IWTE - World editing - (General Discussion)

[leo.civil.uefs]

leo - just to be clear does the number 2 items show the 'squares' as you have shown them or does it show no squares? ie where you are showing white with the pink square outline. It is significant so I need to be sure.

No square shown, no pink, nothing. just empty.
actually, the view button does not show the border lines of the squares, but only the squares itself, wich results in a homogen "line" of squares put togheter.
resuming, what you see when clicking the view button is exactly what I show in picture 2 but without any pink line or any division between the yellow.

[wilddog]

@leo - Ok understand now. I misunderstood the first note when you said "IWTE likes to erase the nodes" so I thought you were talking about the change process not saving correctly or corrupting. However I now understand the problem is 'you can't always see/tell the block nodes in the view mode' but they are still showing as blocked when you go into the change mode. So no bug on erasing nodes afterall.

As I did find a crash bug when testing I'll end up rewriting this into a simplified paint process and standardise the colors to make it the same in each view. As the edit process kept changing as I was trying to speed up that process that's how the colours got out of line i.e. the empty you see in the edit process is completely different colour settings to the empty used in the game and also used in the view.

I'll cross check the boundary settings to see if there is anything wrong with those. They are only 'approximate' settings though as they are directional and IWTE just determines the direction from the other blocks.

In the view the problem is the green has a difference of 1 between a blocked green and an unblocked one.

I think the main bit of your problem is tied to the unit models colliding and being pushed over the edge of the boundary. You may have no option but to make it bigger.
- I'll talk to Mak to see if its worth trying a double boundary. That would need to be edited but probably easier for her to try than you given knowledge of the text file is required.
- I'll cross check the settings I use to see if there is any obvious bugs there but I think they were generally OK.

[leo.civil.uefs]

I think the main bit of your problem is tied to the unit models colliding and being pushed over the edge of the boundary. You may have no option but to make it bigger.

I agreed, at least that was what I could see with my own eyes, and it does not happen when you are trying to cross the bridge with a single unit, when there is not many men to collide themselves everythng goes ok.

Anyway let me insist with something. I got all you said about the colors but... look, trying to make a border with 2 consecutive columns of blocked docks always caused IWTE to "delete" the second column, then if I try making these 2 columns, but leaving a empty column of no blockage in between them, IWTE deletes nothing and it works exactly like that in game. units jump the first column and then get stuck in the empty space between it and the second one.

like this:




So assuming again that IWTE is "deleting" my blocking dots, I noticed it deletes only adjacent ones. IWTE does not like adjacent blocked dots so it deletes the in between ones leaving only the ones distant of each other with a empty space in between them.

I also tried spreading some blocked dots in the side empty areas you see in picture 2 of my previous post, and it worked in game exactly like I did in editing it, I could clearly see the units running in the air on the sides of my bridge but beeing blocked exactly in the blocked dots I spreaded.

- I'll talk to Mak to see if its worth trying a double boundary. That would need to be edited but probably easier for her to try than you given knowledge of the text file is required.

Much appreciated.



And if everything goes bad, I still have a ace in the hole....

Thanks!

[makanyane]

Anyway let me insist with something. I got all you said about the colors but... look, trying to make a border with 2 consecutive columns of blocked docks always caused IWTE to "delete" the second column, then if I try making these 2 columns, but leaving a empty column of no blockage in between them, IWTE deletes nothing and it works exactly like that in game. units jump the first column and then get stuck in the empty space between it and the second one.

that's not what's happening - if as you described before when you go back in to edit the block those are still showing up as blocked... which is what we found testing a similar arrangement.

the reason it looks like it deleted them in the "view" mode, is because the colour is very similar

we copied what we could find of the vanilla set up for pathfinding block values - the value for totally open is something like 63 - the value for blocked but not at an edge is only one different eg. 64 - but the values for various border conditions vary a lot like 128 / 191 etc

the colours assigned to things in the "view" view unfortunately doesn't distinguish between the 63 and 64 type values very well - the colours in the "edit" view were sorted a bit to make the open areas more obvious.


anyway IWTE does seem to be doing what's it's designed to at the moment - but your issue seems to show that the large theoretically "totally blocked" area doesn't work when it's under a lot of stress, so trying to use different border type values within it might work


could you send me the files, with your latest attempt at the bridge in, and I'll try the text editing experiment

[wilddog]

So assuming again that IWTE is "deleting" my blocking dots

As explained it isn't. What you aren't realising is the blocking color is a direction and when there is no direction required there is only a single byte difference in the 'color' between blocked and unblocked.
I didn't try and explain this before as I figured it would be too technical.

