Hard Light Productions Forums

Community Projects => The FreeSpace Upgrade Project => Topic started by: mjn.mixael on October 05, 2019, 08:28:57 pm

Title: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: mjn.mixael on October 05, 2019, 08:28:57 pm
I had tossed around this idea for a few years, never really getting around to it. While looking at released assets, I found Oddgrim's Scarab. The Scarab is not yet in the FSPort MediaVPs (Managed by Goober, not FSU). This might be because the model and textures are actually in retail FS2 and thus should technically be in FSU despite not actually being tabled. So this of course reminded me of my idea.

I propose that the FSU MediaVPs start carrying canon FS1 assets. We can include the models, textures, and a table entry with +nocreate. Mods can then make use of these assets very simply by including a couple lines in their own ships.tbl. The advantages are clear for mods that make use of both FS1 and FS2 assets. It can make their own modpacks much smaller and unifies updating these assets across the board. This would not necessarily replace the FSPort MediaVPs because FSPort makes a lot more changes to a lot of assets that are not exclusive to FS1... thus it's separation.

Give me your thoughts and tell me why this should or shouldn't happen.

List of assets that would be added.

  • Apollo
  • Valkyrie
  • Athena
  • Chronos
  • Centaur
  • Terran Navbuoy
  • Anubis
  • Amun
  • Bast
  • Scarab (already in retail FS2 VPs)
  • VC3
  • Scorpion
  • Shaitan
  • ML-16
  • Disruptor
  • Avenger
  • Flail
  • Prometheus
  • Banshee
  • Leech Cannon
  • Shield Breaker
  • D-Advanced
  • Railgun (From Silent Threat)
  • MX-50
  • D-Missile
  • Fury
  • Interceptor
  • Phoenix V
  • Synaptic
  • Stiletto
  • Tsunami
  • Harbinger
  • Cluster Bomb
  • EM Pulse

Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: Nyctaeus on October 06, 2019, 10:49:53 am
Merge 'em. While it was possible for mods to use both FSPortMVPs and normal MVPs in the past via some dependency tricks, I can't reproduce this in Knossos. I ended up with extracted FSPortMVPs assets as separate package. Knossos seems to be not handling well multiple dependencies. Overally shared MVPs would just make modders' life simpler.
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: deathspeed on October 06, 2019, 12:02:30 pm
I'm not a coder or modder or even FRED'er, but this sounds like a win for everyone.
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: Nightmare on October 06, 2019, 12:09:03 pm
What did FSPort MVPs actually change about the assets? Never knew that there were any differences.
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: Novachen on October 06, 2019, 02:47:15 pm
Well, i am the only "No" Vote so far.

Because FS2 is not FS1 after all... that are two different games. And they are two different mods.

And that Knossos does not handle the dependencies well is only a Knossos problem so far, as FSPort MediaVPs are set to accept MediaVPs 3.7.2 only...

You can fix this problem for FSPort MediaVPs... but you would still have the same problem for any other mod with the same configuration.
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: Nightmare on October 06, 2019, 03:03:09 pm
AFAIK, it shouldn't matter whether you use mod.inis or Knossos as in the end, FSO loads the stuff, not the launcher. In case of the FSPort MVPs, it was the last version they were tested with, simply switching to a new version could break stuff.
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: Novachen on October 06, 2019, 03:10:12 pm
AFAIK, it shouldn't matter whether you use mod.inis or Knossos as in the end, FSO loads the stuff, not the launcher. In case of the FSPort MVPs, it was the last version they were tested with, simply switching to a new version could break stuff.

Yes, but it is the launcher that make it impossible to have a 3.8.X compatible mod, because 3.7.2 is enforced with the FSPort MVPs. That does not happen with mod.ini launchers.
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: Novachen on October 06, 2019, 03:11:59 pm
AFAIK, it shouldn't matter whether you use mod.inis or Knossos as in the end, FSO loads the stuff, not the launcher. In case of the FSPort MVPs, it was the last version they were tested with, simply switching to a new version could break stuff.

