EECP - Enhanced ECP

[ixnay 1]

hmmm a bug..... if you reload a Morta on the M16 it changes model to the old rifle.... looks really odd  

Confirmed... Wow. Suprised I never caught that during the hours and hours of missions my crew played where we had mortars.

Funny the things you don't even see during the heat of battle

[Bearclaw 0]

It's a confirmed bug yes, if you look in the readme under Known Bugs its listed there.

[Maddmatt 1]

To fix the missing addon "cx8_magazines" error:

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

class EECP_Ext

{

list[]={

"C8X_russ", "C8X_usmc", "cx8mag", "SUCHrus", "SUCHusmc",

"CBT_Brad", "CBT_Brad_Scripts", "CBT_Crew", "CBT_Misc",

"clsa_air", "csla_arm",

"RHS_T55Pack_Scripts", "RHS_Crew"

};

};

Change "c8xmag" to "C8X_magazines" and the problem should be solved. So it should look like this:

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

class EECP_Ext

{

list[]={

"C8X_russ", "C8X_usmc", "C8X_magazines", "SUCHrus", "SUCHusmc",

"CBT_Brad", "CBT_Brad_Scripts", "CBT_Crew", "CBT_Misc",

"clsa_air", "csla_arm",

"RHS_T55Pack_Scripts", "RHS_Crew"

};

};

What file did you make this edit to?

Obviously the \EECP\Bin\config.bin file, converted to a config.cpp file.

Which BIN>Cpp utility can be safely used to unpack config.bin and fix this? I'm always hesitant about the accuracy of these utilities from past experiences.

Also, Kurayami, may I suggest you update the thread's first post with config corrections when they become reported, like the cx8magazines fix.

Kurayami posted a link to a cpp version of the config,

Great! As expected

Will you release a config.ccp version of this too, like you did before?

I was actually planning on cleaning things up a bit before posting the cpp, but in all honesty I probably won't get around to that before the next version.

Here it is for anyone that wants it.

0.5, which will feature the new ECP core, will be signifigantly cleaned up and easier to work with. Related classes will all be grouped and more clearly labeled with comments so that you don't have to hunt around for anything. Until then you'll just have to put up with the "hey, there's a blank space here! I'll just add it there!" version.

There is a cpp>bin utility somewhere on OFPEC. It is made by amalfi.

The reason it is c8x_magazines instead of c8xmag is because the name of an addon doesn't always depend on the name of the pbo file.

[theavonlady 2]

Kurayami posted a link to a cpp version of the config

Thanks.

Again, Kurayami , things like this and corrections should be added to the thread's first post so that they're easily found.

[theavonlady 2]

Next bug.

When using the config.cpp file, instead of the bin file, OFP startup fails with message:

config.cpp/cfgvehicles/m113ambul.accuracy: member already defined

When viewing config.cpp and searching for m113ambul, you do find 2 accuracy statements defined there.

Since this doesn't occur with the config.bin file, I take it that this is an example of the risks of unpacking a bin file to cpp?

Or is this the only error in the cpp source file? If so, which accuracy statement should be deleted?

[Maddmatt 1]

Next bug.

When using the config.cpp file, instead of the bin file, OFP startup fails with message:

config.cpp/cfgvehicles/m113ambul.accuracy: member already defined

When viewing config.cpp and searching for m113ambul, you do find 2 accuracy statements defined there.

Since this doesn't occur with the config.bin file, I take it that this is an example of the risks of unpacking a bin file to cpp?

Or is this the only error in the cpp source file? If so, which accuracy statement should be deleted?

You should convert the cpp to a bin file, you can find a cpp>bin utility here

There is also a bin>cpp tool there. OFP's config should always be in bin format, otherwise you get problems such as not being able to move with hanguns, for addons cpp is fine though.

[theavonlady 2]

You should convert the cpp to a bin file

Isn't there still a problem with the 2 accuracy statements in the m113ambul definition?

[Gordy 0]

You should convert the cpp to a bin file

Isn't there still a problem with the 2 accuracy statements in the m113ambul definition?

Converting to bin will not fix the double config statements. They will not disappear.

[theavonlady 2]

You should convert the cpp to a bin file

Isn't there still a problem with the 2 accuracy statements in the m113ambul definition?

Converting to bin will not fix the double config statements. They will not disappear.

Then my questions still remain:

Which accuracy statement is the correct one?

How did this error creep into the file? If as a result of coverting from bin to cpp, what other errors are there that have to be corrected?

[Maddmatt 1]

You should convert the cpp to a bin file

Isn't there still a problem with the 2 accuracy statements in the m113ambul definition?

Converting to bin will not fix the double config statements. They will not disappear.

Then my questions still remain:

Which accuracy statement is the correct one?

How did this error creep into the file? If as a result of coverting from bin to cpp, what other errors are there that have to be corrected?

Did you download the cpp version Kurayami posted or did you convert the bin to a cpp and modify that? I used the cpp version that Kurayami posted and modified a few things in it and it works fine. If you used the bin>cpp utility to convert the bin back to cpp then that is your problem, it doesn't decrypt the whole bin file.

[Scrub 0]

Hi all,

Just reporting on an oddity that happened while playing with FootMunch's latest flytoys.

I was initially doing some Napalm strikes on a position and "EECPSMOKE: Big Error" faded subtly on, in the middle of the screen. Thought maybe I dropped too many and was overloading the code. Then, later, after a restart, i got the problem again while just doing target practice as a soldier. It did not noticably affect he playability, or anything, for that matter. Any thoughts?

[theavonlady 2]

You should convert the cpp to a bin file

Isn't there still a problem with the 2 accuracy statements in the m113ambul definition?

Converting to bin will not fix the double config statements. They will not disappear.

