Matrix Games Forums

It doesn't have one, its just classified as one in the data.

insecttoid3 wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2024 6:00 am It doesn't have one, its just classified as one in the data.
Rawlinna.PNG

So if there is an error, it is in the database which is easily fixed in the editor and not a problem with the .exe which would be much more of a problem.

If it is a 0 (0) port, does that not mean that it can be built to a level 3 port?

bradfordkay wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2024 7:36 pm If it is a 0 (0) port, does that not mean that it can be built to a level 3 port?

I would say that it could be built up unless the option was greyed out.

RangerJoe wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2024 7:56 pm

bradfordkay wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2024 7:36 pm If it is a 0 (0) port, does that not mean that it can be built to a level 3 port?

I would say that it could be built up unless the option was greyed out.

It wasn't in the screen shot that we were shown.

bradfordkay wrote: Sun Nov 17, 2024 4:39 am

RangerJoe wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2024 7:56 pm

bradfordkay wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2024 7:36 pm If it is a 0 (0) port, does that not mean that it can be built to a level 3 port?

I would say that it could be built up unless the option was greyed out.

It wasn't in the screen shot that we were shown.

It was greyed out in the screen shot that I saw for Rawlinna . . .

Nazcatraz wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2024 5:26 am

insecttoid3 wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2024 4:41 am (1660) Eucla, a dot base on the southern coast of Australia, is classified as an airfield despite being able to build a port
(1662) Rawlinna, a dot base in the middle of Australia, is classified as a port despite being in the middle of land

I don't see any port in Rawlinna. Unless you're talking about the tracker.

Okay, the SPS is not greyed out but the ability to expand it is. I missed that.

bradfordkay wrote: Sun Nov 17, 2024 6:34 am

Nazcatraz wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2024 5:26 am

insecttoid3 wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2024 4:41 am (1660) Eucla, a dot base on the southern coast of Australia, is classified as an airfield despite being able to build a port
(1662) Rawlinna, a dot base in the middle of Australia, is classified as a port despite being in the middle of land

I don't see any port in Rawlinna. Unless you're talking about the tracker.

Okay, the SPS is not greyed out but the ability to expand it is. I missed that.

Sssshhhh . . . . iittt happens!

The only issue here is that it was check-marked as an Aussie Port in the Editor, instead of an Aussie Airfield. Much ado about nothing affecting the game.

BBfanboy wrote: Sun Nov 17, 2024 4:23 pm The only issue here is that it was check-marked as an Aussie Port in the Editor, instead of an Aussie Airfield. Much ado about nothing affecting the game.

Yeah, cosmetic error. Move along, nothing to see here.

Matai class is british. Should be New Zealand

Weidi72 wrote: Tue Nov 19, 2024 2:39 pm Matai class is british. Should be New Zealand

Matai class may be owned by NZ, but if it is being given the characteristics of a British AM class (not ship) as the standard in the database, it might be shown as British so that the upgrades are the same. So I am saying the class ID is for upgrade purposes but the ship ownership should be NZ.

BBfanboy wrote: Tue Nov 19, 2024 2:57 pm

Weidi72 wrote: Tue Nov 19, 2024 2:39 pm Matai class is british. Should be New Zealand

Matai class may be owned by NZ, but if it is being given the characteristics of a British AM class (not ship) as the standard in the database, it might be shown as British so that the upgrades are the same. So I am saying the class ID is for upgrade purposes but the ship ownership should be NZ.

Not really an expert here for this as most of my work is modding IJ, but this is what I would do. As I understand the mechanics and relationship between class and country; this would work. Not saying that it is the only way, but it should work and work correctly.

Proof would be if you can find an example in S001. That is always my first rule: "If the devs did it that way, then that must be the right way".

Again, this isn't something that I've actually done and it isn't something that as an IJ modder I'm not likely to run into it.

Scen001

Hex 109,132

Treasury Island is Clear terrain, even though all other islands in the picture are either Jungle, Jungle Rough or Attol. Also, the tiny bit of terrain in the hex's centre seems like Jungle terrain. Should the island be actually Jungle terrain too?

Scen001

Hex 75,123

An empty hex on the island north of Darwin. The map's art suggest Jungle terrain there, while pressing „1” reveals Clear terrain.

Scen001

Hex 80,129

An empty hex east of Katherine. The map's art suggest Jungle terrain there, while pressing „1” reveals Clear terrain.

Scen001

Hex 90,150

An empty hex west of Rockhampton. The map's art suggest Clear Cultivated terrain there, while pressing „1” reveals Rough terrain.

Scen001

Hex 89,150

Another empty hex west of Rockhampton. The map's art/data is Clear Cultivated terrain there, but the hex lacks its additional Minor Roads mesh.

Scen001

Hex 92,146

An empty hex south of Townsville. The map's art/data is Clear Cultivated terrain there, but the hex lacks the Minor Roads mesh.

Scen001

Hex 88,145

A base hex SE of Cloncurry. The base name is Hughenden. The map's art/data is Clear Cultivated terrain there, but the hex lacks its additional Minor Roads mesh.