Hard Light Productions Forums

Hosted Projects - Standalone => The Babylon Project => Topic started by: IPAndrews on November 27, 2008, 10:06:48 am

Title: 3.6.10
Post by: IPAndrews on November 27, 2008, 10:06:48 am
Please can someone recommend a 3.6.10 release which is stable with TBP, and in general. Many thanks.
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: Colonol Dekker on November 27, 2008, 10:17:26 am
I've had no trouble with the main one, But i tend to just Fred single muckabout missions.
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: captain-custard on November 27, 2008, 10:46:32 am
karas one seems to be well behaved..........

http://www.freespacefaq.com/Misc-Downloads/Builds/MultiplayerInitialOrdersFix.7z (http://www.freespacefaq.com/Misc-Downloads/Builds/MultiplayerInitialOrdersFix.7z)
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: cloneof on November 27, 2008, 11:53:43 am
Kara! Kara! Kara!
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: Vidmaster on November 27, 2008, 12:15:49 pm
notsupportednotsupportednotsupported
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: captain-custard on November 27, 2008, 12:18:40 pm
i dont care

3.6.10 makes a wonderful game absolutely gorgeous, so even if its not supported its great!!!!!
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: FUBAR-BDHR on November 27, 2008, 12:41:29 pm
Really anything since that build seems to work just fine.  I'd avoid the Knightly one from the 26th but if there is a new one from the 27th it should be fine since the problem was fixed. 

Just remember the is no official support for 3.6.10 and none of the single player stuff has been tested with it. 
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: Vidmaster on November 27, 2008, 01:33:15 pm
none of the single player stuff has been tested with it. 

although i have not run into any problems so far
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: FUBAR-BDHR on November 27, 2008, 01:46:25 pm
I haven't either but that doesn't mean there couldn't be some out there.

Couple things to remember IF you are going to use a 3.6.10 build.

You need to turn on enable 3D shockwaves under graphics in the launcher
You need to turn on use models for weapon selection under gameplay in the launcher
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: darkmaster on November 27, 2008, 04:35:16 pm
so the 3.6.10 does have the advanced function of SET-CAMERA-POSITION ? Must download.
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: Skullar on November 28, 2008, 07:26:22 am
yes, and it supports glowmaps for texture replacement !

3.6.10 is the reason EACW will come out !
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: chief1983 on December 05, 2008, 04:43:20 pm
Fubar, I'm currently looking at addressing those flags right now.  shockwaves and weapon choice I have.  Does it also need to check the 3d ship selection, or is that currently handled properly via tables?
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: FUBAR-BDHR on December 05, 2008, 05:50:33 pm
I never tried it without 3d ship.  Don't know if it was on by default because of the old flag doing both ships and weapons or if there is a reason for ships as well.  I'll have to do some testing and get back to you. 
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: darkmaster on December 05, 2008, 08:46:44 pm
what's about 3.6.10 INF build ?
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: Whitelight on December 05, 2008, 09:05:41 pm
If I recall correctly, or not....
The latest public build is 5-26-08. (INF build)

If this is wrong, please speak up, thank you.
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: FUBAR-BDHR on December 05, 2008, 09:06:30 pm
Well since 3.6.10 is only officially being supported in multiplayer and Inferno builds don't work in multi I haven't even tested one.  Last 3.6.10 Inferno build I even tried was to test a bug fix about 10 months ago.  That fix was included in the 3.6.9 TBP builds. 
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: Whitelight on December 05, 2008, 09:09:31 pm
There are a few bugs in it,but its stable.

(edit) the only crashes i`ve had were because of buggy tbls, and buggy models.
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: IPAndrews on December 05, 2008, 11:30:10 pm
I gave this a go and I wasn't impressed  :(. Lots of ugly graphics bugs. Commetns about "buggy tables and models" don't wash with me. Basically anything that worked in 3.6.9 should work in 3.6.10 or your effectively dumping backward compatability.
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: FUBAR-BDHR on December 06, 2008, 12:07:25 am
What graphics bugs?  I haven't seen any yet except for the 3d shockwave and tech models which are now controlled by launcher flags.  As for the models and tables most of it is just warnings (null MOI especially) and doesn't affect game play at all. 

