TresCom Forums

machf wrote:I still maintain that it's much simpler to use an entry in the .INI file

I did consider that option, but I'm really not liking it for this particular thing. The reason being that it means that user created levels that contain EvaluateAll triggers will not be able to trust that it works, if the user can change it as an ini option.

With the one in the original level, it's not critical, but user levels could potentially use it in critical game logic and I don't want to introduce uncertainty. Either the trigger works fully or it doesn't (and I provide other solutions like script to make it work), and the way it works is 100% reliable.


I did play that level portion today, and I must say I'm quite fond of how populated/alive and tense it feels with the additional raptors coming in. Especially with CE's ability to have more of them active. This just make the decision much harder

Lee, an external optional fix sounds like the solution, then, to not interfere with preexisting scripts.

TI, 24 bit bmps appear fine for me, as well, including the HD beach textures you made earlier.

Lee Arbuco wrote:This just make the decision much harder

Decisions, decisions...

Out of curiosity, does build 117 (demo executable, patched retail or retail in languages other than English) fix that behavior?

I have a handful of 24-bit BMP replacements that I always load, as a way to monitor that stuff works, and haven't seen any problems. Maybe it's something specific to the type of BMP you're using. As the "LevelAuthorReadme.txt" doc states

That's a possibility, I'll take a look. Can't remember where I got the pack I was having problems with, or I'd provide a link.

TI, 24 bit bmps appear fine for me, as well, including the HD beach textures you made earlier.

Those aren't BMPs, they're DDS textures..? Is there another texture pack you're using?

About Trespasser's bug testing: They did have a few people testing it full time. However, it should be worth noting that I think the only way the testers would find that "EvaluateAll" thing would be if they knew about it and specifically tested it to begin with. And it is very possible the devs knew about the bug but never got around to fix it as they had to release it by their deadline.

Personally I would rather see it fixed without having to enable it anywhere as I see it as a bug. Does a fan level include it to this point anyway? In any case, it would be easier to include fixed .scn and .grf files for IJ modified to work as it does with the script fixed.
Having it as a .ini option might be a bit messy imo, specially for new people and those who doesn't want to go through everything just for that. Someone should write a config program where you can edit the .ini file that contain comparison images etc

tatu wrote:However, it should be worth noting that I think the only way the testers would find that "EvaluateAll" thing would be if they knew about it and specifically tested it to begin with.

That's looking at it a bit from the wrong angle IMHO. It's not relevant for the testers to know how the author meant for that trigger to work. What's relevant is them playing that part of the level and enjoying/approving the resulting gameplay. The argument being that assuming that both testers and the level author played the level, they seemingly were good with how it played.

Let's hypothetically say that EvaluateAll did work, that could've then resulted in them turning off EvaluateAll after having play tested because they liked that better. The level as it actually played out is what got the stamp of approval*.

(* yes I know that the wording is a stretch considering all areas that it fell short of their goals and short on time they were)

machf wrote:Out of curiosity, does build 117 (demo executable, patched retail or retail in languages other than English) fix that behavior?

I haven't looked at that, but based on how the trigger code looks I can't imagine that ever having worked. It's not a bug in the code, it's that the code doesn't use EvaluteAll at all, it would have to be structured differently. Also the EvaluteNow function that does use it, had such a fundamental bug that it's clear that it was originally written this way but never tested a single time.

I just tried to attach the files for the new CE update to the first post, but keep getting a server error each time I try

"413 Request Entity Too Large".

The file size is more or less identical to the previously attached files (+/- ~10kb). Is this some temporary issue or did something change on the forum server?

I've been experiencing the same issues during the past days.
Did you delete the earlier attachments first? It may be that the total size of all the attachments is exceeding some limit...

Hey, Lee - once you get the files uploaded, where would I find the changelog and list of features/fixes added to the latest version?

Additonally, I tried to upload a simple .zip file with a 1x1 pixel .jpg image file inside as an attachment to test out this bug you guys seem to be experiencing, and I also got the "413 Request..." error. No idea what it could be, though.

Hmmm... maybe we've reached the server's attachment limit (3GB in total for all forum posts).

machf wrote:Hmmm... maybe we've reached the server's attachment limit (3GB in total for all forum posts).

That seems likely, if you say that the limit is 3GB. All this stuff piling up over the years is bound to hit the limit eventually.

Let's try now...

machf wrote:Let's try now...

Whatever you've done, it seems to have fixed it.

machf wrote:Did you delete the earlier attachments first? It may be that the total size of all the attachments is exceeding some limit...

Yes I deleted both attachments first. The total size of all my current attachments is below 3.5 Mb.

I tried a couple of times again now, and unfortunately I'm still getting the same error (or a connection reset sometimes).

What I found on the error was https://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/linux-uni ... too-large/ (nginx is what it says on the error page here), and seems to be some kind of server config? Even though a 1x1 jpg should be so tiny that it doesn't quite fit the description on that page.

TheIdiot wrote:where would I find the changelog and list of features/fixes added to the latest version?

"release_notes.txt" in the zip has a changelog for each version.

There seem to be some issues present at the moment. I have written to Madpipper about it.

It appears only files below 1MB is allowed to be uploaded at the moment.