Editing devices of Witp - A bit of help

[traskott]

Hello to everybody.

I'm trying to edit a couple of ships of the Witp. I want to add a new device to the list, a naval gun, and it's impossible. The game automatically make it a ground based naval gun. What am I missing ?

Thank you very much.

( I'm using WitpEditorX )

[R8J]

Try coping a naval gun to the slot you want to use. Then edit the fields. There are slot restrictions. I believe el cid may be the one to contact about this.
 
I've added a few naval guns to my mod with no problems.

[traskott]

No way...automatically changes to "naval gun(ground)"

edit: I've tried it with the stock editor and no way: I create a new device, but when I put it on a new ship, it automatically changes to another device....

[Dili]

Naval gun slots are limited. You need to replace one that already exists.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: traskott
Hello to everybody.

I'm trying to edit a couple of ships of the Witp. I want to add a new device to the list, a naval gun, and it's impossible. The game automatically make it a ground based naval gun. What am I missing ?

Thank you very much.

( I'm using WitpEditorX )

This shouldn’t be a problem. Bunch of us have been doing it routinely since forever.

First you have to find an empty slot for your new gun; then enter the data. In the “Type” field, be sure to select 18 – Naval Gun from the drop down menu (see screen shot below). That’s all I have ever done.

You have to save your scenario to a new number. You also have to go to “Ship Classes” and make (or modify) a class to have the new weapon, then go to “Ships” and make a ship belonging to the new class. New stuff often doesn’t show up after interim saves (depends on whose editor you use), so save your db and then reopen. Everything should be there.




If that doesn't work, send me a pm, and we can embark on a voyage of discovery together.

Ciao. John

[el cid again]

Naval guns must be in slots 1 to 82 inclusive, to work on ships.

They will work on land units but there are problems:

1) error checking software will complain bitterly

2) production (in the direct sense for Japan or in the replacement sense for the Allies) does not work - so land units will get
"too many" such devices and defeat the game system at its core

Note that many CD guns are classified as "naval gun" - but that is for combat purposes - and not because they work on ships.
CD guns are in a much higher slot range - and being coded "naval gun" is not sufficient to make them work on ships.

Depending on what you start with - there may be empty slots in the naval gun range. There are NOT in RHS.
In such a case you can combine two or more guns into a generic one - and free up slots that way.

[traskott]

Understood: I've tried to put the new gun in slot 560 (or so). I'm working over Iron Storm Mod. Will try to release any slot.

Thank you to everybody.[:)][:)]

[kokubokan25]

ORIGINAL: traskott

Understood: I've tried to put the new gun in slot 560 (or so). I'm working over Iron Storm Mod. Will try to release any slot.

Thank you to everybody.[:)][:)]

Ya te dije que no era fácil. Veo que no te rindes fácilmente.[:D]

[R8J]

el cid,

I'm not sure how much testing you have done.

What would happen if a naval gun, aircraft cannon, torpedo or bomb had an upgrade to another slot?

For example, device number 27 "14in/45 Mk VII Gun" had an upgrade to 25 "16in/45 Mk I Gun" (with an available date changed to 4401). Will the naval gun automatically upgrade?

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: R8J

el cid,

I'm not sure how much testing you have done.

What would happen if a naval gun, aircraft cannon, torpedo or bomb had an upgrade to another slot?

For example, device number 27 "14in/45 Mk VII Gun" had an upgrade to 25 "16in/45 Mk I Gun" (with an available date changed to 4401). Will the naval gun automatically upgrade?

Honestly I have added guns into slots other than #1-82 and it SEEMS (stressing seems) to work. I had no idea there were slot restrictions on them. Granted this was for a specific unit and I have not yet gotten into an actual surface combat with that unit guess I need to go head to head and make it happen. I could be completely wrong and could have wasted all my time and effort on it...I need to do some more testing with it.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: R8J
el cid,
I'm not sure how much testing you have done.

What would happen if a naval gun, aircraft cannon, torpedo or bomb had an upgrade to another slot?

For example, device number 27 "14in/45 Mk VII Gun" had an upgrade to 25 "16in/45 Mk I Gun" (with an available date changed to 4401). Will the naval gun automatically upgrade?

Honestly I have added guns into slots other than #1-82 and it SEEMS (stressing seems) to work. I had no idea there were slot restrictions on them. Granted this was for a specific unit and I have not yet gotten into an actual surface combat with that unit guess I need to go head to head and make it happen. I could be completely wrong and could have wasted all my time and effort on it...I need to do some more testing with it.

Yes, Shark, and so have I, over the course of 2 - 3 years, and it DOES (stressing does) work.

Perhaps there is a unique advantage to being part of the AE development team, so we got a good appreciation of the original code, by helping develop the new. There is no substitute for understanding what Source does, or how it works. You can test and blather until the cows come home, but if you don't know what the code says, it's all just self-important, self-abuse. Things have several implications, so if you "fix" one, you screw up 3 others.

AE is going to be way worse. If anyone messes with one data point, it will screw up maybe 6 or 7 different routines that depend on that value. There is no substitute for understanding what Source does, or how it works.

[el cid again]

Talking about self important blather

lack of humility about code is not a substitute for understanding it.

One of the principle Matrix programmers found - after a year of study of just one section of it -
quote "I found a single branch that changed everything - and I am sure of nothing"

That is an honest comment about a evolutionary and substantially undocumented complex code system
which has had many authors over the course of many years - not a new creature - but one that was
built on an earlier system.

It is indeed possible that other slots MAY work for naval guns. And the ONLY way to find out is to test them.
Stock uses 1 to 81 - and 82 is blank - which suggests it might work. Teting shows that it does. 83 - 85
are used by shipboard rockets and mortars - and it was alleged they didn't work in stock - but if you classify
the rockets as naval guns - the do work too. The next slot is 86 - and it appears to work as well. 87 is
the beginning of the narrow range used by torpedoes.

CHS and RHS went over to using the stock ranges - based on seperate independent testing - and on advice
by Matrix - more than two years ago. It works well to observe them.

Unless JWE proposes to tell us difinitively what the slot ranges are for - and to do so comprehensively (leaving
no details out) - it serves no purpose to suggest this is not the best procedure available to modders. ALL we can
do is be guided by the information we have, and share our experiences with each other, and test what we try.
There is one other path - just in time support from Matrix - but while it is nice - it is probably not available to all -
and it NEVER comes in the iron clad terms of superiority JWE writes in: instead of saying "we know this for
sure" more often it is "we think this should work, we think that does not work, and all we know for sure is abc"
Professional programmers are polite, and they phrase what they know conditionally.

A fact of professional coding life (which JAE seems happily ignorant of) is that NO complex program can be difinitively understood
WITHOUT testing. Code does what it really does, in the context of interactions with users who may not always do what was expected,
and NOT what was intended by the coders. When one is NOT the coder - and when several coders reworked the system several times -
anyone reading it does not even have the benefit of knowing what was intended completely - which may or may not have been the same intent by all the different coders - who themselves didn't know in detail what the original intent was. No matter if you can read the code or not,
you need to test to know what it does in specific conditions?

Now it IS beneficial to have those working on a program be able to see the code. Failing that, it is beneficial to specify how it is intended to work (to the extent this is known). The manual makes a gesture in that direction too - listing some of the slot ranges. Updating and amplifying that information would be of use to modders. I have proposed - more than once - that Matrix compile and sell a technical manual for use with editors.

Remember how AE was to come out in June and not going to be late? Well - reality is complex code is ALWAYS late - and having the advantage of reading code was not enough to change that - even for the very talented team Matrix has working on it. Basic principles remain true,
and working within them serves you well. Aside from basic principles of programming - there is also the basic principle of being civil - and
honorable as well (since we agree to be civil as a condition of being members of the forum - it isn't honorable not to be).

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Talking about self important blather

lack of humility about code is not a substitute for understanding it.

It is time to stop grousing and work on your diplomatic skills. You are not my boss - and you are not paying for my work - nor are you providing the sort of psychic pay that would encourage more work. Recognize this rant Sid

One of the principle Matrix programmers found - after a year of study of just one section of it -
quote "I found a single branch that changed everything - and I am sure of nothing"

That is an honest comment about a evolutionary and substantially undocumented complex code system
which has had many authors over the course of many years - not a new creature - but one that was
built on an earlier system.

It is indeed possible that other slots MAY work for naval guns. And the ONLY way to find out is to test them.
Stock uses 1 to 81 - and 82 is blank - which suggests it might work. Teting shows that it does. 83 - 85
are used by shipboard rockets and mortars - and it was alleged they didn't work in stock - but if you classify
the rockets as naval guns - the do work too. The next slot is 86 - and it appears to work as well. 87 is
the beginning of the narrow range used by torpedoes.

CHS and RHS went over to using the stock ranges - based on seperate independent testing - and on advice
by Matrix - more than two years ago. It works well to observe them.

Unless JWE proposes to tell us difinitively what the slot ranges are for - and to do so comprehensively (leaving
no details out) - it serves no purpose to suggest this is not the best procedure available to modders.

Hmmm Sid, does this sound familiar "but, that sort of makes any action and changes that you make not subject to any review or discussion and not traceable because of your lack of discipline whether on purpose or not. This is so very contrary to any legitimate process. There is no base for accuracy, there is no reasoning, and there is no consensus of opinions."

ALL we can do is be guided by the information we have, and share our experiences with each other, and test what we try.
There is one other path - just in time support from Matrix - but while it is nice - it is probably not available to all -
and it NEVER comes in the iron clad terms of superiority JWE writes in: instead of saying "we know this for
sure" more often it is "we think this should work, we think that does not work, and all we know for sure is abc"
Professional programmers are polite, and they phrase what they know conditionally.

Like the pot calling the kettle black Sid.

A fact of professional coding life (which JAE seems happily ignorant of) is that NO complex program can be difinitively understood
WITHOUT testing. Code does what it really does, in the context of interactions with users who may not always do what was expected,
and NOT what was intended by the coders. When one is NOT the coder - and when several coders reworked the system several times -
anyone reading it does not even have the benefit of knowing what was intended completely - which may or may not have been the same intent by all the different coders - who themselves didn't know in detail what the original intent was. No matter if you can read the code or not,
you need to test to know what it does in specific conditions?

Now it IS beneficial to have those working on a program be able to see the code. Failing that, it is beneficial to specify how it is intended to work (to the extent this is known). The manual makes a gesture in that direction too - listing some of the slot ranges. Updating and amplifying that information would be of use to modders. I have proposed - more than once - that Matrix compile and sell a technical manual for use with editors.

Remember how AE was to come out in June and not going to be late? Well - reality is complex code is ALWAYS late - and having the advantage of reading code was not enough to change that - even for the very talented team Matrix has working on it. Basic principles remain true,
and working within them serves you well. Aside from basic principles of programming - there is also the basic principle of being civil - and
honorable as well (since we agree to be civil as a condition of being members of the forum - it isn't honorable not to be).

I wasn't going to respond to your novel under the other thread but after this dissertation I'm compelled. I am not interest in carrying an ongoing tit for tat with you (frankly I don't have the skills nor the copious amount of BS you possess) but I do think you need to look into the mirror. You epitomize these negative personalty traits you are criticizing and then some.

None of this takes away my respect for your knowledge. I have defended you and your product, by sticking my nose in where it didn't belong (like I'm doing here), against the likes of JWE, Terminus, and others on several occasions. Guess you could call what I have is a Love/Hate issue.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: R8J
el cid,
I'm not sure how much testing you have done.

What would happen if a naval gun, aircraft cannon, torpedo or bomb had an upgrade to another slot?

For example, device number 27 "14in/45 Mk VII Gun" had an upgrade to 25 "16in/45 Mk I Gun" (with an available date changed to 4401). Will the naval gun automatically upgrade?

Honestly I have added guns into slots other than #1-82 and it SEEMS (stressing seems) to work. I had no idea there were slot restrictions on them. Granted this was for a specific unit and I have not yet gotten into an actual surface combat with that unit guess I need to go head to head and make it happen. I could be completely wrong and could have wasted all my time and effort on it...I need to do some more testing with it.

Yes, Shark, and so have I, over the course of 2 - 3 years, and it DOES (stressing does) work.

Perhaps there is a unique advantage to being part of the AE development team, so we got a good appreciation of the original code, by helping develop the new. There is no substitute for understanding what Source does, or how it works. You can test and blather until the cows come home, but if you don't know what the code says, it's all just self-important, self-abuse. Things have several implications, so if you "fix" one, you screw up 3 others.

AE is going to be way worse. If anyone messes with one data point, it will screw up maybe 6 or 7 different routines that depend on that value. There is no substitute for understanding what Source does, or how it works.

That is good to know then. Keep in mind I'm not a coder, just someone that wanted to add the old turn of the century relics into the game and needed a weapon that wasn't already in the DB. So I added it, and as far as I could tell it was working as advertised. I used a slot below the existing stock list...slot 561 to be specific.

The problem is that people like me who don't have any coding knowledge have read numerous different opinions on it and have to try to pick out what is right and what isn't. I admit it, I don't understand how it works, I just have to do the best I can come up with or base it on what other people have posted here. I used the provided editor to make the changes I wanted and ran with it. And sometimes the only way to find out for sure if something is or isn't going to work is to try it myself.

And to be honest, if a game is going to include an editor with the release it should be one that doesn't require an in depth knowledge of coding to use, because most end users will not have that knowledge.

Not meaning to rant, just trying to show you where I'm coming from. I don't know the code, and wouldn't understand it even if you put it right in front of me. Now that you have confirmed that I can use other slots, I won't have to worry about it and can go back to enjoying the game instead of worrying if my mods were a waste of time. [:)]

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Talking about self important blather

lack of humility about code is not a substitute for understanding it.

It is time to stop grousing and work on your diplomatic skills. You are not my boss - and you are not paying for my work - nor are you providing the sort of psychic pay that would encourage more work. Recognize this rant Sid

One of the principle Matrix programmers found - after a year of study of just one section of it -
quote "I found a single branch that changed everything - and I am sure of nothing"

That is an honest comment about a evolutionary and substantially undocumented complex code system
which has had many authors over the course of many years - not a new creature - but one that was
built on an earlier system.

It is indeed possible that other slots MAY work for naval guns. And the ONLY way to find out is to test them.
Stock uses 1 to 81 - and 82 is blank - which suggests it might work. Teting shows that it does. 83 - 85
are used by shipboard rockets and mortars - and it was alleged they didn't work in stock - but if you classify
the rockets as naval guns - the do work too. The next slot is 86 - and it appears to work as well. 87 is
the beginning of the narrow range used by torpedoes.

CHS and RHS went over to using the stock ranges - based on seperate independent testing - and on advice
by Matrix - more than two years ago. It works well to observe them.

Unless JWE proposes to tell us difinitively what the slot ranges are for - and to do so comprehensively (leaving
no details out) - it serves no purpose to suggest this is not the best procedure available to modders.

Hmmm Sid, does this sound familiar "but, that sort of makes any action and changes that you make not subject to any review or discussion and not traceable because of your lack of discipline whether on purpose or not. This is so very contrary to any legitimate process. There is no base for accuracy, there is no reasoning, and there is no consensus of opinions."

ALL we can do is be guided by the information we have, and share our experiences with each other, and test what we try.
There is one other path - just in time support from Matrix - but while it is nice - it is probably not available to all -
and it NEVER comes in the iron clad terms of superiority JWE writes in: instead of saying "we know this for
sure" more often it is "we think this should work, we think that does not work, and all we know for sure is abc"
Professional programmers are polite, and they phrase what they know conditionally.

Like the pot calling the kettle black Sid.

A fact of professional coding life (which JAE seems happily ignorant of) is that NO complex program can be difinitively understood
WITHOUT testing. Code does what it really does, in the context of interactions with users who may not always do what was expected,
and NOT what was intended by the coders. When one is NOT the coder - and when several coders reworked the system several times -
anyone reading it does not even have the benefit of knowing what was intended completely - which may or may not have been the same intent by all the different coders - who themselves didn't know in detail what the original intent was. No matter if you can read the code or not,
you need to test to know what it does in specific conditions?

Now it IS beneficial to have those working on a program be able to see the code. Failing that, it is beneficial to specify how it is intended to work (to the extent this is known). The manual makes a gesture in that direction too - listing some of the slot ranges. Updating and amplifying that information would be of use to modders. I have proposed - more than once - that Matrix compile and sell a technical manual for use with editors.

Remember how AE was to come out in June and not going to be late? Well - reality is complex code is ALWAYS late - and having the advantage of reading code was not enough to change that - even for the very talented team Matrix has working on it. Basic principles remain true,
and working within them serves you well. Aside from basic principles of programming - there is also the basic principle of being civil - and
honorable as well (since we agree to be civil as a condition of being members of the forum - it isn't honorable not to be).

I wasn't going to respond to your novel under the other thread but after this dissertation I'm compelled. I am not interest in carrying an ongoing tit for tat with you (frankly I don't have the skills nor the copious amount of BS you possess) but I do think you need to look into the mirror. You epitomize these negative personalty traits you are criticizing and then some.

None of this takes away my respect for your knowledge. I have defended you and your product, by sticking my nose in where it didn't belong (like I'm doing here), against the likes of JWE, Terminus, and others on several occasions. Guess you could call what I have is a Love/Hate issue.

ditto, but you were so much more polite than what my thoughts were.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Shark7
The problem is that people like me who don't have any coding knowledge have read numerous different opinions on it and have to try to pick out what is right and what isn't. I admit it, I don't understand how it works, I just have to do the best I can come up with or base it on what other people have posted here. I used the provided editor to make the changes I wanted and ran with it. And sometimes the only way to find out for sure if something is or isn't going to work is to try it myself.

Ain’t it the truth. People who understand the engine are probably even more frustrated because Matrix simply does not allow the gutsy-wuts to be published. All anyone can do is provide what guidance they can, where they can, even though it sounds like an opinion. Lots of folks out there who have looked under the overcoat and have pretty good takes on various aspects of things. Nik is real gem, for one.

And to be honest, if a game is going to include an editor with the release it should be one that doesn't require an in depth knowledge of coding to use, because most end users will not have that knowledge.

Don’t think the editor was ever intended to support anything but data modification and element additions. Mods like NikMod, BigB, CHS are pretty well supported.

Not meaning to rant, just trying to show you where I'm coming from. I don't know the code, and wouldn't understand it even if you put it right in front of me. Now that you have confirmed that I can use other slots, I won't have to worry about it and can go back to enjoying the game instead of worrying if my mods were a waste of time. [:)]

Don't worry - be happy. [:)]

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

.
None of this takes away my respect for your knowledge. I have defended you and your product, by sticking my nose in where it didn't belong (like I'm doing here), against the likes of JWE, Terminus, and others on several occasions. Guess you could call what I have is a Love/Hate issue.[/b]

This is true - both in the sense I remember your intervention - and in the sense that you seem to have a Love / Hate issue going on - to the point that when you say we will never hear from you again I don't believe it.

I have created a start turn for a strictly historical forces scenario - and you are welcome to help me debug it - if you like playing the Allies (which I gather is your preference). I hope to find out about mid and late war technical matters we don't get to see in short tests. I don't get upset in the sense JWE does - and I don't really think you are stupid. This is a vast subject - and all of us are ignorant. Decades of work make me slightly less ignorant - but ignorant I remain (in the sence Ben Franklin wrote about - saying it is not a bad thing - and we all are ignorant - you just have to find the matter we don't know about - BUT it is curable - with information).

I am sorry you imagine there is some point in documenting on top of the shifting sand which is WITP. This generation of code will soon go away - and we are in grave danger of not updating at all in time to matter. If changes matter to you - just do a file comparison. Anything vital is always documented - but changes in some field or other of no import is not worth the bother - and even if we were being paid - that would not change: you would reject a vast increase in buget to get this sort of documentation. If you are going to pick on someone about documentation - go to Matrix and persuade them to issue a proper manual (and - of course - offer to pay for it).

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Shark7


.Not meaning to rant, just trying to show you where I'm coming from. I don't know the code, and wouldn't understand it even if you put it right in front of me. Now that you have confirmed that I can use other slots, I won't have to worry about it and can go back to enjoying the game instead of worrying if my mods were a waste of time. [:)]

This isn't really true. The "other slots" are just a few - maybe only the four above the range I orginally posted - I looked fast and didn't think about the next range above - and so I looked again and explained them as well. You cannot be using slots like you were thinking about and have them work right - and JWE only wanted to imply I was wrong substantially when it was just a minor tecnicality because it is his personality to be as insulting as possible. Note he was not trying to help you - or let himself be pinned down - so he gave you no data at all to work with:
He lacks the moral courage to make an educated guess (which is all anyone can do - even if they are reading the code) - and then risk being pinned down when something does not work. It is like his (very useful) explanation of ASW devices - he omitted a signifant feature which must have been in the code - and he never did address if or how these devices work with aircraft - in spite of being asked. He does not really wish to help us modders with complete disclosure - and only postures as if he wants to help. It is more about saying "I know what code says" than about disclosing all we need to know to get every field right. Don't misread "the range given isn't complete" with "I can use slot 590 for a shipboard gun"

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

.
ditto, but you were so much more polite than what my thoughts were.

Too bad.

There is never anything wrong with being polite.

And both of you are missing the point: it is only by looking for what works and what might work - and by listening to users - that we make things better. The product was never really completed (look at all the "hooks" never filled in - things like "ew devices" and "nations" not coded) - and it was very slopply - inevitably because - being undocumented - noone who followed could be sure what the foundation was supposed to be? It takes a lot of effort to make this better - and getting upset with someone who put in more hours than anyone else has is not something it makes sense to be impolite about. It is pretty shallow analysis of the situation

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Shark7
.

Don’t think the editor was ever intended to support anything but data modification and element additions. Mods like NikMod, BigB, CHS are pretty well supported.
[.

I don't know about anything but CHS and RHS - but I do know that Matrix is very good at answering technical queries - usually in hours - sometimes in minutes - and it would not surprise me if this was done for any major mod. On the other hand, many issues that are posted in the "technical problems" Forum are never addressed - witness the Russian active problem - reported - but never understood or address - until now: I have a score of emails on the matter from Matrix in the last week.

I think this means Matrix values mods and modders - and at least supports the significant ones. But the support makes it clear that even programmers don't "know" what the code says in a complete, difinitive sense. More than once people like Mike Wood have said "talk to members of the Forum and playtesters - they know a lot" - and - it is quite true. But none of us - inside or out - have complete, difinitive understanding; all we can do is try to understand and help each other.

There is no room in this process for becoming negative or nasty - and no honor in it either.