Modding: FO 4.0.0.455 loader

posted on October 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm

if the devs read this would it be allowed for me to compress my build with working fo using the 4.0 loader and post a link here with it or not

if the devs dont read this who is the best person to ask about this?

posted on October 21st, 2014, 3:51 am

Well, I installed Sigma and things are a bit odd now? After my Avast anti-virus flagging FO.exe and then Armada.exe as Trojans I had to get that fixed up.

FO started normally after that, however displays the version number as 4.0.0.455 even though the actual odf.fpq in the FO/data folder is 3.2.7? If I then go to launch a mod it says all my mods are out date. Even Sigma. Sigma started and I played a game for about 10 minutes.

I then copied the 4.0.0.455 odf.fpq into the FO/data folder and overwrote the 3.2.7 and all my mods still say out of date? I then tried the Upgrade Project 2014 mod and it started ok, but then I got some really loud odd sounds like it was stuck in a loop or something?

I also wasn't aware the installing Sigma would alter my stock FO install apparently?

posted on October 21st, 2014, 5:42 pm

i think its somthing in the sigma install and yh the loader should change the version numbering (sigma still uses the old assest numbers) you just need to alter your mods ini file to the new versioning
i play muted so cant help with sound issues

posted on January 31st, 2015, 10:52 am

ok im assuming people still having issues getting 4.0 loader to work ive uploaded this file that should contain all the needed files (it worked for me)

make sure it overrides all the files contained in the zip (not sure if all are needed but thats what i done)
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=B ... file%2czip

posted on February 28th, 2015, 3:13 pm

Hi Blade, thanks for your file. I can play FO with your 4.0 loader, but having some problems:

When I play Instant Action, after selected any Avatar, the Base will respond "unable to comply" or similar response. And I have no default units, e.g. construction ship. (Give unit is on) Is that a known problem?

posted on February 28th, 2015, 3:27 pm

Basically, the download is just the loader and some of the ODFs are outdated. In particular, the pushbuild function (which causes the starbase to automatically make the starting ships) is not in v4. Later today, I will try to make a revised ODF.FPQ for the v4 loader. I think I'll probably use a replaceweapon instead of pushbuild.

posted on February 28th, 2015, 4:09 pm

Pushbuild is in V4, just requires techtree

posted on February 28th, 2015, 4:38 pm

Pushbuild is in V4, just requires techtree

Whoops, misremembered. That'll make fixing it in v4 much easier.

posted on February 28th, 2015, 6:08 pm

yh things seam to require techtrees more in v4 but from what i can tell from a lot of trail and frustration most things if not all things are in v4 after some tweaks (like redoing fleet caps as techtrees)

posted on March 1st, 2015, 2:45 am

I read that v4.0 supports xml-based techtree. Do you use xml techtree in your FO, or the old tt format?

posted on March 1st, 2015, 4:26 pm

Here's the patched techtree files. Just unzip them to the v4 techtree folder and overwrite the originals. These are in TT format. I started with XML but then I realized that this would be OK for a quick patch. There seems to be some sort of graphical error in the requirements section of the build tooltips. If somebody could figure that out it would help.

techtree.zip

(15.28 KiB) Downloaded 335 times

Now to go back to working on the XML variant.

I read that v4.0 supports xml-based techtree. Do you use xml techtree in your FO, or the old tt format?

I don't know if you're talking to Blade or me, but this is the only thing I've done with v4 so far.

EDIT: I seem to be having some trouble getting the mustNotHave flag working. Specifically, this bit of code:

Code: Select all

   <object ODF="all_supply_routes1.odf">
      <requirement buttonHideUnavailable="true">
         <obj mustNotHave="true">all_supply_routes2.odf</obj>
      </requirement>
   </object>

I know that buttonHideUnavailable is working properly because all_supply_routes2 hides until 1 is built, but I'm not getting anywhere with mustNotHave.

