Page 2 of 3

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:44 pm
by secret
Cmd. Matt wrote:
secret wrote: Matt, is there any way I could help you?
Fix up https://github.com/Mailaender/OpenRA/compare/shpviewer It crashes hard with native stacktrace on Mono and only builds with many compiler warnings. There are also some parts of the codes where exceptions are simply catched and swallowed. This needs lot's of work to make it's way through Chris' code review into OpenRA.
...right. That's a bit too complicated for me to handle, sadly. My programming knowledge is quite limited.

Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:17 am
by Matt
Don't expect something to happen soon. I am also overstrained with this, too. For the time being have a look at http://openra-modding.tumblr.com/ to convert your files.

Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:11 pm
by secret
Right, got some issues with the SHP conversion, which neither XCC Mixer or OpenRA.Utility are able to do.

I have 32 .PNG files (WITHOUT indexed palette) which are basically the same frame repeating itself 32 times, with the names "fact 0000.png", "fact 0001.png" ... "fact 0031.png", which I am not able to convert. NOT interlaced.

When using OpenRA Utility I insert "OpenRA.Utility --shp fact 0000.png 144" (since the file is 144x72").

So I went again to XCC Mixer.
If I use XCC Mixer, it doesn't load up any palette at all. If I use .PNG, it isn't able to render a usable file.

What am I supposed to do? I know there are these palettes here http://www.sleipnirstuff.com/forum/view ... 62f5a5265c

Is there anything I am missing?
Another thing: what color ought the background to be? Blue or black?
Also, I'm doing all this with a building, NOT a cameo.

Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 6:46 pm
by Matt
You need to combine it into one indexed PNG with frame [1][2][3].. pasted next to each other for OpenRA.Utility.exe

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:10 pm
by secret
Thanks! Eventually solved the conversion issues, but right now I get some weird errors.

My building is 144 (horizontally) by 72 (vertically), and somehow I can't get it ingame.
That's 5x3, right?
I have the following code:

Code: Select all

FACT:
	Inherits: ^Building
	Building:
		Power: 0
		Footprint: xxxxx xxx xxxxx
		Dimensions: 5,3
	Health:
		HP: 1000
	Armor:
		Type: Heavy
	RevealsShroud:
		Range: 5
	Bib:
	Production:
		Produces: Building,Defense
	IronCurtainable: 
	Valued:
		Cost: 2500
	Tooltip:
		Name: Construction Yard
	CustomSellValue:
		Value: 2500
	BaseBuilding:
	Transforms:
		IntoActor: mcv
		Offset:1,1
		Facing: 96
	ProductionBar:
		
Is there anything I am missing?

EDIT: Here's the SHP image as well (multiple frames repeating):

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:56 am
by Matt
144x72 px is 6x3 with a TileSize of 24. Try adjusting your code:

Code: Select all

   Building:
      Power: 0
      Footprint: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
      Dimensions: 6,3 

Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 6:39 pm
by raminator
building looks nice =)
good luck with your project

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:57 pm
by secret
Thanks raminator! Also thanks for the help provided a couple weeks/months ago. :D

Some more work + conversion work is finally going nicely for me.

Question: Is there a way I can replace the animation that goes in the background in the RA mod with a static image?

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 9:49 am
by Matt
Change the animation length in sequences.yaml to 1.

Posted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 7:15 pm
by secret
Update: New UI:

Image

Posted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 9:19 am
by raminator
looking good =)

Posted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 2:00 pm
by bellator
good menu. the way it fades into the black is appropriately pretentious.

Posted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 5:45 pm
by secret
Thanks guys.

If earlier I was presenting you the Internationale Refinery, right now I'm presenting you the Tesla Powerplant for the Internationale.

Posted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 8:26 pm
by secret
Slight bump with a comparison of currently done buildings with what's left to do. Why do I post this? People have been complaining about the angles, however I don't want to worry about them, since everything looks pretty fine IMO.

Posted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 8:54 pm
by BaronOfStuff
While they do look good, there's no denying that the angle is somewhat 'off' on the new stuff. It's difficult to explain, but they appear to be somewhat 'tilted' toward the viewer. It's easiest to notice by comparing the STEK to the newer structures.