SpcFX

Thank you Derek, I am doing okay with scripting the IA group, just having a problem with the Roam scripts. Will give the ACMs a try once I get a better handle of the IAs. I can understand that it is not supported as your included quote of "As always, use at your own risk. So it is advisable that you backup any files that you are planning on changing." advises. Just thought I'd throw out an SOS for anyone that might be scripting. I'll keep at it until I figure it out. Have a great day, Mark

Hi Derek & Crew. Hope everyone is doing well. It's been 10+ years, but while doing some unpacking, I came across my still brand new chromed BC300ad box along with the BC3000 v2 and Battlecruiser Millennium. I tried to fire up the "newest" of the three on a Win7 platform, but the CD appears to have seen better days. Long story short, downloaded the free version and it worked quite well with the Win7 OS. Decided to buy the latest, UCCE V2 and have been enjoying a run down memory lane. Of course I wanted to see if I retained any of my scripting skills, but have hit a brick wall. It is probably something simple. Just need a push in the right direction. I’ve taken a clean .scr file from the GBSIV folder (cmdr_r0002), Made a copy and renamed both the .scr and .des files to cmdr_r0004. I then changed just a couple words in the .des file and left the .scr file untouched. Parsed the .scr file with no errors. Created a /mods file in my ucce_v2 directory and copied the parsed .mis and .des file to the new folder. Launched ucce, created a new profile and located the modified Roam scenario which included the text I modified, however when I attempt to play the parsed script, the loading bar fills completely and then I get a “Fatal Error - Failed to open ACM Scenario Failed to open ACM Scenario Fail” box and the game quits. The FatalError document contains the same - Game terminated due to FATAL error: Failed to open ACM Scenario Failed to open ACM Scenario Fail. I know this is dated, but perhaps someone could give me some insight on what I may be doing wrong. The program was purchased through BMT, currently running the downloaded version of 2.00.01. (I do have a CD coming, but assume they will be the same version). The Prepare program from the above link is “ Prepare 2.00.00: *** UNIVERSAL COMBAT – COLLECTORS EDITION *** “ Any help would be appreciated, Mark

I have also spent some time with the GBS (Though it has been awhile). If ya need a hand, give me a yell.

Alright, Getting the hang of it. Made some changes to my record and added a picture. Just had to mess around with it I guess. Friday I was getting an error when trying to submit the wing change to -none-. What bulletin entry, must have missed something. I'll check again in the morning.

Very Nice, thanks for the safety rails - looks like a loooonnngg drop

Happy belated Birthday Blades!!

Gum, What Webbuilding software are you using? If what your working on is not too large, zip it up and send it to me, I'll create the file.

37 - with 38 not too far down the road... Commander Mark Giao GCV-Jackal Prime Fleet Staff Chief and G5 Public Relations Officer "Invincible ON This" Official Tester, Battlecruiser Series

Happy Birthday Derek!!!

I'm am trying to format the Prime layout to meet Tac's, unforunately I am getting alot of bookmark errors and crunched text towards the middle of the page (I am using MSWord95). Going to try and wing it, I think I get the jest of what Derek is looking for.

Destiny would stand a much better chance in BC-Online then BCM. The way I look at it is if a BCM Game is setup with 8 Galcoms -vs- 8 Insurgents, the Insurgents will have an immediate disadvantage at Destiny. No matter where the Insurgs start from they will have to deal with Terran Military AI ships near Uranus. If Galcom starts all 8 of it player from GHQ, they will always respawn from GHQ (I think that is correct and the same would apply to the Insurgents. But resource collection will be heavy swayed toward Galcom due to the neighboring friendly stations. It would not take long for Destiny to run out of supplies, thus giving the GC player an advantage. Many of the Insurgents are seasoned players and at the very least would be evenly matched against the same number of equally seasoned Galcom players, But the Galcom player could draw resources from more than just GHQ. When Destiny runs out of spare parts and missiles, the Insurgents would need to employ some serious tacticial manuevering to stay in the game, which I do not see happening (No offense to the Insurgents, just seems unbalanced to me).