Yes, but it is the launcher that make it impossible to have a 3.8.X compatible mod, because 3.7.2 is enforced with the FSPort MVPs. That does not happen with mod.ini launchers.

But nevertheless, both were seperate games and also different mod project actually. I do not like the idea to combine that.

But well, it has a reason that there are no other "No" votes at the moment. The majority does not see problems in it so far. So i am fine with it. Even i do not share this opinion.
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: DefCynodont119 on October 06, 2019, 03:19:33 pm
Well, on the one hand I'm cranky and don't like change.

On the other hand, MjN's own description of the idea sold it to me already, so yeah I'm on board for it.



Do it please.
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: Mongoose on October 06, 2019, 03:21:14 pm
I mean I guess the concern I'd have is if you wind up having a few hundred MB's worth of duplicate resources between the MediaVPs and Port MediaVPs, when there could be a more elegant solution. But maybe duplicating things is already a necessity for a bunch of mods, which would make it moot.
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: Nightmare on October 06, 2019, 03:33:59 pm
Dublicates should be removed, though I don't know what FSPort changed about them.
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: mjn.mixael on October 06, 2019, 03:42:57 pm
In the end, I don't control FSPort MediaVPs. I'm honestly shocked it hasn't been updated to use 3.8.x.

The way I see it, FSU MediaVPs is essentially a polished community dump of upgraded retail assets while FSPort MediaVPs are an upgrade to a mod, which just so happens to be an FS1 port. Putting FS1 retail assets in FSU, in theory, could make it much easier for other mods to use FS1 and FS2 stuff together.

EDIT: Added list of assets that would be added to the modpack, but not visible in-game using just the MediaVPs.
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: Goober5000 on October 06, 2019, 03:57:04 pm
The FSPort MVPs are managed by both me and Galemp, and both of us are very busy.  Since this would make more manpower available, I fully support it. :)

As I recall, the FSPort MVPs were originally separate because non-FS2 assets were deemed to be outside the scope of the FSU.  Here are some of the things it includes:


To the extent that the FSPort MVPs actually change anything in the standard MVPs, to my knowledge this only covers the extra model dockpoints required by ST:R.  This is something that would be great to specify with a modular model file just like we have modular tables, but alas, such a thing doesn't exist.
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: Nightmare on October 06, 2019, 04:04:18 pm
Quote
To the extent that the FSPort MVPs actually change anything in the standard MVPs, to my knowledge this only covers the extra model dockpoints required by ST:R.  This is something that would be great to specify with a modular model file just like we have modular tables, but alas, such a thing doesn't exist.

Dockpoints in the sense of modeled subobjects or just a couple docking points (and their paths) to select in FRED? The Arcadia has dozens of docking points the retail version didn't had, and I just tried to smuggle 2 more in for the sake of INFs GTExtensions.

Upgraded FS1 effects (perhabs the shockwave under a different name) could be included as well.
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: mjn.mixael on October 06, 2019, 04:05:47 pm
I am not proposing FSU including anything but canon FS1 assets. I hadn't considered weapons, but I should. The rest of what Goober listed would remain separate.
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: Goober5000 on October 06, 2019, 04:25:53 pm
Dockpoints in the sense of modeled subobjects or just a couple docking points (and their paths) to select in FRED? The Arcadia has dozens of docking points the retail version didn't had, and I just tried to smuggle 2 more in for the sake of INFs GTExtensions.

The one that comes to mind is the dorsal dockpoint on the GTSC Faustus that is used in He Who Rides the Tiger.  This dockpoint doesn't exist on the retail or MVP models.
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: Cyborg17 on October 06, 2019, 04:36:32 pm
I am in support.  This would have actually been helpful in the past when I was trying to mod.  I had to add the scorpion and shaitan in manually, because I personally really like the scorpion, and there's no reason not to have the shaitan as an option for a light shivan force.  I already had the regular mediavps as a dependency, so having these ships included would have saved a lot of time.

