Request: an easier way to implement paths (no idea whether this is even possible)

The paths seem to be in the proper position. So my layman’s assumption is that the issue is with how the angles are calculated. I find it odd that not all the angles are mirrored though…

Btw apparently tests 1 and 2 rendered the exact opposed angles in the paths.

Adoxa wait!!

Just noticed that a rotation value in one of the vanilla-style paths got mauled! Maybe that caused the issue!

EDIT, No it matters not. With the error in that vanilla-style-path* corrected, the path-new-style still has the same issie.

*I presume that that path just somehow inherited the value of its predecessor? (Although I once tried to see how much is inherited, and was disappointed.)

Thanks, I’ll test that tonight.

Btw some vanilla paths have 90, but other -90 as the first rotation value. I don’t know how significant that is here, but iirc if you reverse these values (turning 90 into -90 or vice versa), those paths show the same behavior as the faulty paths generated by ZonePos.

No success with looking into the Trade Lane Calculator? That tool does the angles right.

I have absolutely no idea how complicated it is to create such a standalone tool like the TLC or your XML->UTF (and vice versa) converter. But as I’ve always been content with the TLC (although I do find a bit annoying that it writes a [c]visit = 1[/c] line to every single Trade Lane Ring) , I always wondered why the same dude didn’t make a path (a single leg of a path that is) calculator, which would be similar. Maybe he already left the scene before paths were even discussed; iirc the TLC was a very early tool.

adoxa wrote:

Moonhead wrote:
[…] although I do find a bit annoying that it writes a [c]visit = 1[/c] line to every single Trade Lane Ring […]

Change 2E88 from 31 ([c]1[/c]) to 30 ([c]0[/c]) to write [c]visit = 0[/c] instead.

Thanks, but tbh that’d be just annoying A [c]visit =[/c] entry isn’t necessary, and hence redundant, for Trade Lane Rings. Could you think of a heck that totally eliminates the entire line from the generated code?

About to download and test the updated ZonePos now.

With [c], flip[/c] added, the second leg of the path is properly connected now:

[zone]
nickname = Zone_Br07_xpath_mollys9_2
shape = CYLINDER
size = 750
pos_begin = 71125, 0, 3996
pos_end = 60000, 0, 9800, flip

Significant (to me at least) is that leg 1, 3 and 4 all go from upper-left to lower-right, while leg 2 (which was the one that was skrewed up in the first tests) goes from upper-right to lower-left.

Btw As they now show up as they should, I think we can assume they are treated by the game as any other path encounter. So, whether or not ships show up, whether or not they actually attack Trade Lane Rings etc. is not something governed by ZonePos.dll and hence not relevant (Adoxa correct me if this assumption is wrong).

Thanks!! It’ll have to wait until late in the evening though.

adoxa wrote:
There’s a few more settings I could automatically duplicate: nickname (add 1), sort, toughness, density, repop_time, max_battle_size, pop_type, relief_time, path_label (add 1), usage, mission_eligible, density_restriction (multiple), encounter, faction (multiple). Alternatively, take the TLC approach and instead have a standalone utility that takes a few parameters and generates all the zones.

Both approaches would be great assets, I suppose.

The first one (the extended / enhanced ZonePos) would have as advantage that it would make the creation of more complex systems, like the House Systems, exponentially more easy! It would become possible to, almost intuitively, alter the course of a patrol_path by changing a single set of coordinates!

(One would almost be temped to re-write all the paths in the vanilla files according to this new ZonePos format, to create the ultimate SDK! But that’d be hard labour… Oh btw, would these new-style coordinates be parsed by RimShot’s System Calculator?)

The second one (the standalone ‘TLC style’ utility) would have as advantage that it would render ‘orthodox’ code, indistinguishable from the vanilla paths. As a layman I’d presume that, the less plugins, the better, to avoid possible conflicts; then again your plugins do not seem to trigger any conflict anyway, so this presumption might be baseless.

A standalone tool would btw also have an unintended second function that the TLC lacks: it could be used to calculate a trade_lane’s traffic zone. This isn’t that difficult, but it takes some time doing it manually. A path calculator would be able to do that faster, and more accurately (although a trade_lane differs in several aspects from a typical patrol_path, the pos, rotate and size (length) work the same.)

adoxa wrote:

Attached is a new version which should flip automatically. To summarize usage: the first leg should define [c]shape[/c], [c]size[/c] (first value), [c]pos_begin[/c] and [c]pos_end[/c], whilst subsequent legs should only need [c]pos_end[/c]. It may still need tweaking if there are any paths across the Y plane.

The new version works fine, both without and with [c], flip[/c] added (I tested that to see whether that parameter could still be used. It didn’t cause a crash but it also didn’t do anything so I wonder if it would work when somehow the path would actually need to be flipped?)

adoxa wrote:

h[a]ck

:oops: :lol: Thanks; when I’m tired my brain apparently defaults to Dunglish.

adoxa wrote:

Oh, you might also want to check the direction is right (i.e. ships go from start to end, not end to start). Is there a better way of testing that than just waiting for a patrol to show up and join it? Or is direction implied by the sequence of paths?

Interesting question from the point of view of trying to understand the game engine, but of little practical consequence: there is no use tracing a ship from the start til the end of a path anyway. So, if the ships reverse midway, it has little consequence (unless the other legs aren’t used because of it).

A path imho should:

• not trigger a crash;

• appear as if the faction would actually use it, if FL’s universe were real;

• actually generate traffic;

• occasionally trigger a trade_lane attack (if it’s a pirate faction’s path

assumed

• When the player’s ship approaches a pop zone, that zone will be filled with traffic as defined in the zone’s setup.

• While the player’s ship is inside a pop zone, the game will render traffic as defined in the zone’s setup.

adoxa wrote:

Oh btw, would these new-style coordinates be parsed by RimShot’s System Calculator?

That’s a good point - none of the system readers (e.g. FLE, Studio) or ini error checkers would recognize them, so the standalone utility is probably the way to go. Bugger, I didn’t really want to write one.

Well… for me personally it wouldn’t actually matter that much, because I mainly have used the System Calculator because creating paths was such a drag — which ZonePos has now fixed.

To elaborate: On a few occasions I used an existing system as a basis for a new one. To make it look different enough, I changed its size with FLSysCalc, and semi-manually left-right-mirrored it. Then, I replaced the Faction constellation i.e. Rheinland Navy + Hessians with Bretonia Navy and Mollys. But now that paths can be generated a whole lot easier, this approach is now redundant.

FLSysCalc might still be usable if all pos_begin and pos_end entries are changed into just pos? Each path would have two pos entries then; not sure whether one would be ignored? Also, afterwards all the _begin and _end suffices must be restored.

The main error checker that I use is FLScan, mainly to eliminate those very obvious yet overlooked errors (e.g. missing base files, undefined archetypes and loadouts etc.) Afaik FLScan doesn’t even check whether the legs of a path properly connect. So, no real loss here.