Author Topic: Bugs, crashes, typos & bad taste  (Read 521820 times)

Offline Fomka

  • Captain
  • ***
  • Posts: 63
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Bugs, crashes, typos & bad taste
« Reply #2970 on: September 18, 2021, 02:12:15 pm »
Another bugreport. Load the save with long name and wait till 08:00 of 7th of June, 1999. Two Battleships will be detected, flying with their full speed of 6250 mph, UFO-117 and UFO-118. Wait. When UFO-177 will be near one of the X-COM bases, another Battleship will be detected, UFO-119. The 117th will land and a base defense will begin. After the successful defense no UFOs will be seen. Two other Battleships will vanish.

I've attached a save after the base defense.

Oh, I was so happy to anticipate a series of base attacks, but no, the Aliens seem to have been frightened by the fate of their shining UFO-117.

Offline krautbernd

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 824
    • View Profile
Re: Bugs, crashes, typos & bad taste
« Reply #2971 on: September 18, 2021, 05:50:57 pm »
AFAIK, a successful base defense will abort any ongoing retaliation mission which spawned said battleship.

Offline Fomka

  • Captain
  • ***
  • Posts: 63
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Bugs, crashes, typos & bad taste
« Reply #2972 on: September 18, 2021, 06:47:09 pm »
Thanks. Interestingly, one of the disappeared battleships was on the other side of the planet. It did not seem to go to the base.

One more question. How could I order interceptors to patrol over a landed UFO?

In the vanilla, as far as I remember, interceptors simply stayed over the landed UFO. It is useful, because they will immediately intercept the UFO upon its lift-off. In the X-COM Files interceptors can land near UFO and the game asks each time about it when an interceptor reaches a landed UFO. It's a pity that when I answer "No, do not land" the aircraft just heads home. So, the UFO will just lift-off unhindered and will fly away.

Offline Meridian

  • Global Moderator
  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 7000
  • OXCE developer
    • View Profile
    • My Wiki
Re: Bugs, crashes, typos & bad taste
« Reply #2973 on: September 18, 2021, 07:14:03 pm »
One more question. How could I order interceptors to patrol over a landed UFO?

Press CTRL and click on PATROL button that appears.


In the vanilla, as far as I remember, interceptors simply stayed over the landed UFO. It is useful, because they will immediately intercept the UFO upon its lift-off. In the X-COM Files interceptors can land near UFO and the game asks each time about it when an interceptor reaches a landed UFO. It's a pity that when I answer "No, do not land" the aircraft just heads home. So, the UFO will just lift-off unhindered and will fly away.

To have this behavior, you need an interceptor that cannot land/go on a mission.

Offline Fomka

  • Captain
  • ***
  • Posts: 63
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Bugs, crashes, typos & bad taste
« Reply #2974 on: September 19, 2021, 04:08:19 pm »
Press CTRL and click on PATROL button that appears.
Thanks, that worked!

Offline Kissaki

  • Sergeant
  • **
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: Bugs, crashes, typos & bad taste
« Reply #2975 on: September 29, 2021, 03:46:21 pm »
It doesn't seem possible to buy 5.56 ammo until Milestone 2, which is a bit frustrating seeing as I'm able to purchase FAMAS, L85 and G36 from the Dagon suppliers before then. I presume the Church of Dagon buys ammunition for their weapons as well (or maybe they've reached Milestone 2 ahead of me), and browsing through  research_XCOMFILES.rul it does seem like I'm supposed to be able to buy ammo to weapons I can buy. I solved this one rather inelegantly by moving the following lines from Milestone 2 summary to Milestone 1 summary:

    unlocks:
      - STR_RIFLE_M16_CLIP_BUY_CONDITION

This allows me to research the above string. Crude, but it's the only thing I was able to do which actually worked.

