Jump to content

What's needed for SCS v31?


Recommended Posts

(Among other issues, I would *strongly* prefer to handle SR compatibility through RequireBlock(Demivrgvs) in the SSL rather than through a separate fork.)

100% agree... problem is, I think the only people who know how are you and kreso...

But that's not the problem, the problem for DavidW is: How to use the GitHub? As I have never used it, I can't tell him... but you HAVE ! But it or the other similar site has a GUI that's much better than: write files content as a text to upload it...

How you failed to read this from the post you qouted... I guess you failed to see the brackets you quoted. It's not a subtext, it's an indicator that it's not the topic of discussion, but just relavistic content to explain why he wants to do this himself.

Edited by Jarno Mikkola
Link to post

 

@ALIENQuake @CamDawg

 

You wouldn't happen to have fixed this bug or this one, would you?

I just fixed them, yes. .

 

Well done.

 

What about creating a new thread with a link to this new version (you should probably put it here too.....)?

Edited by Luke
Link to post

Mad Mate just contacted me about some fixes he has, so I'm waiting juuuust a bit longer.

 

There is also the issue where the Assassin poison weapons SPL has been changed. It needs to be updated in SCS in order to be used properly by the AI again.

This is probably beyond my understanding of SSL and will likely need to wait for David's return.

Edited by CamDawg
Link to post

If anyone's still interested, the thing with DS and EE 2.5 was that the DS code would add and delete effects in the same loop, but would not necessarily do so in the correct order, so which would produce incorrect results for some inputs (for example, it deletes an effect located last; delta is -1, then adds an effect at position 0, i.e., at fx_off + delta * fx_size, or 0x30 bytes before fx_off). EE 2.5 contains or contained files that would trigger this oversight. I posted a simple fix here and in the DS thread at SHS, but apparently I toil in obscurity.

Link to post

I posted a simple fix here and in the DS thread at SHS, but apparently I toil in obscurity.

You were unfortunate enough to post as the last poster in the first page of the SHS thread and Miloch posted after you, which obsures your greater precense in there.

Also, Gen1e, aka Ardanis here at G3 made an updated version of DS to Item Revison and Spell Revision betas in about year 2014, and promised to update it at SHS, but never did I see it. Perhaps because the thing changed hands so many times, and no longer is a v3, and thus needs a new topic. Or just an update of the old. Poke.gif Ardanis

Edited by Jarno Mikkola
Link to post

If anyone's still interested, the thing with DS and EE 2.5 was that the DS code would add and delete effects in the same loop, but would not necessarily do so in the correct order, so which would produce incorrect results for some inputs (for example, it deletes an effect located last; delta is -1, then adds an effect at position 0, i.e., at fx_off + delta * fx_size, or 0x30 bytes before fx_off). EE 2.5 contains or contained files that would trigger this oversight. I posted a simple fix here and in the DS thread at SHS, but apparently I toil in obscurity.

 

Thank you, Wisp!

 

In latest DS (3.95), current one, in SCS it is:

SPRINT sort_array auxil
LPM sort_array

instead (like in your fix):

SORT_ARRAY_INDICES auxil NUMERICALLY

Should we change it?

Edited by Mad Mate
Link to post

Something I just remembered to mention now is when cloning spells as different filenames, instances of immunity spell opcodes (318/324) need to be updated so that they self-block the effects of the new spell rather than the original copied spell. SCS liberally clones spells, so I would integrate this change into the clone spells macros or whatever they are called.

Link to post

Something I just remembered to mention now is when cloning spells as different filenames, instances of immunity spell opcodes (318/324) need to be updated so that they self-block the effects of the new spell rather than the original copied spell.

Shouldn't the clone protect from the original spell as well ? And during cloning, make the non clones be protected from the clone spells as well. Cause .. I sure don't want to be "protected from fireball -spell, but not from the fireball -clone spell".
Link to post
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...