Su25T invisible droptanks in payload editor - fix

[britgliderpilot]

I was bored again, went looking for it.

 

 

There are two entries for the 800l wing tank in the MeInit - one appears to be for the MiG23, and the other is for the Su25T/others.

 

 

Bit of background - all MeInit entries have the option to display a shape in the payload window that is not necessarily of the same name as the name of object - it's a useful workaround in some cases.

 

The MeInit entry for the MiG23 tank points to the MiG-23 fuel tank shape file.

 

The MeInit entry for the other 800l tank points to the name of the object - now there's something curious about this, since there is actually a shape file with this name and it, for some odd reason, does not seem to show up on many people's PCs.

 

However, do not fear . . . . there is ANOTHER shape file for this tank. The file the MeInit points to is the old file format (.cmd). The other shape file is of the new format (.lom), and I presume was created at a higher detail level including fins for the Su25T with Flaming Cliffs.

 

You can point the MeInit at this file - go to the second PTB-800 entry and replace the ElementShapeName="PTB-800" bit with ElementShapeName="ptb-800.lom"

 

 

You will now have visible tanks in the Payload Editor. They don't seem to follow the skins properly as the tanks will in-game, but they're definitely visible - better than nothing, right?

 

 

How many people was this a problem for?

 

And can ED consider incorporating it into a future patch? It's a five-second MeInit edit if you know what you're looking for.

[WhiskeyRomeo]

Nice find!

It's been a minor annoyance but your fix works great.

 

( For those with text editors that have line numbers the change is on line 3686 of the MeInit.xml file.

I use the Araneae editor - freeware available at http://www.ornj.net/software/araneae/ )

[berkoutskaia]

Good Job !!!

 

Even though it was not a dramatic issue, it remained an annoying bug. Hopefully, ED will include this fix in 1.12a ^^.

[Necroscope]

Cool!!!!

[Alfa]

Not a good idea Britglider.

 

The shape file for the Su-25T 800L tank supports an associated ptb-800.skins file that distributes alternate textures for the tank to match the different colourschemes options for the aircraft.

 

So taking your approach will just create a bigger problem with incorrect appearance of the tank in-game instead of the, IMHO, minor one concerning the tanks not showing up in the editor.

 

Anyway, it is a bug that has been brought up on many ocassions, but hasnt been fixed because no one has been able to figure out what causes it :( .

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

 

 

I was bored again, went looking for it.

 

 

There are two entries for the 800l wing tank in the MeInit - one appears to be for the MiG23, and the other is for the Su25T/others.

 

 

Bit of background - all MeInit entries have the option to display a shape in the payload window that is not necessarily of the same name as the name of object - it's a useful workaround in some cases.

 

The MeInit entry for the MiG23 tank points to the MiG-23 fuel tank shape file.

 

The MeInit entry for the other 800l tank points to the name of the object - now there's something curious about this, since there is actually a shape file with this name and it, for some odd reason, does not seem to show up on many people's PCs.

 

However, do not fear . . . . there is ANOTHER shape file for this tank. The file the MeInit points to is the old file format (.cmd). The other shape file is of the new format (.lom), and I presume was created at a higher detail level including fins for the Su25T with Flaming Cliffs.

 

You can point the MeInit at this file - go to the second PTB-800 entry and replace the ElementShapeName="PTB-800" bit with ElementShapeName="ptb-800.lom"

 

 

You will now have visible tanks in the Payload Editor. They don't seem to follow the skins properly as the tanks will in-game, but they're definitely visible - better than nothing, right?

 

 

How many people was this a problem for?

 

And can ED consider incorporating it into a future patch? It's a five-second MeInit edit if you know what you're looking for.

[zaelu]

It seems that I have a "combo" of this bug, if I understand it corectly. On my PC the tanks dont apear in mission editor (Su25/Su25T and Mig29) but, in the game they do... without the skin. they are just grey no matter the skin I chose. I remember, sometime before, the skin apeared on the tank but since 1.11 ("I think") it doesn't do it anymore.

[berkoutskaia]

Well, it works fine by me. The only bug now is that the Su-25T tank in the mission editor isn't displayed with the correct skin, but it works very fine in the game.

[Alfa]

Well, it works fine by me. The only bug now is that the Su-25T tank in the mission editor isn't displayed with the correct skin, but it works very fine in the game.

 

Yes re-reading Britgliders post, I am afraid I misunderstood what he suggested.

 

The "Shape=" or "ShapeName=" references in the Meinit.xml only have to do with what 3D shape is being shown in the Payload window of the Editor, while the CLSID is what determines which shape is loaded "in-game".

 

So Britglider´s suggestion about changing the "ShapeName=" to refer to the MiG-23 version of the tank will not affect which tanks are loaded for the Su-25T in-game.

 

Sorry.....my bad :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[britgliderpilot]

Yes re-reading Britgliders post, I am afraid I misunderstood what he suggested.

 

The "Shape=" or "ShapeName=" references in the Meinit.xml only have to do with what 3D shape is being shown in the Payload window of the Editor, while the CLSID is what determines which shape is loaded "in-game".

 

So Britglider´s suggestion about changing the "ShapeName=" to refer to the MiG-23 version of the tank will not affect which tanks are loaded for the Su-25T in-game.

 

Sorry.....my bad :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

 

Thing is, I'm not changing it to the MiG-23 version of the tank - that's just there as a bit of background since there are two entries for an 800l wing tank.

 

It made sense to me in the small hours, but re-reading the post now it isn't exactly straightforward. The end action is the same, anyway.

 

 

I'm aiming the Shapename (which yes, I was aware was only an ME thing) at the .lom version of the Su25T 800l wingtank instead of the .cmd version - that's all.

 

Do we still need a .cmd version of the model if we have a .lom version?

 

 

Is it possible that there being two versions of the model is what's causing Lomac to act funny?

 

 

edit - Yes, it looks like it is - if you specify the .cmd extension in the Shapename section, then Lomac will display that shape in the payload editor just as well.

 

Suggest you pass that up the ladder, it looks interesting . . . .

 

Will remove the .cmd file from the folder and see if it then loads the .lom without an extension. Is the installer capable of removing files from existing Lomac folders?

 

 

edit 2 - If you remove the PTB-800.cmd from the Shapes folder and remove the extension in the MeInit, the PTB-800.lom shape will also NOT display. So either way you need to specificy the file extension in the MeInit . . . odd. Oh well.

[zaelu]

minor correction

 

It is Element ShapeName="PTB-800" with a space between Element and ShapeName

 

At least in my file.

 

I say this just to make easier to find the line :D

[Alfa]

Hehe...I think we need to clear up the confusion a little :)

 

I'm aiming the Shapename (which yes, I was aware was only an ME thing) at the .lom version of the Su25T 800l wingtank instead of the .cmd version - that's all.

 

No you are not Britglider ;) - the Ptb-800.lom is the new one that supports alternate skins and the one being used both in the Editor and in-game. The Ptb-800.cmd is the old one left over from the old "Su-39" model and is not in use at all......not for the Su-25T anyway.

 

Do we still need a .cmd version of the model if we have a .lom version?

 

No - usually this occurs when a new model is being introduced. The new *.lom version does not overwrite the old cmd shape because they have different file extensions :) . But in case there is both a *.cmd and a *.lom version of a file present in the shapes folder, the *.lom is always the one being loaded by the sim.

 

Is it possible that there being two versions of the model is what's causing Lomac to act funny?

 

No - see above :)

 

edit - Yes, it looks like it is - if you specify the .cmd extension in the Shapename section, then Lomac will display that shape in the payload editor just as well.

 

I didnt know that you could force the *.cmd version to be loaded in the Payload Editor by specifying the file extension, but when I changed "ShapeName=PTB-800" to "ShapeName=PTB-800.lom", I got the result you described. The tank did show up in the Payload window but the skin didnt change when changing aircraft skin.....worked ok in-game.

 

Nevertheless it is the same ptb-800.lom shape file being loaded with or without specifying the file extension.

 

On my PC it works(without any modding) like this:

 

If I start up Lock-on, go into the editor, choose the Su-25T and a payload containing the ptb-800 tank, it doesnt show up on the aircraft. BUT....if I fly a mission with that payload, exit the mission and go back into the Payload Editor, the tanks are visible....and with the correct skins - i.e. matching the chosen aircraft colourscheme.

 

Will remove the .cmd file from the folder and see if it then loads the .lom without an extension. Is the installer capable of removing files from existing Lomac folders?

 

No - as explained above, the installer will just overwrite any existing files - but not if they have different file extensions.....hence the reason why there are two different ptb-800 models present in the Shapes folder :)

 

However, there is a "deleteobsoletefiles.bat" in the root directory, but I dont know if it is being executed by the installer. At any rate it would have to be configured - i.e. told which files to remove in order to work, so if the "ptb-800.cmd" isnt one among them, it will remain in the folder

 

edit 2 - If you remove the PTB-800.cmd from the Shapes folder and remove the extension in the MeInit, the PTB-800.lom shape will also NOT display. So either way you need to specificy the file extension in the MeInit . . . odd. Oh well.

 

No you dont Britglider - I think you have messed something up somewhere along the line there mate ;) . I first removed the "ptb-800.cmd" from the shapes folder and it didnt make one bit of difference - then I added the *.lom extension in the Meinit like you said and got the result you initially described.

 

So to cut a very long story short - by specifying the *.lom file extension in the Meinit, you are forcing the tank to show up in the payload editor....but in the process somehow bypassing the script that determines which ptb-800 skin to load with which aircraft skin. This in turn only underlines what we have known all along - i.e. that the script for alternating fueltank skins is in conflict with the Payload Editor.....the strange thing is that running a mission with the tanks seems to fix the problem.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[britgliderpilot]

Hmmn - starting to see what you're getting at now.

 

 

So we can choose to have a tank displayed all the time with one set of colours, or to not have it displayed at all the first time but with correct colours thereafter?

[Alfa]

Hmmn - starting to see what you're getting at now.

 

 

So we can choose to have a tank displayed all the time with one set of colours, or to not have it displayed at all the first time but with correct colours thereafter?

 

Yup thats pretty much it :)

 

....unless some bright head at ED figures out what causes the problem of course. But IIRC the F-18 uses a similar system with alternate fueltank skins, so it must be possible to get it working :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.