EDIT 2: I figured out the tooltip thing. All construction prerequisites are now preceded by GUI_CP_OBJ_INTENT, defined in Dynamic_Localized_Strings.h. This could be used to make the requirements list use bullet points, for instance. Simply entering a tab will make it look like stock.

EDIT 3: Figured out why the code in Edit 1 wasn't working right; I was referencing the wrong item. It should have been

Code: Select all

   <object ODF="all_supply_routes1.odf">
      <requirement buttonHideUnavailable="true">
         <obj mustNotHave="true">all_supply_routes1.odf</obj>
      </requirement>
   </object>

Also tried using a cap to more accurately mimic 3.2.7 implementation but that left a line under the resource cost.

EDIT 4: Stuff added by replace weapon needs to be in the techtree now. This includes the starbase offense and defense upgrades.

posted on March 2nd, 2015, 1:49 pm

I was asking both of you. Since you and Blade should be more experienced in FO modding than me. Thanks for your techtree fix!

The pushbuild ships (as you called them) now works. But the station defense and offense upgrade seem not working: clicking either button returns no response.

Still thanks for the fix, that really did great help!

posted on March 2nd, 2015, 8:43 pm

Thanks for your techtree fix!

No problem!

I was asking both of you. Since you and Blade should be more experienced in FO modding than me.

I'm considering moving my current project to v4 now, actually. The new XML techtree system is much more flexible. Not much point in the using the old TT format now either with a bunch of ODF functions offloaded to the techtree.

The pushbuild ships (as you called them) now works.

Not just me! They're designated with pushBuildItemX in the yard or starbase ODF.

But the station defense and offense upgrade seem not working: clicking either button returns no response.

I noticed that while I was working on the XML. I'll post a revised TT once I finish my lunch. If anyone could check for other replace weapons that aren't working, that would be great. I'm also not sure if rank-up works without techtree entries in v4 so if somebody would like to check that out too, that would be great.

The XML may be a while. I'm about 350 lines through the original (plus the pushbuild items and a few others) but the new file is already at 991 lines (the original is just over 1000) since caps and race restrictions are part of the techtree in v4 instead of the ODFs. I may make a slimmed down ODF.FPQ to go with it, but just having a tweaked techlvl.odf in the addon folder seems to be working for now.

EDIT: Newer TT files with starbase upgrades added.

techtree2.zip

(10.96 KiB) Downloaded 340 times

posted on March 3rd, 2015, 10:27 am

im working on fixing the changes made bu v4 and also adding my own changes which i hope will make things better its just taking a while (a lot of odfs to go throuh)

posted on March 3rd, 2015, 4:18 pm

I found more problems and try to fix them. Please correct me if I'm wrong:
These should fix fed platform and romulan turrets.

Code: Select all

fed_platform_pulseP.odf 0
fed_platform_pulsePC.odf 0
fed_platform_pulsePR.odf 0
fed_platform_pulseZP.odf 0
fed_platform_phaserP.odf 0
fed_platform_phaserPC.odf 0
fed_platform_phaserPR.odf 0
fed_platform_phaserZP.odf 0
fed_platform_torpedoP.odf 0
fed_platform_torpedoPC.odf 0
fed_platform_torpedoPR.odf 0
fed_platform_torpedoZP.odf 0
fed_platform_sensorP.odf 0
fed_platform_sensorPC.odf 0
fed_platform_sensorPR.odf 0

rom_disruptor_turretM.odf 0
rom_disruptor_turretMT.odf 0
rom_disruptor_turretPM.odf 0
rom_disruptor_turretPMT.odf 0
rom_disruptor_turretT.odf 0
rom_disruptor_turretPT.odf 0
rom_disruptor_turretZM.odf 0
rom_disruptor_turretZMT.odf 0
rom_disruptor_turretZPM.odf 0
rom_disruptor_turretZPMT.odf 0
rom_disruptor_turretZT.odf 0
rom_disruptor_turretZPT.odf 0


btw, now that all construction ship can build a fully upgraded starbase with same cost of basic base. Perhaps it would be better to increase cost of *DDWW bases, or remove it from builditem?