In the change option if the item has a box around it its blocked so its really very easy to tell if something is blocked or not. If you just use the view as you said the box isn't drawn and as I said the blocked and unblocked green look too similar for you to see the difference.

[leo.civil.uefs]

I didn't try and explain this before as I figured it would be too technical.

.
.
.

[leo.civil.uefs]

Ok guys, i got it.

I will send send you the files in the next hour mak.


Thanks.

[wilddog]

@Leo -Zero idea what that post is meant to mean but as you don't really pay any attention to anything I say and fail often to grasp the basics its probably irrelevant. I get better understanding from dusty and she doesn't understand English either.

[leo.civil.uefs]

Its just a joke man... but not for you (you never laugh), its for other guys here who laugh at me everytime you scold me.
Its not irony or something like that, its just that all this got funny at all.



Hey, let me sugest something, a check box to include or not the pathfinding in the world vector change rotation, as its assumed you will always need to change it too, through creating the tga, rotating it in photoshop and replacing the pathfinding file takes a lot of time if it is a big file.

[wilddog]

@Leo - I think sometimes your jokes are as lost on me as my descriptions are on you...

Yes an option to rotate the pathfinding and the vegetation terrain would be a good idea. The pathfinding one will take a little time to calculate (like the save in the new painting process) as it has to calculate all the direction settings.

Mak pointed out the IWTE tool now only allows 1 bridge. I have a fix for that. Need to sort out the size change fix also and then convert breaches and some of the others to the new painting process. I'm also adding the paining process into a little strat map tool I was putting together for myself a I wanted to do some more maps. Only issue is juggling my time a bit.

[leo.civil.uefs]

Ok wilddog. Yes, vegetation would also be welcome. I forgot it.




By the way. The bridge of moria ended beeing the type4 mak sent me. Means 2 lines of unblocked dots and not only 1 as I firstly wanted. As mak said, 2 unblocked lines seems to be the only way to avoid men going down the abyss. Means text editing is not really necessary on bridge paths, as I think I could get the same result using a default iwte bridge path. But thanks a lot for this mak!




i tried lots of combinations between pathfinding (the settlement one, not the bridge one), terrain and the position of the bridge, no deal, the brutal stress of millions of units trying to use the small narrow bridge path can break all types of pathfindings, wich means bridge blocks, blue block on the pathfinding file and also terrain blocks generated by heights.

[Agamemnon]

How could I manually take already-existent custom settlements from one mod and put them into another?

[leo.civil.uefs]

Hey wilddog.

I've wrote this, I belive that will save you guys from lots of annoyng repetitive questions/answers here.

There is also this one you never posted in the first post of this thread as I asked.


Please consider posting both on the first post of IWTE, it will bring peace for us all.

[wilddog]

Hi Leo
Sorry about that I 'lost' the post which had the link to the one tutorial and couldn't find it in the thread when I looked. Anyway both are now added to the front page. At some stage I'll probably add a link within IWTE to those tutorials also.

[Gigantus]

IWTE has moved into it's own forum.

[xHolyCrusader]

@Gigantus maybe you can also add this and this tutorial.
The 2nd one I wasn't able to find on twc, but it's also here somewhere...
(and maybe change the forum name to "The IWTE Project", seems like you mixed the I and W)

[Gigantus]

@Gigantus maybe you can also add this and this tutorial.
The 2nd one I wasn't able to find on twc, but it's also here somewhere...
(and maybe change the forum name to "The IWTE Project", seems like you mixed the I and W)

Done, both - I made a copy of the thread from the ORG. If you find the original here on TWC let me know and I remove the copy.

Too much typing today, fingers are going into a knot...

[Araval]

Done, both - I made a copy of the thread from the ORG. If you find the original here on TWC let me know and I remove the copy.

Here it is Gig: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...013&highlight=

[Gigantus]

Thanks, I moved the thread here.

[Gigantus]

I have been asked if general discussion in this forum is permitted or whether it should be in the workshop.

Due to the specialised nature of the subject as a rule of thumb I would say stuff not covered in the tutorial, resource or tool threads should be discussed in a general 'chat' thread, I would suggest this one actually. If a lengthy discussion evolves about a restricted\detailed issue a moderator can always split up that material into a dedicated thread. (LMs give me a shout if you are not sure how to do that).
Simple threads like 'How do I start' should be merged with this one to avoid cluttering up the forum.

If at any stage the forum becomes a jumble of tuts and general threads then a review should be asked by one of the LMs if a sub forum for discussions is feasible.

Please let me know if you feel already that posts from this thread should be copied (not moved) into a dedicated thread. This would fall under the 'split up' issue I mentioned earlier.