What File Format are *.eqp Files?

[cathar1244]

VHauser,

I've never tried to put equipment in another section, but I don't think the game would care. My guess is that it is ordered that way in the equipment file for the convenience of scenario designers.

Now, there -are- some unseen things that go on regarding equipment values. One of them I think you have seen are the default defense values given to guns and so forth. Another is how the antipersonnel rating is interpreted depending on the equipment type. So, yeah, there is still some "mystery meat" in the equipment file. But those aspects are apart from 76mm's comments regarding the file's logical structure.

Cheers

[larryfulkerson]

VHauser,

I've never tried to put equipment in another section, but I don't think the game would care. My guess is that it is ordered that way in the equipment file for the convenience of scenario designers....

Now I'm wondering if we can introduce entirely new sections to the list of equipment categories. Real Mines, land and sea, or particle beam weapons, unmanned drones, the list could go on. Is there a fixed size for the list in terms of categories and the associated equipment thereof.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Glad you are happy with your project, I am supportive. Keep it to yourself and the community and leave development out of it. Fixing TOAW IV and moving on to TOAW V are the priority, we don't need you imposing on the limited time available for development. You think you are better than that, and Bio-Ed, Scenario Viewer or ODD ? [:-]

Like and respect you Tom, don't take it the wrong way. I was chastising Jack for missing the obvious.

The desired editor is one that is not a part of the game at all. Completely removed from it. Done by a third party. That is a fact. The more people working to that end the sooner a real editor will be made. It will most certainly involve input from the people who are developing TOAW. Competing versions would be nice.

[sPzAbt653]

I don't see that as a fact. I'd rather use a Ralph-made New and Improved Editor using the TOAW UI instead of the others that I've seen. I don't like them aesthetically, and there always seems to be difficulty in the TOAW > XML > 3rd Party > back to XML > back to TOAW data transfer that creates issues. But what is really important, and the reason I pointed this out, is what should be a fact that:

If developers are working on a new TOAW Editor, it doesn't make sense for them to work on a TOAW Editor and a completely separate community based Editor [given the limited time that can be devoted to TOAW development]. However, if developers are not working on a new or improved Editor, then yes it would make sense for them to participate in a community effort [and would actually be a requirement in order to provide the best level of support].

[Lobster]

What I'm saying is that Ralph wants it that way. His words not mine. All that's missing is someone to make it. I asked a few people but go no where. Maybe if it's a bit more common knowledge someone or a group will step forward.

Personally I think it's a good idea. Gives Ralph and Bob more time to work on the game and not have to worry about an editor too. You want a TOAW V, this will hurry it along.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson
Now I'm wondering if we can introduce entirely new sections to the list of equipment categories. Real Mines, land and sea, or particle beam weapons, unmanned drones, the list could go on. Is there a fixed size for the list in terms of categories and the associated equipment thereof.

Larry, not sure that I've understood you correctly, but as far as I understand it, you can create as many categories in the equipment DB as you want, by entering equipment with Flag0 set to 1. The bigger problem would seem to be whether the existing flags and other unit factors would allow you to create units with the desired features of particle beams, drones, etc.