So far I haven't played one mission that worked in 3.6.9 that doesn't work in 3.6.10 with the exception of some bugs not related to TBP. 

Am I saying it's perfect?  No, far from it.  But it's getting better everyday.
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: Vidmaster on December 06, 2008, 05:26:55 am
I wish for ONE perfectly working, multiplayer-capable, backwards compatible, INF_ShipCapable Build.
But only Santa is able to give us that I guess.

All this you need that for these and this one for that stuff isn't newbie friendly enough. And a pain in the ass to manage.

Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: karajorma on December 06, 2008, 05:52:35 am
I gave this a go and I wasn't impressed  :(. Lots of ugly graphics bugs. Commetns about "buggy tables and models" don't wash with me. Basically anything that worked in 3.6.9 should work in 3.6.10 or your effectively dumping backward compatability.

Thing is, it is still backwards compatible. What's going on now is that debug builds complain about stuff that they silently let pass before. That stuff was wrong before. It's just that the game didn't tell you it was wrong and kept silently using it until it came across a problem it couldn't deal with and crashed. Now it tells you the data is wrong so that you can fix it.
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: chief1983 on December 06, 2008, 02:08:12 pm
Also, the TBP launcher flag forces the 3d shockwave and 3d weapon selection flags as of the build coming out as soon as I let my computer make it.  Apparently it also needs the 3d ship selection flag or debug builds crash, so I'll be adding that one too for later.
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: Whitelight on December 06, 2008, 08:35:34 pm
Commetns about "buggy tables and models" don't wash with me.

I should have clarified, my bad .

By buggy tbls I ment a table that had data in the wrong place, or missing data. Some of that was my own fault  :nervous:

Models, I didn`t want you to think that TBP models were the blame, no, these models were form other sources.   :D
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: chief1983 on December 07, 2008, 01:22:57 am
I'm surprised some of these things got through to final because they were even throwing errors in 3.6.9 debug versions.  So it's not all new errors in 3.6.10 debug builds.
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: IPAndrews on December 07, 2008, 02:33:15 pm
Thing is, it is still backwards compatible. What's going on now is that debug builds complain about stuff that they silently let pass before.

I don't mind about debug build *****ing. I was more complaining about the ugly graphics glitches everywhere. Big black box shockwaves, odd looking maneuver thrusters. Hopefully this stuff is already in Mantis and being fixed. If there's one person I trust to spot and report this stuff it's the guy I left in charge of the mod. Fingers crossed.
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: chief1983 on December 07, 2008, 03:02:32 pm
The big black box shockwave was because of the lack of the 3d shockwave flag, and a particular asset TBP included that doesn't work.   It included the 2d shockwave, but Fubar noted that the 2d shockwave causes that problem when used in conjunction with a skybox.  So now the TBP flag forces the 3d shockwave one to circumvent this problem, whether it's a problem with the 2d shockwave asset or the code.  Not sure about the other bugs, but you should probably double check because I'm not familiar with the rest of what you mentioned.
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: IPAndrews on December 07, 2008, 03:23:17 pm
a particular asset TBP included that doesn't work

So something works in 3.6.9 but doesn't work in 3.6.10 and it's our fault for including it?

I see.  :(
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: Shade on December 07, 2008, 03:39:24 pm
I tried to not comment, I really did, but I just can't now. What's with the negativity? Chief specifically posted that the TBP flag (due to a fix that he added) will now avoid the problem, yet you still take a dig at him. Seriously IPA, you seem to be on some sort of crusade against 3.6.10 and anyone working on it lately, even when they're doing their best to make it work with TBP.
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: FUBAR-BDHR on December 07, 2008, 03:49:56 pm
a particular asset TBP included that doesn't work

So something works in 3.6.9 but doesn't work in 3.6.10 and it's our fault for including it?