EDIT: I think I found out why my other changes did not work. I had a backup folder in the ruleset folder, where I kept items_XCOMFILES.rul and research_XCOMFILES.rul. So long as they were in a sub-folder of the ruleset folder, the game kept overruling my changes. None of my edits of the items registered at all, and I could even delete the .rul file with no consequences. Only once I relocated the backup folder did my changes register. Makes me wonder why the abovementioned change in the research .rul file did make a difference, but I guess I shouldn't question a good thing too much.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2021, 01:02:03 am by Kissaki »

Offline unarmed drifter

  • Captain
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
    • View Profile
Re: Bugs, crashes, typos & bad taste
« Reply #2976 on: October 03, 2021, 08:30:48 pm »
[CTD when snakemen attack my base. A mapfile is missing - XBASS_45.MAP.
Regarding my game version, i'm 95% sure to have 2.1 despite the save saying 2.0]


Edit: replacement of the missing mapfile didn't work, but after re-downloading ver 2.0.1 everything is working fine
« Last Edit: October 04, 2021, 01:05:31 pm by unarmed drifter »

Offline Thorbear

  • Squaddie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Bugs, crashes, typos & bad taste
« Reply #2977 on: October 17, 2021, 12:49:35 pm »
Crash when killing the last robotic enemy when assaulting the Dimension X Airship, making the human enemies surrender.
Attached quicksave from turn where last robot can be killed, screenshot of error and logfile.

Offline Kissaki

  • Sergeant
  • **
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: Bugs, crashes, typos & bad taste
« Reply #2978 on: October 29, 2021, 01:10:47 am »
I may be missing something, but it seems the liquidator armour is considerably worse than the armoured vest. The protective stats are identical, but the liquidator armour - despite requiring considerably more research - has greater penalties to stats, and costs over twice as much. Besides looking cooler, why would I want it?
v.2.1

Offline krautbernd

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 824
    • View Profile
Re: Bugs, crashes, typos & bad taste
« Reply #2979 on: October 29, 2021, 05:07:36 pm »
I may be missing something, but it seems the liquidator armour is considerably worse than the armoured vest. The protective stats are identical, but the liquidator armour - despite requiring considerably more research - has greater penalties to stats, and costs over twice as much. Besides looking cooler, why would I want it?
v.2.1

What does the description say about that armor? Would you mind quoting it here?

Offline Kissaki

  • Sergeant
  • **
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: Bugs, crashes, typos & bad taste
« Reply #2980 on: October 29, 2021, 09:32:44 pm »
What does the description say about that armor? Would you mind quoting it here?
The description of the Liquidator armour says it has better NV (night vision?) than the armoured vest, but how is that reflected in the stats, exactly? The only stats that seem relevant to my eyes are camouflageAtDark (neither armour has a listing), visibilityAtDark and personalLight (both armours 12 and 5 respectively).

Offline krautbernd

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 824
    • View Profile
Re: Bugs, crashes, typos & bad taste
« Reply #2981 on: October 29, 2021, 10:25:23 pm »
visibilityAtDark and personalLight (both armours 12 and 5 respectively).

You might want to double check that.

Offline Kissaki

  • Sergeant
  • **
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: Bugs, crashes, typos & bad taste
« Reply #2982 on: October 29, 2021, 10:58:42 pm »
You might want to double check that.
Yes, it seems some instances of the liquidator armour have different values for visibilityAtDark, although I don't know which is the one I'm getting when I pay for it (numbers are :

STR_XCOM_LIQUIDATOR_ARMOR_UC: 12

STR_XCOM_LIQUIDATOR_ARMOR_OLYMPIAN_UC :12

STR_XCOM_LIQUIDATOR_ARMOR_PROTEAN_UC: 15

STR_XCOM_LIQUIDATOR_ARMOR_H_UC: 14

Offline krautbernd

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 824
    • View Profile
Re: Bugs, crashes, typos & bad taste
« Reply #2983 on: October 29, 2021, 11:45:49 pm »
Yes, it seems some instances of the liquidator armour have different values for visibilityAtDark, although I don't know which is the one I'm getting when I pay for it (numbers are :

That is irrelevant in regards to your original question, but we will get to that in due time (provided nobody else wants to answer it). I asked you to double check the numbers you gave for both armors. What is the value for visibilityAtDark for STR_ARMORED_VEST_UC?
« Last Edit: October 29, 2021, 11:58:50 pm by krautbernd »

Offline Kissaki

  • Sergeant
  • **
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: Bugs, crashes, typos & bad taste
« Reply #2984 on: October 30, 2021, 01:16:50 am »
That is irrelevant in regards to your original question, but we will get to that in due time (provided nobody else wants to answer it). I asked you to double check the numbers you gave for both armors. What is the value for visibilityAtDark for STR_ARMORED_VEST_UC?
Ah, yes - that particular armour only has a value of 9, I see that now. I must have looked at STR_ARMORED_VEST_PROTEAN_UC before, which has a value of 12. What difference proteins make.