Page 1 of 1
MP lobby: Thracian 460-351 BC shows wrong army name
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 3:25 pm
by mgardner
Minor issue I found: If a MP challenge is created using list Thracian 460-351 BC, it is incorrectly displayed as Thracian 680-461 BC. This is because file Core\ArmyList.txt has wrong entry in section [LE_THRACIAN]:
NAME IDS_ARMY_E_THRACIAN
should be
NAME IDS_ARMY_LE_THRACIAN
Re: MP lobby: Thracian 460-351 BC shows wrong army name
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 4:02 pm
by rbodleyscott
Many thanks, those errors are hard to spot, because they only appear in the MP Lobby. The main game scripts derive the string tag from the army list "chunk" name, e.g. [LE_THRACIAN], but the MP lobby (which is hard-coded in the engine) uses the string tag in the armylist.txt file.
We have a little code routine to check for such errors, but we have to remember to run it after any changes to the army lists. Clearly we did not do so after the new Thracian lists were added.
Anyway, I have done it now, and that was the only such error.
It will be fixed for the next update.
Thanks again for reporting the error.
Re: MP lobby: Thracian 460-351 BC shows wrong army name
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 5:14 pm
by mgardner
The ONE TIME you didn’t run the error check...
I came about this backwards, I noticed the entry was wrong in ArmyList.txt but everything looked fine in-game (SP). I did some searching and found the script that reads this data was in a function for MP, and only then did I figure out how to reproduce/report the issue.
Re: MP lobby: Thracian 460-351 BC shows wrong army name
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:14 pm
by rbodleyscott
mgardner wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 5:14 pm
The ONE TIME you didn’t run the error check...
I came about this backwards, I noticed the entry was wrong in ArmyList.txt but everything looked fine in-game (SP). I did some searching and found the script that reads this data was in a function for MP, and only then did I figure out how to reproduce/report the issue.
I am intrigued. As far as I know the code that reads that data is in the engine, to which I do not have code access. My scripts don't read the tag from the ArmyList.txt file but construct it from the army chunk name. Which script are you referring to?
As far as I know the only script that reads the NAME tag from the ArmyList.txt file is the CheckArmyListNames() function that does the aforementioned integrity check (when I remember to run it).
Re: MP lobby: Thracian 460-351 BC shows wrong army name
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:38 pm
by mgardner
rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:14 pm
As far as I know the only script that reads the NAME tag from the ArmyList.txt file is the CheckArmyListNames() function that does the aforementioned integrity check (when I remember to run it).
Yes, this is exactly where I found the clue. Searching *.bsf for NAME (whole word / match case) found only a few hits. The CheckArmyListNames comment is the only thing that prompted me to test this list in MP:
"Checks that the NAME string tag is correct for all lists in ArmyList.txt. (Otherwise errors only become apparent in the MP lobby.)"
Re-reading my comment, it does sound like I was claiming knowledge about scripts used for MP but that is certainly not the case - sorry.
Re: MP lobby: Thracian 460-351 BC shows wrong army name
Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:25 am
by rbodleyscott
mgardner wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:38 pm
rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:14 pm
As far as I know the only script that reads the NAME tag from the ArmyList.txt file is the CheckArmyListNames() function that does the aforementioned integrity check (when I remember to run it).
Yes, this is exactly where I found the clue. Searching *.bsf for NAME (whole word / match case) found only a few hits. The CheckArmyListNames comment is the only thing that prompted me to test this list in MP:
"Checks that the NAME string tag is correct for all lists in ArmyList.txt. (Otherwise errors only become apparent in the MP lobby.)"
Re-reading my comment, it does sound like I was claiming knowledge about scripts used for MP but that is certainly not the case - sorry.
No problem, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.