Talk:FlightLevel

What about Firestorm?

I've noticed that we haven't been putting FS in the Works in Game(s) slot. Why is that?
Vinifera7 22:32, 29 August 2006 (CEST)

I keep omitting it because, to my knowledge, no code from TS was castrated in FS (I mean, if your game is fully patched to 2.03, the engine used is completely the same regardless of whether you pick to play "TS" or "FS" in the startup menu) and thus all code flagged as "works in TS" works implicitly in FS. The only pages stating "works in FS" are flags introduced by FS, such as Template:TTL. However, I'm now starting to think that might not be the best idea and a sign such as "2.03" would work better.
That is not the case in the RA2/YR transition (as it uses a separate exe as opposed to patching the original one), so YR deserves a separate mention. //DCoder 06:49, 30 August 2006 (CEST)

I agree with V7 fully.
FS is separate game.
So we need add it to all tags.
CnCVK 15:14, 30 August 2006 (CEST)

Actually Firestorm DOES use another EXE, though it just overrides the TS one rather than creating a new one. But the new exe is still fully compatible with the TS rules, just as RockPatch is still fully compatible with the YR rules. There aren't very many flags that are new to Firestorm, as you have mentioned. For consistency, we should probably add FS to the list, if it indeed works in FS. However I was looking at this in terms of what would be best in the long run. Eventually we will need to specify which flags work in which games, so that users can easily navigate ModEnc and locate the information that they're looking for.

So who wants to go over the existing pages adding TD/CO, RA/CS/AM, and TS/FS to them as necessary? :p //DCoder 06:16, 31 August 2006 (CEST)

Editing Conflict! These two replies were done at the same time:

It doesn't have to be done right away. It can be done as we update the pages. Do we need CO, CS, and AM? I'm not at all familiar with modding TD or RA, so I have no idea whether or not those expansions even added new logic to the existing game. Hell, I've never even played them (yeah, I can barely call myself a true C&C fan *rolleyes*) If not, then there is no point in including them. Vinifera7 06:37, 31 August 2006 (CEST)

That is immaterial to this discussion. It can happen over time, in conjunction with other edits. The fact that it's hard to do doesn't change the fact that it has to be done. FS is a seperate product, whether you like it or not, and no matter how similar it is to other products. As such, it should be listed in any Works in... list if applicable.

~ Renegade (SysOp) 06:40, 31 August 2006 (CEST)

Also FS have special "Firestrom" disk, new save game format.

TD/CO have not any INI tags at all and RA/CS/AM have only RULES.INI file with "easy" format.

CnCVK 16:26, 31 August 2006 (CEST)

TD/CO do have INI flags, you forgot maps, triggers, teamtypes, briefings, etc. ;) //DCoder 16:44, 31 August 2006 (CEST)

Yes. But it's not "RULES" flags.

And nothing new(INI tags) in CS/AM.

This discussion is pointless, and after our discussion on IRC this morning, I think it's over, too. It boils down to a simple fact: The row is called Works in Game(s):. So if a flag works in a game, that game is listed, if it doesn't, the game is not. Period. It is totally irrelevant how similar certain expansion packs are to their parent games. The statement transmitted by Works in Game(s): TS is "This flag works in Tiberian Sun." - not "This flag works in Tiberian Sun and Firestorm.". Because TS, as similar as it may be to FS, does not equal it. And if somebody tries to find out whether a flag works in Firestorm, he probably doesn't give a fuck for the TS listing. The only correct representation of "This flag works in Tiberian Sun and Firestorm." is Works in Game(s): TS, FS. Period. Because omitting either game would imply the flag does not work in it.

'nuff said.

As for the questions after CS/AM: I, personally, never list them simply because I do not have their "rules" at hand and cannot check whether or not they support a flag - and the wonderful thing about a wiki is that somebody else, who does have them, can look it up and expand the row if necessary.

Counterstrike and Aftermath should be listed as well if applicable. But you should not put guesswork on the pages. If you don't know whether CS/AM support stuff, tough luck. Happens. But putting "CS, AM" anyway, hoping it'll be right, is not the way.

It's better we have a list that includes only correct information, but potentially not all of it, than a list that includes as much information as possible, and half of it is wrong.

~ Renegade (SysOp) 23:14, 31 August 2006 (CEST)

P.S.: Indenting is your friend.

---

RULES or not, ModEnc is supposed to cover all INI Flags. And Aftermath does support new flags, e.g. MAD Tank controls, NewUnitsEnabled, MultiEngineer overrides... //DCoder 05:57, 1 September 2006 (CEST)

Aftermath is just V2.00 of RA, all the aftermath stuff can be implemented in RA missions and maps when patched to this version or higher (although the 3.x patch never got an official release). Similarly, FireStorm just uses the TS exe patched to 2.xx and doesn't have its own with different or additional logic. If anything listing aftermath is the only one to make sense since a patch to the original game was never released sepereately to take it to the same level. //Blade 13:14, 2 September 2006 (CEST)

Regarding "Applicable To"

Why are all of the techno types listed? Disregarding the Hunter Seeker as a special case, you would NEVER use FlightLevel for anything other than aircraft. Jumpjet units use JumpjetHeight, not FlightLevel. Just because the game doesn't IE when you apply FlightLevel to a building type doesn't mean it's of any USE for it. I really don't see why you would list all of the techno types.
Vinifera7 03:31, 1 September 2006 (CEST)

Well, if you check the history, you'll see that VK was the one making this change, explicitly. Since he has access to the exe and has provided a good deal of other previously unknown information, I saw no reason not to believe him.

~ Renegade (SysOp) 05:54, 1 September 2006 (CEST)

I had only listed AircraftTypes at first, VK came and added the others, I suppose it was on the basis that "the EXE reads this flag on that TechnoType, so it has to be listed", which I don't really agree with. //DCoder 05:57, 1 September 2006 (CEST)

"the EXE reads this flag on that TechnoType, so it has to be listed"
Yes. But what about UnitTypes with

Locomotor={4A582746-9839-11d1-B709-00A024DDAFD1} ;

It's never exiting factory correctly, but it really need testing.
CnCVK 21:38, 1 September 2006 (CEST)