quote:Besides, in multiplayer, Insurgents are going to be fighting half way across the galaxy (from any station) to get near any GALCOM asset - and the same applies to GALCOM - which is probably not such a bad thing. But, with 16 players max in BCM, players could get bored having to fly vast distances to wage a war - die - and have to fly half a galaxy again to continue engaging (after respawn). In BC Online, it won't be such a big deal because 1000 players per server will always find someone to beat up on. But will not having a base so far away from any viable resources also make the station extremely difficult to defend. Galcom will be able to mass ships from quite a few close locations. The Insurgent station can be easily blockaged and once pounded into submission/captured, the Insurgents will still need to fly a good distance to get back into the fray. IMO - Having the Insurgents so close to Galcom space will make it an easy expliot in multiplayer. Once Destiny is taken, choking the Jupiter/Pluto jumppoints would make a recapture attempt unlikely.

quote:I guess Destiny is moving again then? Definitely not. I put it there for a specific reason. We need to wait for Derek's game plan to become unveiled before debating the subject. Whether or not it is cloaked, we all know about it - so in MP, won't it be pretty much be a Galcom station. The Insurgents will need to continually reinforce the station because of it's locale which may be a resource problem (it's a long way from Insurgent controlled space). But who knows what the Supreme Commander has brewing ** Just missed Derek's post, maybe some news is forthcoming [This message has been edited by SpcFX (edited 03-22-2000).]

Xlogic, You are not the first to make this request as I remember this conversation has passed through this way before. Have you looked through what is currently available with the GBS package? What you are purposeing is no small undertaking and the command set is somewhat huge. BC does not stop after each mission unlike most other space/flight sims nor is it restricted to a tiny portion of space (IE XWing).

Sounds like a Raider to me. Hope your up to the task

Okay, I'll put something together. The mission script will be held back until someone completes the mission, just to keep my fellow scripters from altering the parameters (Weapons OFF This ). Any ideas on what the new award should be???

Went through my GBS notes on the capture routine. The only vessels which may capture a station are Cruiser and Carrier class. Maybe someone could create a script to eliminate the possiblity of cheating IE If here BC than Destroy Station < not GBS code and place a cruiser in the region at the IC's disposal to capture the station once it is disabled. < would have to think about this as it would be tough to protect the cruiser and disable the station with only an interceptor

Actually, I do not believe you can capture a station with an interceptor. I recall that captures were only allowed by specific capital vessels.

Alexander, My sincere condolences on your lost. I had the wonderful oppurtunity to work with Daniel a bit on some BC artwork, truely a creative and talented individual who will be sorely missed. Mark Giao

Hehe - Just be careful, nothing like making an awesome weapon only to find it is also being used against you

Sorry Thomas, Didn't scroll far down enough to see your message about the move. You are correct and most likely Rattler or Ron did the same thing since the Aramike post is strictly Insurgent related. Kind of a dead issue now - Mystery solve

I attempted to create a new post in both the Prime and Insurgent forums under an un-authorized username (Testage). I could not post in either - yet I could post in the New Commanders area. So I assume it is working correctly. Maybe someone moved the posts from another area to the restricted area?, This would make it look like a new post. I have noticed we normally place comments on items we move - which has been a good policy. I also checked on the forum restriction settings, and all the new fleet areas are set-up the same, with restrictions in place. [This message has been edited by SpcFX (edited 03-10-2000).]

What are you trying to do? Your message is kinda vague.

I don't recall seeing two stats in the GBS for the BC main lasers. So I (without the facts in front of me) would say that the range is the same when the lasers are fixed or decoupled.

Actually what you saw "I think" was the BC Foreshell. The bodyshell should have been destroyed upon seperation. Usually the Foreshell makes a b-line for the nearest safe heaven.