I see.  :(

I believe if there was a 3d shockwave the code would use it by default in 3.6.9.  The 3d flag became optional recently in 3.6.10.  So it highly probably the bug was always there it just was never seen. 

odd looking maneuver thrusters.

I haven't noticed anything.  Any particular ships you have noticed this on?
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: Whitelight on December 07, 2008, 06:23:48 pm
The only (2) bugs I have found, have nothing to do with the launcher..
They are listed below.
(1)Opon a capship arrival, it will not have engine glows.. Only ships that are already in game have there glows.

(2) Using waypoint paths seems to be borked, If a path contains multiple waypoints the ship using the path stops at waypoint 1.1 and will not follow the path through.

As far as i`m concerned these are only a minor problem.
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: chief1983 on December 07, 2008, 11:03:50 pm
IPA, I'm not sure the 2d shockwave ever worked in 3.6.9.  You'd have never been able to test it as long as the shockwave.pof file existed.  If it was tested before that and it did work then there may be something wrong, but Fubar said it only breaks when used with the custom skybox.pof.  So it could be an issue in either of those things, or a code issue.  It's not worth sweating too much about since TBP isn't getting any more fixes anyway, so forcing 3d shockwaves with the TBP flag is the best option at this point, which I have done now, and the black boxes around shockwaves should be gone.  Report any other issues on Mantis and they'll get fixed.
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: FUBAR-BDHR on December 07, 2008, 11:50:04 pm
The only (2) bugs I have found, have nothing to do with the launcher..
They are listed below.
(1)Opon a capship arrival, it will not have engine glows.. Only ships that are already in game have there glows.

(2) Using waypoint paths seems to be borked, If a path contains multiple waypoints the ship using the path stops at waypoint 1.1 and will not follow the path through.

As far as i`m concerned these are only a minor problem.


I just did a test mission with 2 MidWinters and Novas.  One of each in game at mission start and the other 2 warping in 10 seconds into the mission.  All 4 had engine glows.  Are you getting this with a particular ship?

Did a test for the waypoint paths as well.  Had a Hyperion do a path with 3 points.  No problems. 

Suggest you grab the latest Knightly build and give it another try.
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: Vidmaster on December 08, 2008, 02:14:26 am
(2) Using waypoint paths seems to be borked, If a path contains multiple waypoints the ship using the path stops at waypoint 1.1 and will not follow the path through.
As far as i`m concerned these are only a minor problem.

if this would actually occur, it wouldn't be minor at all. Almost all more-scripted campaigns depend on waypoint use.
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: IPAndrews on December 08, 2008, 05:29:04 am
Quote from: FUBAR-BDHR link=topic=58006.msg1174424#msg1174424
odd looking maneuver thrusters.

I haven't noticed anything.  Any particular ships you have noticed this on?

The Star Furies (not many of our ships employ maneuver thrusters.
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: Col. Fishguts on December 08, 2008, 06:40:56 am
Can you clarify what you mean with odd? Black boxes or what ?
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: FUBAR-BDHR on December 08, 2008, 12:07:15 pm
The 2d shockwave apparently has a bad alpha channel so it makes a black box when used in conjunction with starfield.pof.  This results in a black square around the shockwave.  Enabling 3d shockwaves solves the problem and is now forced on if the TBP features flag is on in the latest 3.6.10 versions.

@IP:  I'll have to check on those thrusters.  I'm usually too busy evading enemy fire to notice them.  Screenshots would help. 
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: chief1983 on December 08, 2008, 05:33:26 pm
Whitelight, if you could get a mission together that exhibits the waypoint problem, either with retail fs2 data or tbp final data (fs2 preferred) I'm sure a coder would like to make sure that gets fixed as soon as possible.
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: Whitelight on December 08, 2008, 07:31:23 pm
@Vid Were you using 3.6.10 inf?  Thats the build that I had those bugs with.. Would a nightly build even support a 250 ship limit? I myself haven`t tried any nightly builds.
Oh and the glows are not present on any type capship that enters after mission start.

@chief1983 I`m not working on any projects at this time, I`m primarily tinkering with fred, what can I say, I like to tinker.  :D  As for making a mission, if I do it will be with TBP, and I don`t have a place to upload any material. Not even sure I could upload, I lack that kind of expertice.

Puts on dunce cap.  :sigh:
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: FUBAR-BDHR on December 08, 2008, 07:56:05 pm
Well the inferno build would explain a lot.  Those bugs may have already been fixed that's why were not seeing them in the regular 3.6.10 build. 

If you have material you can always email one of us and we can upload it for you or you can use someplace like mediashare. 
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: Whitelight on December 08, 2008, 10:23:44 pm
Ok, thanks.  :D

Give me a few days to work on one, something containing only TBP models.. My install, at the moment might introduce something you don`t already have and cause problems.(clean up my install).  :)  Anyway, what i`m messing with at the moment is pretty cheesey, not suitable for public enjoyment.   :D  :nervous:
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: chief1983 on December 08, 2008, 10:49:20 pm
Or, a mission should be able to fit as an attachment to a forum post, but you may need to zip/7z it first.
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: FUBAR-BDHR on December 08, 2008, 10:54:15 pm
Just tried out the thrusters in 3.6.9 and in the latest 3.6.10.  I didn't see any difference.  Front ones look strange in both as they are kind of 2 dimensional. 

Was there a particular ship you were noticing the problem on?
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: IPAndrews on December 09, 2008, 04:16:08 am
As I said earlier the problem was with the Star Fury. They looked completely wrong, but I don't have time to take screenshots and we may even be using different builds. As there doesn't seem to be any easy to follow release candidate system this time round. If you're tried a recent build and there is no problem. Great. Hopefully the bug was nailed.
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: FUBAR-BDHR on December 09, 2008, 10:56:14 am
I did take a screenshot when I was testing last night.  Does this look right to you?

(http://fubar4.fubar.org/fubar/tbp/thrusters.jpg)
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: IPAndrews on December 09, 2008, 11:42:48 am
That's certainly not what I saw. Which is good. I saw a very obvious mess. I will need to try a newer build. Which brings me back to the original question I asked eons ago. Can someone recommend a good build? What are you using Fubar? Any issues?
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: FUBAR-BDHR on December 09, 2008, 11:51:02 am
I'm doing my testing with the latest.  Right now thats r4985 from the Knightly build forum.  I'll probably recommend switching to it or an even newer build for multi testing. 

I do like the release candidate system but am holding off on it until a couple more bugs are fixed. 
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: chief1983 on December 09, 2008, 02:38:43 pm
IPA, the point of the nightly build system is that you always have the latest available code base only ~4MB away.  The later the build you can test on the better, but the important thing is knowing what build it was you had problems on.  Every build is labeled with a date and SVN revision now in the filename, as long as you don't get creative with renaming them it should be a matter of noting the filename to gather that information after you find a bug.  These aren't RCs, they're just the flow of progress.  They're not intended to be final just yet, but they should be very close, and most people seem to be happy with the overall development since 3.6.9.  We're working on increasing that percentage now (hopefully to include Mac users eventually).  That said, as bugs are being fixed every day it doesn't help a lot to repeatedly state there is a bug when it has already been fixed.  A 'good build' then, is pretty much the latest you can find if you're going to actually try to find and report bugs.
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: IPAndrews on December 09, 2008, 03:34:30 pm
IPA, the point of the nightly build system is that you always have the latest available code base only ~4MB away.

Chief. I'm not interested in beta testing. I'm not interested in bug reporting. Sorry to be so selfish but I really, really don't have time. All i'm interested in is finding a stable build I can design missions with. Now I do appreciate it's a somewhat unrealistic goal. After all if the build was completely stable it would probably be a release or release candidate. That said I'm looking to find something as close to that as possible. Given I don't have the time to try every build from the most recent in reverse order trying to determine which is the most stable, I'm looking for someone to give me the benefit of their experience and recommend one. Which I assume may, or may not, be the most recent one. Since the link between a build's age and it's stability has never been a reliable one.

Actually this is just turning into me arguing with the SCP team about sod all. So forget it I'll use 3.6.9.
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: chief1983 on December 09, 2008, 04:05:02 pm
I was just about to recommend that if that's what you want it for.  You might be better off with Kara's standalone fixes build (http://www.freespacefaq.com/Misc-Downloads/Builds/Old/StandaloneFixes-1.7z) though.  It's a favorite for a lot of multiplayer usage and the error checking is much closer to what will be in 3.6.10.  Numerous bugs have been fix in it of course but many of those are in 3.6.9 too so there's not much difference there.  Not sure if that had a regular and debug build or not though.
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: FUBAR-BDHR on December 09, 2008, 04:07:30 pm
The 4985 revision is the most stable I've found so far.   Until this point I've been saying to use Kara's multi test build.  Now I'm saying this one is the one to use.  I've played for 2 days on it in debug mode with only one crash and that seems to have been either a fluke or a bad ship order.  Somehow a ship tried to attack itself.  Probably wouldn't have even cause a problem in the regular build. 

There is one problem to be aware of.  The game will crash if you go into the mission simulator twice without exiting the game.  Don't know why on this one yet.  It's been happening for awhile now I just finally narrowed it down and got it reported about a week ago.  This is the only TBP specific bug I know of at this point. 

There is no problem with using 3.6.9.  If you write it in 3.6.9 FRED it will work in 3.6.10.  I still use 3.6.9-INF FRED to do most things.  I only have 2 missions I am using 3.6.10 FRED for.  One is due to there being over 100 ships.  The other is due to several bugs that has been fixed in 3.6.10.  Most of those bugs I found making that mission. 
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: FUBAR-BDHR on December 09, 2008, 04:11:56 pm
I was just about to recommend that if that's what you want it for.  You might be better off with Kara's standalone fixes build (http://www.freespacefaq.com/Misc-Downloads/Builds/Old/StandaloneFixes-1.7z) though.  It's a favorite for a lot of multiplayer usage and the error checking is much closer to what will be in 3.6.10.  Numerous bugs have been fix in it of course but many of those are in 3.6.9 too so there's not much difference there.  Not sure if that had a regular and debug build or not though.

I think that build was made before Taylor fixed the support ship problem in TBP.  I wouldn't use anything older then 11-11-08. 
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: chief1983 on December 09, 2008, 04:18:08 pm
Ah.  I was partially thinking that was a good choice for the lack of GLSL.
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: Vidmaster on December 10, 2008, 02:16:52 pm
you guys and your need for updates :wtf: .
Although, I admit we need a new build for multiplayer.

Still, as long as there is no offical 3.6.10, I'll do as IP already stated, I stick (and fred) for 3.6.9  :)
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: chief1983 on December 10, 2008, 02:28:11 pm
Well we have to with all these people demanding that we most make an update.

There's nothing wrong with doing development in 3.6.9, it's still technically the latest stable release.  It's just lacking quite a few of the features you are probably waiting for.
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: Colonol Dekker on December 10, 2008, 03:47:56 pm
3.6.9. is absaolutely fine :yes:


TBP is absolutely perfect as it is "if it aint broke, don't fix it" :nod:
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: Vidmaster on December 11, 2008, 02:43:15 am
TBP is absolutely perfect as it is "if it aint broke, don't fix it" :nod:

 :yes:
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: karajorma on December 11, 2008, 03:41:46 am
TBP is absolutely perfect as it is "if it aint broke, don't fix it" :nod:

But it is broke. Just look at Mantis reports by FUBAR. :p There are a lot of things that simply don't work in 3.6.9. And I'm not talking about just in FS2. There are a lot of little petty annoyances in FRED that are fixed in 3.6.10.