(I am of the opinion that a larger community mod of assets might be a good idea, where modders can manually specify texture replacements and table changes, picking and choosing what they need instead of duplicating in their own mod pack. But we're all so busy already....)
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: 0rph3u5 on October 06, 2019, 04:49:40 pm
Merging them would be useful ... esspecially if you bring ships that "back into the fold" like GTFr Chronos; I always hate wasting time on getting the Port MediaVP data and pluggin it into the normal table entry

however then I think about cases like Nyctaeus' upgrades to the Fenris/Leviathan which have their single-part turrets textured and modeled to fit the standard FS2 configuration, highlighting turrets that are beam canons in FS2 but nothing special in FS1...
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: Nightmare on October 06, 2019, 04:56:28 pm
I am not proposing FSU including anything but canon FS1 assets. I hadn't considered weapons, but I should. The rest of what Goober listed would remain separate.

Everything non-Canon should stay out of the MVPs.
Some of the weapon effects might be dublicates.
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: Zarax on October 07, 2019, 01:29:28 am
Yes please, this would be extremely useful for unskilled part-time modders such as myself...
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: Mongoose on October 07, 2019, 10:12:30 am
Thinking about it more, it seems like it'd make sense to be able to point to the MediaVPs as the repository of every single upgrade of canon FS content. Then the FSPort VPs could be reserved for the additional models and variants that Port campaigns rely on. Everyone's able to more conveniently use FS1 assets, and modders don't need to reinvent the wheel and add a bunch of duplicate content.  :yes:
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: General Battuta on October 07, 2019, 11:06:31 am
Yes but also...maybe? Would this involve adding a bunch of ships that could push mods dependent on the MVPs over the ship limit? It seems great, I’m just trying to do due diligence, dude.
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: General Battuta on October 07, 2019, 11:06:58 am
Doot doot doo doot doot
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: mjn.mixael on October 07, 2019, 11:46:11 am
Well I guess that depends. My plan was to "table" these using +nocreate which would mean that...

--mods can activate these assets by simply including $name: apollo (at least I think that'll work...)
--FSO wouldn't actually create a ship.

So if that works like I expect, then that does not add to the ship count. Alternatively, this could be strictly assets only. Models, textures. Mods could activate the asset by writing an entire table entry and just reference the asset files. In this case I'd include a text file that has table entries for each asset is included but not activated by FSU.
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: Zarax on October 07, 2019, 01:23:08 pm
How would you deal with models that are different between FS1 and FS2?
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: Goober5000 on October 07, 2019, 01:31:24 pm
Name a model (not a table file) where something that was present in FS1 is not present in FS2.
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: Zarax on October 07, 2019, 01:34:27 pm
I assumed a few (Lucifer, Typhon, Hades) did receive some change between FS1 and FS2, guess I was mistaken.
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: Goober5000 on October 07, 2019, 01:38:50 pm
It's not a rhetorical question.  If there are any conflicting model changes, I really would like to know.  But I don't think there are.
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: Nightmare on October 07, 2019, 01:48:14 pm
Well, in theory FS1 and 2 models should have different turret models where lasers have been replaced by flak/beam weapons. But that's probably not going to happen.
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: Nightmare on October 07, 2019, 01:50:22 pm
I assumed a few (Lucifer, Typhon, Hades) did receive some change between FS1 and FS2, guess I was mistaken.

In case of Lucy and Hades, their HP was changed, but that doesn't have anything to do with the models. Also, they didn't show up in FS2 plot anyway.
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: 0rph3u5 on October 07, 2019, 03:51:29 pm
I assumed a few (Lucifer, Typhon, Hades) did receive some change between FS1 and FS2, guess I was mistaken.

