ETO Multiple GSL Question

D

Daiwilletti

Charter Member
Whilst putting together a BOB campaign for ETO Expansion, I did a radical thing and actually read the campaign SDK :icon_lol:.
Nothing like actually reading the manual once you've exhausted every other possibility :d. ****!!

Anyway, the SDK indicates it is possible to repeat the "layer" parameter as many times as you like in the GlobalLayer section, with a .lib file for each layer.

So that got me thinking: did the ETO Expansion Group consider simply including multiple .lib files in the Global layer folder, rather than having to run a .bat file to select a global layer before each run?

It would be possible for each campaign xml to specify a different .lib file - eg. BoB.lib. 1936.lib. etc.

The mission sdk also allows for multiple .lib files to be defined for missions.

I haven't thought this through as to implications for reducing the complexity of the .bat system used for ETO Expansion. Is there some limitation around the naming convention for the csv file?

Interested in any feedback, thoughts, etc

cheers
D
 
Interesting find, does it work though? some of the sdk stuff doesn't. :(

I guess it would also only work in campaign mode and not for QC or any other missions.
 
Yeah, I had also wondered about the ability to set-up, and use dif 'eras' as the SDK suggests is possible, without dealing with .bat to make it all work.

One other thing I've noticed in the SDK, is just as the a/c are done, is the .xdp entry for beginning/ending dates, which of course designates when the item is available for use.
Outside the entered dates, the item (such as a/c) are not even selectable, lol, guessing that it does work right.

It would take some testing, but what I've been wondering about is...would those entries work for ships, vehicles, buildings, facilities, etc. AND, if those entries ONLY work in .xdp files, or maybe inside other files, such as facility files.
One example would be such as a given airfield runway. Let's say an airfield had a runway of 6000 feet up to a certain date, then was extended to 8000 feet. Yeah, this is one long reaching example, but if the dating bit does work, maybe(?) possible.

Lol, might be alot more work, but could open many doors.

I do know that those .xdp files are really pretty powerful files, with alot of hidden aspects in 'em.

Just thinking outloud.
 
Layering woudl be great if it doesnt' further effect FPS. I am finding that the dock and harbor facillities are extreemly heavy in fps drain. As I looked at them, I saw multiple chains of facilities within facilities and I think this is contributing to frame lag. For example I see a ship or dock entitled "b_restless" and I dont' see it anywhere in the game folders. Also, gc_dock_harbor type vehicles/ships/buildings are not clearly separated in the file folders. I woudl like to thin these down some becasue I get a consistent 10fps drag when ever these are on screen. My system runs fine on ETO scenery and the ACC airfields, it's just these docks that kill my framrate. Are these "layered" already? I think there may be multiple layers of facilities that display all the time at these harbors whether they are period or not. I am running 1943 now and I can't see half of the stuff that is supposed to appear in all of these subsets. I shoudl start another thread but I think this is related.
 
Thanks for the thoughts, guys. There may be an opportunity to reduce the number of .bat files, it seems. Its not a biggie for me, its just that as a luddite I have an abiding suspicion of technology like .bat files :isadizzy::d.

@ Crossram, I wonder how powerful those xdp files are? For example, I notice a number of weapons have a start date of 1/1/40 in their xdps. Does that mean we would have to be very careful as to what is specified for the 1936 era instal? We could end up with aircraft flying around without viable weapons? But i have not noticed such an effect.

I like the runway idea, it would need very precise specification of dates so that there was not a gap or an overlap in the transition between the shorter and the longer runway. Also lots more airbase specific files would be needed. I love all the ACC airbases though, it really brings the virtual world to life.

@ Squiffy, I'm not sure I understand the layer issues you are describing. But it sounds to me like it would be worth crawling all over your config settings, you may be able to reduce texture settings for specific things like scenery or terrain, and get improved frame rates without too much of a drop over the overall look of your instal.

@ Pat, the mission SDK indicates that there is scope to make missions for specific .lib files, too - like bob.lib, 1936.lib, etc...I suspect Winding Man would be a good guy yo run this past as he will have tried it for OFF.

best,
D from Down Under
 
Thanks Dai,

It's the number of items not the scenery or terrain files. I know facility files can call random or "folder order" aircraft and such to spawn at airfields. I assume the same thing is happening at harbors for calls like

#<Facility Type="GB-GC_Newhaven_Harbour" Flags="isPort" #OuterDistance="14001">
#<Units>
# <Unit Type="GC_harbour" Position="0.00 -0.01" Angle="0.00"/>
# <Unit Type="dock" Position="50.00 0.00" Angle="0.00"/>
# <Unit Type="dock" Position="50.00 -4.00" Angle="0.00"/>

Look weird, but then gc_harbour may just be the coordinated for mission planning like I discovered in my BOB campaign/gsl.

How about:

#<Unit Type="GC_Port_Crane" Position="129.66 -153.19" Angle="90.00"/>
# <Unit Type="GC__Port_Crane" Position="-329.12 19.36" Angle="-#90.00"/>
# <Unit Type="GC_Port_Crane" Position="-48.08 -212.42" #Angle="0.00"/>
# <Unit Type="b_restless" Position="-155.52 343.39" Angle="45.00"/>

Notice the red font where a double underscore appears. This is present in many facilities. Where in the world is "b_restless" ? I see no ship, is it a vehicle? I know ship texture size can make a difference. I may size them down.
 
Thanks Dai,

It's the number of items not the scenery or terrain files. I know facility files can call random or "folder order" aircraft and such to spawn at airfields. I assume the same thing is happening at harbors for calls like

#<Facility Type="GB-GC_Newhaven_Harbour" Flags="isPort" #OuterDistance="14001">
#<Units>
# <Unit Type="GC_harbour" Position="0.00 -0.01" Angle="0.00"/>
# <Unit Type="dock" Position="50.00 0.00" Angle="0.00"/>
# <Unit Type="dock" Position="50.00 -4.00" Angle="0.00"/>

Look weird, but then gc_harbour may just be the coordinated for mission planning like I discovered in my BOB campaign/gsl.

How about:

#<Unit Type="GC_Port_Crane" Position="129.66 -153.19" Angle="90.00"/>
# <Unit Type="GC__Port_Crane" Position="-329.12 19.36" Angle="-#90.00"/>
# <Unit Type="GC_Port_Crane" Position="-48.08 -212.42" #Angle="0.00"/>
# <Unit Type="b_restless" Position="-155.52 343.39" Angle="45.00"/>

Notice the red font where a double underscore appears. This is present in many facilities. Where in the world is "b_restless" ? I see no ship, is it a vehicle? I know ship texture size can make a difference. I may size them down.
Click to expand...

This is a known issue and under review Squiffy, will have a fix shortly :)
 
Daiwilletti said:
@ Crossram, I wonder how powerful those xdp files are? For example, I notice a number of weapons have a start date of 1/1/40 in their xdps. Does that mean we would have to be very careful as to what is specified for the 1936 era instal? We could end up with aircraft flying around without viable weapons? But i have not noticed such an effect.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, that's a good question. That's why I think many of those entries would need to be tested, to see if they work.
I've learned the hard way that in .xdps, the entries need to be right, so the testing might be a little process.

Hehe, your example of a weapon 'start date' is good. Yes, I've found many dates that did not seem right. But, considering that weapons link to other files (via the CFS3 filing structure), such as rounds to guns, add to the mess. The stock .50 cal. round enter date is...1944!

Lol. Might not work at all. Right now I don't know.
 
Thanks Pat. I can't help but wonder if the harbor facilities are too "thick" with larger substructures called for in the facility file. I would really love to know how to scale these back for my system.

I can't invest in a new system until I get some extra cash to put back in the market, let it ride the slow crawl back up and sell high. :d Minus capital gaines of course :banghead: naw, I'll just but the system and flush the equity down the toilet as usual with computers.


I scaled down the textures and removed the b-ships and destoyers from Valetta Malta and it helped tremendously.
 
squiffy if you want to get better FPS around the docks just take the model called "dock" this is the thing that is sucking the frames up.just take the model out and see the improvement over the Docks
 
Thanks Ramjet! Whew, what a relief! I am working on some router set up at home here and will hopefully be able to contribute a little more to our online gaming. We'll see! I can edit this in the meantime.
 
Hi guys, I would have liked to have explored this more, but I've just had a call to say that a family member is dying of cancer. So i will sign off for a while

D
 
Daiwilletti, check you PM. My toughts are with you. Loosing the docks did the trick. It was dicey for a bit there ebfore I was sure cfs3 was redrawing everything properly. "Commenting out" the lines didnt get rid of them. I had to cut them out. Back up to 22 fps without docks. Also dont' have flak guns. Hmmm?
 
Thanks

Squiffy said:
Daiwilletti, check you PM. My toughts are with you. Loosing the docks did the trick. It was dicey for a bit there ebfore I was sure cfs3 was redrawing everything properly. "Commenting out" the lines didnt get rid of them. I had to cut them out. Back up to 22 fps without docks. Also dont' have flak guns. Hmmm?
Click to expand...
thanks for the kind words Squiffy. It sure is a terrible thing to have to watch someone die slowly.

I've sent you a PM with ideas for tweaks that might improve frame rate with complex scenery and facilities present. There seems to be some scope with the plethora of xml files controlling aspects of the way things are seen in the virtual world - ring blends, LODs, object settings and so on and on.

regards,
D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top