Off the top of my head

-No Undo (or at least a badly broken one).
-Problems with SEXPs using string variables or arguments which force  you to use notepad
-Having to place a hostile ship in order to unlock all the SEXPs
-Inability to use a string variable with a Null value (It always had to be something that the SEXPs it was in would accept as a ship or weapon or whatever)
-Can't assign goals to a ship in an <argument> SEXP
-Campaign Editor randomly crashes on start up


And that's just the stuff I fixed in the last month or so. :p
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: IPAndrews on December 11, 2008, 04:06:04 am
Most of that list just affects hardcore mission designers.

-Campaign Editor randomly crashes on start up

But this one made me sad.  :(
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: Vidmaster on December 11, 2008, 07:10:31 am
-No Undo (or at least a badly broken one).
-Problems with SEXPs using string variables or arguments which force  you to use notepad
-Having to place a hostile ship in order to unlock all the SEXPs
-Inability to use a string variable with a Null value (It always had to be something that the SEXPs it was in would accept as a ship or weapon or whatever)
-Can't assign goals to a ship in an <argument> SEXP
-Campaign Editor randomly crashes on start up

- set-z-speed (or similar sexps) can't be over the ship's speed limit when the ship is facing the the mentioned direction (that one is currently my personal nightmare).
- the random problem
- ...


I know, I know. But if you are going to tell me now, that 3.6.10 will be bug free (remember that I am also working for WCS and they use a lot of the new features) then...      :no:
I already agreed to make 3.6.10 offical for multi and also to recommend it for single IF all current 3.6.9 campaigns can be played properly. Still, I would like to have the setup of the game as easy as possible, not all users are HLP veterans :rolleyes:
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: Zacam on December 14, 2008, 03:39:42 pm
The 2d shockwave apparently has a bad alpha channel so it makes a black box when used in conjunction with starfield.pof.  This results in a black square around the shockwave.  Enabling 3d shockwaves solves the problem and is now forced on if the TBP features flag is on in the latest 3.6.10 versions.

@IP:  I'll have to check on those thrusters.  I'm usually too busy evading enemy fire to notice them.  Screenshots would help. 

Uh. Actually ALL of the (MediaVP ones at least) shockwave textures (2D and 3D) have NO alpha channel. They are not supposed to. Hope that helps clarify anything.

Why? Because as the effects that they are, they don't need one.

And they haven't ever had one either.

Now, if the TBP ones have Alpha channels, that might be the problem right there.
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: chief1983 on December 14, 2008, 10:01:45 pm
They don't seem to, as we looked at them today.  I'm still not sure what the problem is then.
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: FUBAR-BDHR on December 14, 2008, 10:38:04 pm
Maybe I should have said wrong transparency then.  I'm not familiar with all the terms.  Could it be as simple as a black vs green background color or something?
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: chief1983 on December 14, 2008, 11:37:24 pm
That's the thing though, as far as we can tell it looks correct.  I'm not sure why they have a problem in game.  They match the setup of the MediaVP 2d shockwaves though, as those also have a black background.
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: FUBAR-BDHR on December 15, 2008, 05:32:56 pm
What files actually make up the 2d shockwave? 
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: chief1983 on December 15, 2008, 06:23:02 pm
shockwave01.eff and shockwave01_0000 through 0091.dds I think.
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: Slasher on December 17, 2008, 06:36:46 am


-No Undo (or at least a badly broken one).
-Problems with SEXPs using string variables or arguments which force  you to use notepad
-Having to place a hostile ship in order to unlock all the SEXPs
-Inability to use a string variable with a Null value (It always had to be something that the SEXPs it was in would accept as a ship or weapon or whatever)
-Can't assign goals to a ship in an <argument> SEXP
-Campaign Editor randomly crashes on start up



Holy crap, I remember posting about some of this stuff early this year and I'm sure I wasn't the only one.  I never imagined anyone would bother to make progress on these issues.  Specifically, I remember the modify-variable SEXP wouldn't let you specify <argument> as an argument.  Good work!  :)
Title: Re: 3.6.10
Post by: karajorma on December 17, 2008, 01:56:03 pm
I don't think I actually remember your post. Most of that stuff annoyed the hell out of me personally and needed fixing. :) Some of it was in Mantis while the rest just happened to wander into my line of sight this month. :)