Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

consistency between pc2.3(Hull ID) & npc1.7(Vessel type) #165

Closed
StarryWisdom opened this issue Apr 23, 2018 · 5 comments · Fixed by #201
Closed

consistency between pc2.3(Hull ID) & npc1.7(Vessel type) #165

StarryWisdom opened this issue Apr 23, 2018 · 5 comments · Fixed by #201

Comments

@StarryWisdom
Copy link
Collaborator

both of these fields refer to the same thing - logically they should have the same name (another logical name is uniqueID - taken from vessel data)

imo any name just one thats consistent would be nice

@NoseyNick
Copy link
Collaborator

Mission scripts call it...

<create type ="enemy" hullID="4001" />

vesselData.xml calls it...

<vessel uniqueID="1000" />

To add to the confusion, my parser.pl calls them PlayerShip.ShipType and NPCShip.VesselType 😞
I'll switch to whatever we choose here... and cast one vote for hullID, as it's "official" and not as vague as "uniqueID"

@NoseyNick
Copy link
Collaborator

See also Base.VesselType (bit 1.5)

@NoseyNick
Copy link
Collaborator

Also AllShipSettingsPacket Ship type (int)

@NoseyNick
Copy link
Collaborator

Also SetFighterSettingsPacket Vessel type (int)
[yeah I think I'm done for now 😜 ]

@NoseyNick
Copy link
Collaborator

Anyone know of a good way to vote on GitHub?
I think my preference would be for hullID, from mission-file-docs.txt
The only other "semi-official" one would be uniqueID but that feels potentially confusing in protocol descriptions.

NoseyNick added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 2, 2020
fixes #165
@NoseyNick NoseyNick mentioned this issue Nov 2, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants