speak.
-
Done
-
Kara can we sort out Fubar and Vid with honorary TBP avatars in recognition of their hard work on multiplayer support? Also along the same lines I've got no problem with you giving yourself one - so to speak.
Thank you and a big thanks for the patients in letting us get multi going.
-
that's the only one really working so far, even if it's damn fast paced ;7 . Still working on the Narn variant, Race vs Race versions of these missions are extremely unbalanced.
Works well the only thing I would change is the starting point of the players. They are right in the line of fire of the caps. Took a look at the escort list before I hit full speed and I was toast in 2 seconds. Maybe a slight y axis adjustment.
Just took a look at the Raider-Multi. Good concept but way too easy. I don't think the transport could ever be killed. Also it doesn't take into account wingmen being killed in the chat. It's more of a single player mission. I could probably make it better but don't want to modify it without permission. Anyone know if Wildlife is still around?
-
no idea.
about the encounters:
now we got a nice little mix of tactical battles :) I love CTF in Halo and stuff, so that kind of mulitplayer is my favorite one. (tried CTF for TBP but it isn't fun -> Ships to hard to hit)
PrimusEncounter focuses on fast action and turret disabling
GQuanEncounter is very tactical and requires coordination and planned bomber strikes.
NovaEncounter combines both.
IP, could you include the two new one in today's patch so we are able to test them this evening?
(since I cannot, FUBAR has these two computers :rolleyes:)
[attachment deleted by ninja]
-
The patch for this evening is going to be a real last minute job but i will try and get it done. If I dont we just have someone with the missions host.
-
I'm getting a couple of minor parsing errors when running in debug with the old set of missions BTW.
Warning: FUBAR_MD22.fs2(line 4:
Warning: Error parsing XSTR() tag XSTR("Drakh Staging Area Dogfight Gunships, -1)
File:D:\C++\Freespace\fs2_open 3.6.9 - BtRL\code\Parse\PARSELO.CPP
Line: 657
[This filename points to the location of a file on the computer that built this executable]
Call stack:
------------------------------------------------------------------
lcl_ext_get_text() lcl_ext_localize_sub() lcl_ext_localize() stuff_string() parse_mission_info() get_mission_info() mission_parse_get_multi_mission_info() multi_create_list_load_missions() multi_create_game_do() game_do_state() gameseq_process_events() game_main() WinMain() WinMainCRTStartup() kernel32.dll 7c816fd7()
------------------------------------------------------------------
Looks like a missing quote at first glance.
-
Yea that was a typo. Deleted an end quote by accident. It's fixed in the finals I sent to IP.
-
Here is my WIP dogfight mission.
[attachment deleted by ninja]
-
rebalanced gauntlet, sending via email
-
Too late to add to 34
-
doesn't hurt, since yesterday's version is not broken just difficult :)
we want TBPfinalTBPfinalTBPfinalTBPfinalTBPfinalTBPfinalTBPfinalTBPfin al :shaking: especially a nice DVD ;)
-
we want TBPfinalTBPfinalTBPfinalTBPfinalTBPfinalTBPfinalTBPfinalTBPfin al :shaking: especially a nice DVD ;)
Fubar and Hip63 need to find some room on the net for me to upload it :D. I tried last night. Failed. I get one more chance. If that fails you're waiting till April. :nervous:
-
Yea that's it blame the host for not cleaning up your storage space. :p
-
You should see the mess I leave when I take the dog for a walk.
-
I really don't want to know why you make a mess when you walk the dog. Now if the dog did it that would be different.
Backup is almost complete and I'm waiting on a phone call from my ISP. I requested a temporary storage increase to be on the safe side but the admin was on break.