There are some changes in the stats of some ships, e.g. the SD Demon recieved a substatial HP boost, but those are table side changes which fall outside what the MVPs do (as they use modular tables to modify an existing ships.tbl)
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: mjn.mixael on October 10, 2019, 10:47:11 pm
Alright, the votes make it pretty clear. I'm going to make this happen.
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: Zarax on October 11, 2019, 01:32:27 am
That's a great news!
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: Nightmare on October 11, 2019, 05:02:24 am
 :yes: :yes:
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: Galemp on October 16, 2019, 12:11:42 pm
I am in full support of canon models and weapons (Apollo, ML-16) being folded into the FSU and non-canon (Karnak, Serkr) being relegated to FSPort.

I also agree that everything not strictly related to 3D assets, such as interface art, remain with FSPort.
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: fightermedic on October 20, 2019, 03:06:49 am
I am absolutely in support of this
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: mjn.mixael on October 26, 2019, 06:28:29 pm
I've basically got this done. I ran into a complication with how I wanted it to work, though, because of $pbanks and $sbanks. There's no good way to set those to work with mods and including these ships in the tbm with +nocreate can easily override mods who would then need to override the override. Oh well.

Tables setups are still going to be include, but they are 100% opt-in. mv_assets_fs1-shp.disabled and mv_assets_fs1-wep.disabled.

The assets, however, are included and ready to use.
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: Galemp on October 26, 2019, 11:16:24 pm
You have the new and improved Apollo model?
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: Nyctaeus on October 26, 2019, 11:21:32 pm
Apollo is broken. PBR Maps produce very strange results. I actually tried to fix it, but failed to find the cause so I produced pimped non-PBR variant. I may publish it one day.
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: mjn.mixael on October 26, 2019, 11:58:12 pm
Apollo is broken. PBR Maps produce very strange results. I actually tried to fix it, but failed to find the cause so I produced pimped non-PBR variant. I may publish it one day.

Seems fine to me. Care to be more specific?
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: Nightmare on October 27, 2019, 03:19:34 am
I think the version fightermedic released had some issues with the maps, but that has been fixed in the MVPs, possible that this was the problem?
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: mjn.mixael on October 27, 2019, 09:42:27 am
I think the version fightermedic released had some issues with the maps, but that has been fixed in the MVPs, possible that this was the problem?

Apollo has, to date, never been released in a MediaVPs
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: Novachen on October 27, 2019, 09:55:11 am
Well.. if MediaVPs are carry FS1 assets... does that not apply to all the weapons for the $pbank & $sbank stuff? They have own weapon models, too  ;)

But even it does not... why do you not give them the FS2 weapons by default? I mean every FS1 weapon has a FS2 equivalent you could use instead. And we are still talking about FS2 here...  :nervous:
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: mjn.mixael on October 27, 2019, 11:19:24 am
Mods may want to activate certain ships and not weapons. Mods may want ships with fs2 weapons or fs1 weapons. There's no way way too account for all that with +nocreate without, by design, potentially overriding a possible mod setting in a different table.

So, the tables are included as disabled. Mods can use them by opening and copying values into their own tables. This ensures there will be no bugs but still makes the assets much more easily available to mods that want to use them
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: Zarax on October 27, 2019, 11:34:40 am
I've been waiting for this since the first MediaVP, if you guys ever pass by Milan sometimes I owe you a beer!
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: Novachen on October 27, 2019, 11:51:32 am
Mods may want to activate certain ships and not weapons. Mods may want ships with fs2 weapons or fs1 weapons. There's no way way too account for all that with +nocreate without, by design, potentially overriding a possible mod setting in a different table.

Well... why not? I think you make it much too complicated?

I mean, you could still add additional ships with something like GTD Orion#FS1 into the ships.tbl... as a seperate ship class. Is there a problem with this?

For fighters i do not see the problem either. Even if they have the same tech description, you could simply could add the FS2 weaponary to the allowed banks for all ships that were present in FS1 aswell.

Example for the Ulysses:
Quote
$Allowed PBanks: ( "ML-16 Laser" "VLL-9 Laser" "Disruptor" "D-Advanced" "Akheton SDG" "Avenger" "Flail" "Prometheus" "Prometheus A" "Prometheus R" "Railgun" "S-Breaker" "Leech Cannon" "UD-1 Volz" "Subach HL-7" "Akheton SDG" "Morning Star" "Prometheus S" "Lamprey" "Circe" "Maxim" "Targeting Laser" )
$Allowed Dogfight PBanks: ( "ML-16 Laser" "VLL-9 Laser" "Disruptor" "D-Advanced" "Akheton SDG" "Avenger" "Flail" "Prometheus" "Prometheus A" "Prometheus R" "Railgun" "S-Breaker" "Leech Cannon" "UD-1 Volz" "Subach HL-D" "Prometheus D" )
$Default PBanks: ( "Avenger" "Prometheus R" )
$Allowed SBanks: ( "MX-50" "Fury" "Fang" "Interceptor" "Interceptor#Weak" "Hornet" "Hornet#Weak" "D-Missile" "EM Pulse" "Rockeye" "Tempest" "Tornado" "Harpoon" "Harpoon#Weak" "EMP Adv." "TAG-A" )
$Allowed Dogfight SBanks: ( "MX-50" "Fury" "Fang" "Interceptor" "Interceptor#Weak" "Hornet" "Hornet#Weak" "D-Missile" "EM Pulse" "Tempest D"  "Hornet D" "Harpoon D" )
$Default SBanks: ( "MX-50" )
$SBank Capacity:        ( 40 )

Would that break anything? I mean the actually usable weapons are set by the campaign and mission files... and the FS1 variant would not be used, as they would be an own ship class. I mean GTD Orion#2 (Bastion) from FS2 Retail is already exactly like this.. the Orion with FS1 weaponary.
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: Nightmare on October 27, 2019, 12:32:39 pm
In case for weapons, you'd have to include the entire FS1 arsenal or you'll have tons of debug warnings. Not that changes in loadout happened (the entire #Shivan weapons) but I don't see any actual benefits there, unless you're aiming for a major redesign of how MVP and FSPort work.
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: Goober5000 on October 27, 2019, 12:38:09 pm
I think the version fightermedic released had some issues with the maps, but that has been fixed in the MVPs, possible that this was the problem?

Apollo has, to date, never been released in a MediaVPs

An HTL Apollo is in the current FSPort MVPs.  It is, I believe, the second HTL version to be created, but it's not the most recent.  It might be fightermedic's version.
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: Novachen on October 27, 2019, 12:55:52 pm
In case for weapons, you'd have to include the entire FS1 arsenal or you'll have tons of debug warnings. Not that changes in loadout happened (the entire #Shivan weapons) but I don't see any actual benefits there, unless you're aiming for a major redesign of how MVP and FSPort work.

And i thought that is exactly happen?

I thought all FS1 assets are going to be included by regular means. So that all ships and weapons are available in tech database and FRED2.

Because it made the impression that not only the models are going to be included into the VPs, but also with all the data stuff you have to activate via renaming currently.
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: mjn.mixael on October 27, 2019, 01:01:47 pm
Mods may want to activate certain ships and not weapons. Mods may want ships with fs2 weapons or fs1 weapons. There's no way way too account for all that with +nocreate without, by design, potentially overriding a possible mod setting in a different table.

Well... why not? I think you make it much too complicated?

I mean, you could still add additional ships with something like GTD Orion#FS1 into the ships.tbl... as a seperate ship class. Is there a problem with this?

For fighters i do not see the problem either. Even if they have the same tech description, you could simply could add the FS2 weaponary to the allowed banks for all ships that were present in FS1 aswell.

Example for the Ulysses:
Quote
$Allowed PBanks: ( "ML-16 Laser" "VLL-9 Laser" "Disruptor" "D-Advanced" "Akheton SDG" "Avenger" "Flail" "Prometheus" "Prometheus A" "Prometheus R" "Railgun" "S-Breaker" "Leech Cannon" "UD-1 Volz" "Subach HL-7" "Akheton SDG" "Morning Star" "Prometheus S" "Lamprey" "Circe" "Maxim" "Targeting Laser" )
$Allowed Dogfight PBanks: ( "ML-16 Laser" "VLL-9 Laser" "Disruptor" "D-Advanced" "Akheton SDG" "Avenger" "Flail" "Prometheus" "Prometheus A" "Prometheus R" "Railgun" "S-Breaker" "Leech Cannon" "UD-1 Volz" "Subach HL-D" "Prometheus D" )
$Default PBanks: ( "Avenger" "Prometheus R" )
$Allowed SBanks: ( "MX-50" "Fury" "Fang" "Interceptor" "Interceptor#Weak" "Hornet" "Hornet#Weak" "D-Missile" "EM Pulse" "Rockeye" "Tempest" "Tornado" "Harpoon" "Harpoon#Weak" "EMP Adv." "TAG-A" )
$Allowed Dogfight SBanks: ( "MX-50" "Fury" "Fang" "Interceptor" "Interceptor#Weak" "Hornet" "Hornet#Weak" "D-Missile" "EM Pulse" "Tempest D"  "Hornet D" "Harpoon D" )
$Default SBanks: ( "MX-50" )
$SBank Capacity:        ( 40 )

Would that break anything? I mean the actually usable weapons are set by the campaign and mission files... and the FS1 variant would not be used, as they would be an own ship class. I mean GTD Orion#2 (Bastion) from FS2 Retail is already exactly like this.. the Orion with FS1 weaponary.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about, though. Having weapons listed that may or may not exist will throw errors. Which brings us into the opt out version that I dismissed. In this case, mods need to actively include override tbms to override the MediaVPs tbms that would have these settings. Aka, dependency hell.

With the opt in version, fsu has all the assets and a mod can view the disabled tbm, copy the table data for whatever asset they want into their own tables, and then bam they are done with minor edits.

I was never, ever going to actually activate these assets in FSU. I am simply finding the best compromise to make it easy for mods to activate them.
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: Novachen on October 27, 2019, 01:20:58 pm
You clearly don't know what you're talking about, though.

Oh come on. There was no need for this "You are an archaic individual" attitude again...

I was never, ever going to actually activate these assets in FSU. I am simply finding the best compromise to make it easy for mods to activate them.

Well, that was not made clear to me at all. Because carry already meant to me much more than dead data.
But well, i think i do not have to say anything more then. Active Assets had would make much more sense then. Otherwise i could still download FSPort if i want to use them  :D
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: Nightmare on October 27, 2019, 01:37:35 pm
One of the main problems I see is that many mods using FS1 assets but no FSPort tend to use their own stats for ships and weapons. While it *might* be possible to include the FSPort-Upgrade tbms active without breaking things (every mod using custom ships.tbl without certain FS2 ships does basicly the same), everything else is probably a big no, as far as I can see this.
Title: Re: POLL: Should FSU Carry FS1 Assets?
Post by: mjn.mixael on October 27, 2019, 01:46:14 pm
Nova, I think you've entirely misunderstood the purpose of this idea.

Regardless of the table data being loaded or not, a mod that wants to include the Apollo currently needs to get the assets (POF, textures, effects) and write a table entry. Under MediaVPs 3.9, all the mod needs to do is add a table entry. In fact, all they need to do is copy/paste a table entry.

I was going to set it up so that all they needed to do was add $name: GTF Apollo to a table, but for reasons stated above that makes things more complicated.

Nightmare seems to get it. FSU tbm data would overwrite mods that use a ships.tbl. So now they need a tbm to override a tbm that overrides their tbl. It's a non starter.