Hard Light Productions Forums
Community Projects => The FreeSpace Wiki Project => Topic started by: z64555 on November 23, 2011, 03:19:08 pm
-
Just wanted to get a couple of opinions on how to better organize/format the weapons.tbl page. It seems to be missing info in places, not very clear in others, and I honestly don't know what to do about formatting.
(also, have there been any new weapon.tbl entries since rev. 7766?)
-
It might be a good thing if you started out by telling us where info is missing, or where it is not very clear.
-
Special Case Weapons
- Requires: "beam" Flag
- Requires: $Beaminfo
Flak Guns
- REQUIRE: "flak" and "particle spew" flags
- Must have inner and outer radius defined to have any effect.
- Does not use any model or weapon effect though model must be defined, usually Hornet.pof. Instead it uses particle spew. Trails can also be added.
What? I can see the requirements for both, but I don't see any real explanation. It seems very condensed to me and doesn't really answer the general question "How to I make a beam/flak weapon?"
General Format
Should this be a section before the "Weapons Table" format?
+nocreate
This appears to be grouped OK along with the "$Name:" entry, but there's no visible difference between it and higher grouping.
$Subtype:
FS2 Open 3.6.10:
Missing info?
- Example: Tech_Subach_HL-7
Example
XSTR(
"''The Subach-Innes HL-7...''", 3245)
$end_multi_text
Inconsistent style.
$Damage Type:
FS2 Open 3.6.10:
- Defines the damage type that this weapon uses. All armor effects are applied after shield and have no function against shockwave or subsystem damage. REQUIRES ADDITIONAL TABLE.
- Syntax: String, name of the damage type as defined in armor.tbl
I'm guessing that the required table is armor.tbl?
Homing has several suboptions, but are not accessible via the main menu.
I think I'll stop here for now...
-
What? I can see the requirements for both, but I don't see any real explanation. It seems very condensed to me and doesn't really answer the general question "How to I make a beam/flak weapon?"
Technically that is not what the weapons.tbl article is about. It is about listing and explaining the options that can be set in the table file. Tutorials as to how to make new weapons would go elsewhere.
Like http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Tutorial_-_Beam_Weapons (old page, could or rather should be updated)
Should this be a section before the "Weapons Table" format?
'Weapons Table' could be removed, it seems to be an empty section
+nocreate
This appears to be grouped OK along with the "$Name:" entry, but there's no visible difference between it and higher grouping.
Which is related to the later issue you listed regarding why certain options are 'hidden' from the menu list.
Missing info?
I thought it was polite not to write there anything if did not know how that option could be used
Inconsistent style.
True and i think it might be better to give examples as if they had been written in table file instead of just entires. However then we get to the issue of to represent them. While < pre> text is possible it should be noted that it easily breaks things (also it does not wrap around making it rather difficult to handle), < code> is another possibility but it renders (IIRC) the background of text with black in wiki (background color), < tt> would give similar font but without undue effects, perhaps with template to render nice box around the text or something?
I'm guessing that the required table is armor.tbl?
That it is.
Homing has several suboptions, but are not accessible via the main menu.
IIRC original issue revolved around the headers of different levels, that is the difference between upper and lower level header did not seem to be clear enough. But if that is not seen a problem then they could be organized into true headers (and end up in the menu).
-
I've made a few more changes to the format, as per your suggestions, as well as add some stuff to possibly make it bit easier to read through.
i think it might be better to give examples as if they had been written in table file instead of just entries. However then we get to the issue of to represent them. While < pre> text is possible it should be noted that it easily breaks things (also it does not wrap around making it rather difficult to handle), < code> is another possibility but it renders (IIRC) the background of text with black in wiki (background color), < tt> would give similar font but without undue effects, perhaps with template to render nice box around the text or something?
I'm thinking the < tt> is the way to go, we'll have to find a good template for it though. Do you know the link that goes over how to make one, or where we could grab one?
Homing has several suboptions, but are not accessible via the main menu.
IIRC original issue revolved around the headers of different levels, that is the difference between upper and lower level header did not seem to be clear enough. But if that is not seen a problem then they could be organized into true headers (and end up in the menu).
The contents menu right now seems to have a clear separation between the different header levels, but inside the bulk of the wiki it's difficult to determine the individual levels based on the styles of the header bars... however, I don't think its that much of a problem, since most of the time I use the menu to jump to the entries I want to look at. :p
What may be a problem is the tables that's currently used to mark pieces that have been added since a particular version of FSO, such as 3.6.10. Currently I have the $Homing suboptions as headers, and the version note right below the header.
-
I've made a few more changes to the format, as per your suggestions, as well as add some stuff to possibly make it bit easier to read through.
Ok.
I'm thinking the < tt> is the way to go, we'll have to find a good template for it though. Do you know the link that goes over how to make one, or where we could grab one?
Well i used sandbox to create test scenarios, i) with pre, ii) with code iii) with tt and iv) with template utilizing tt.
http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php?title=Sandbox&oldid=37280
http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Template:Example
The contents menu right now seems to have a clear separation between the different header levels, but inside the bulk of the wiki it's difficult to determine the individual levels based on the styles of the header bars... however, I don't think its that much of a problem, since most of the time I use the menu to jump to the entries I want to look at. :p
What may be a problem is the tables that's currently used to mark pieces that have been added since a particular version of FSO, such as 3.6.10. Currently I have the $Homing suboptions as headers, and the version note right below the header.
Yeah, with headers the version note should go right below the header, it seems to be the safest and cleanest way of doing things. It's not a problem.
-
Well i used sandbox to create test scenarios, i) with pre, ii) with code iii) with tt and iv) with template utilizing tt.
http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php?title=Sandbox&oldid=37280
http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Template:Example
Hey, that looks nice! :yes: