WitpChk

Please post here for questions and discussion about scenario design and the game editor for WITP.

Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

Post Reply
pad152
Posts: 2835
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2000 8:00 am

WitpChk

Post by pad152 »

WitpChk - what is the latest version?
User avatar
michaelm75au
Posts: 12463
Joined: Sat May 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

RE: WitpChk

Post by michaelm75au »

Hi
I am about to send a refreshed copy to Spooky for putting on his site.

Version 1.22 (I think itis, as I am at work. Losing track of all these versions)

EDIT: nope version 1.23. Just sent off to Spooky
Michael
Michael
User avatar
Spooky
Posts: 801
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 2:16 am
Location: Froggy Land
Contact:

RE: WitpChk

Post by Spooky »

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Hi
I am about to send a refreshed copy to Spooky for putting on his site.

Version 1.22 (I think itis, as I am at work. Losing track of all these versions)

EDIT: nope version 1.23. Just sent off to Spooky
Michael

Now uploaded [;)]
User avatar
Bradley7735
Posts: 2073
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 8:51 pm

RE: WitpChk

Post by Bradley7735 »

Michaelm,

What differences are there from 1.22 to 1.23? I am using your 1.22 (the latest update on Spooky's as of 5/1 anyway)and am wondering if it's worth updating to 1.23.

Thanks, Brad!!
The older I get, the better I was.
pad152
Posts: 2835
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2000 8:00 am

RE: WitpChk

Post by pad152 »

Michaelm

Thanks for all your hard work.[:)]

Question:

Why do I get a formation error when the formation is the set to the slot ID? My understanding is the formation ID should equal the slot ID for units that are custom, have a non-standard TOE or maintain it's current TOE.

Expample:
ID:2402 (Singapore Fortress) - formation (2402) is out of range.

User avatar
Iron Duke
Posts: 529
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2002 10:00 am
Location: UK

RE: WitpChk

Post by Iron Duke »

Hi,

If not using an allied TOE - slots 2001- 2119 to show formation. 0 [zero] should be used as formation
"Bombers outpacing fighters - you've got to bloody well laugh!" Australian Buffalo pilot - Singapore
pad152
Posts: 2835
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2000 8:00 am

RE: WitpChk

Post by pad152 »

ORIGINAL: Iron Duke
If not using an allied TOE - slots 2001- 2119 to show formation. 0 [zero] should be used as formation

I don't think this is true, I've see even if the formation is O a unit will grow is size. Setting the formation to a specific slot ID will fix the TOE to that formation in that slot number. So if I create a custom unit and set the formation to it's slot ID then the unit will maintain the same equipment and size.


User avatar
michaelm75au
Posts: 12463
Joined: Sat May 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

RE: WitpChk

Post by michaelm75au »

1.23 (25/04/2005 –25 April 2005)
Added: check maximum air group size of 72
Added: check that ships 51,52,37,38 are the correct for automatic upgrade (Ise & Chitose)
Michael
ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Michaelm,

What differences are there from 1.22 to 1.23? I am using your 1.22 (the latest update on Spooky's as of 5/1 anyway)and am wondering if it's worth updating to 1.23.

Thanks, Brad!!
Michael
User avatar
michaelm75au
Posts: 12463
Joined: Sat May 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

RE: WitpChk

Post by michaelm75au »

When the formation is 0, the TOE of the unit is whatever you have defined in its weapon list.
The game program will then try to maintain this as the unit's TOE. In other words, it builds a TOE on the fly. [Editor manual 3.6.3.1]

For unit 2402, the formation should be 0 if it needs to maintain its own TOE.

Michael
ORIGINAL: pad152
Why do I get a formation error when the formation is the set to the slot ID? My understanding is the formation ID should equal the slot ID for units that are custom, have a non-standard TOE or maintain it's current TOE.

Expample:
ID:2402 (Singapore Fortress) - formation (2402) is out of range.

Michael
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design”