Then my questions still remain:

Which accuracy statement is the correct one?

How did this error creep into the file? If as a result of coverting from bin to cpp, what other errors are there that have to be corrected?

Did you download the cpp version Kurayami posted or did you convert the bin to a cpp and modify that? I used the cpp version that Kurayami posted and modified a few things in it and it works fine. If you used the bin>cpp utility to convert the bin back to cpp then that is your problem, it doesn't decrypt the whole bin file.

I downloaded Kurayami's cpp. It contains the duplicate statements. The only modifcation I made to it otherwise was for the c8xmagazines problem.

[su27 0]

Did you notice that strange things happen if u play original 85 campaign with changed config? Tanks always shoot at choppers and AI cant avoid it - most of the time poor lonely cobra ends battle on the ground.

In one mission, where u must destroy tanks with mines there is m113 waiting for u to pick u up after completed mission. New, better T72's and T80's blow him at the beginning of mission. It never happened to me before new config.

Imho - the new M60 has no chance with new T72.

Do blackhawks have new flight model? In the mission called "Flashpoint" new BAS chopper most often lands on the trees - i had to change landing zone in this mission.

I think original campaign balance is broken with new units.

Am i wrong?

[Dreamline 0]

I think original campaign balance is broken with new units.

Am i wrong?

I have played it through twice with EECP, and have only

encountered one issue: the chopper smacking into the

tree's; however, the second time around, this didn't happen.

[Krizog 0]

Dunno if this has already been mentioned, but the exahust smoke from the BIS Ka-50 missiles comes out on the wrong side i.e if I fire a rocket from the left pod, the smoke comes out of the back of the right pod

[tak 0]

Hey, K.

I found a bug with your current version.

When I was firing as a gunner in the Vulcan.

I always got this massage.

script \CBT_M113a_scripts\fx\vulcancanon.sqs not found

Do you know what's this all 'bout?

I opened CBT_M113a_scripts.pbo file but there isn't any sqs file like that.

anybodyelse got this error before or is it just in my case?

Oh, I've tripple checked to download all required addons from your readme file. So I think there is no missstep.

Thanks.

[mr reality 0]

I too noticed an 'oddity'.It was the 85 campaign and the mission was near the start when your team has to set up a camp while you go on patrol.I noticed the Helo was firing at something when i was being taken to pick up the truck.Also the truck was the normal BIS one and not the new one..odd

And also on the first assault mission of the 85 campaign i'm sure the black hawk that dropped me off crashed in the distance,as there was a 'bang' before i had reached the briefing point..It's strange but true..

[PitViper 0]

sounds like the typical viewdistance issue.

If you're going to play the original campaign, set viewdistance to 900.

[Taconic 0]

Also, Kurayami, may I suggest you update the thread's first post with config corrections when they become reported, like the cx8magazines fix.

I will post a patched version in a few days.

[Taconic 0]

Hi Kurayami,

I was wondering if in any future update you might implement some custum animation for some basic postures like safe, aware, while shooting etc.

Currently not planned, but if there are good replacements for these animations available at some point, I will incorporate them.

hmmm a bug..... if you reload a Morta on the M16 it changes model to the old rifle.... looks really odd

This has been noted in the readme since 0.2 or so. There is nothing that I can do about this unless Suchey & Earl update the Marine Assault Pack to include an M16 with a mortar mounted.

Next bug.

When using the config.cpp file, instead of the bin file, OFP startup fails with message

I'll fix this in the patch. I don't know how it slipped through.

However, let me stress something that I put in the readme and at the head of the config itself:

You can not... not not not use the cpp and expect things to work properly. You must compile it as a binary with cpp2bin before playing. This is a general ECP issue. I can solve it, but I simply don't have the time to determine if the solution breaks more than it fixes.

[Taconic 0]

Hi all,

Just reporting on an oddity that happened while playing with FootMunch's latest flytoys.

I was initially doing some Napalm strikes on a position and "EECPSMOKE: Big Error" faded subtly on, in the middle of the screen. Thought maybe I dropped too many and was overloading the code. Then, later, after a restart, i got the problem again while just doing target practice as a soldier. It did not noticably affect he playability, or anything, for that matter. Any thoughts?

Bleh.

I'll have to take a look at Footmunch's config to see if I can come up with a way to make the scripts play nicely. I forgot to disable that message for the release (I used it for debugging and never intended for anybody to see it.)

[Taconic 0]

Did you notice that strange things happen if u play original 85 campaign with changed config? Tanks always shoot at choppers and AI cant avoid it - most of the time poor lonely cobra ends battle on the ground.

This is intentional. Tanks now actually use their 12.7mm MGs to engage aircraft, just like they actually do.

The amror values of the helis are in a state of adjustment.

Quote[/b] ]In one mission, where u must destroy tanks with mines there is m113 waiting for u to pick u up after completed mission. New, better T72's and T80's blow him at the beginning of mission. It never happened to me before new config.

The BIS T-72s and T-80s can destroy the M113 in a single hit as well. This is probably related to view distance more than anything.

Quote[/b] ]Imho - the new M60 has no chance with new T72.

I did some fairly extensive testing and found the M60 to be a reasonably even match for the T-72.

Quote[/b] ]Do blackhawks have new flight model? In the mission called "Flashpoint" new BAS chopper most often lands on the trees - i had to change landing zone in this mission.

No. This happens sometimes even without any addon configs. Ensure that you have the 1.90/1.91 campaign patches installed, because not having them installed causes all kinds of problems with helicopters.

Quote[/b] ]I think original campaign balance is broken with new units.

I have yet to find a mission that cannot be completed.

[Taconic 0]

Dunno if this has already been mentioned, but the exahust smoke from the BIS Ka-50 missiles comes out on the wrong side i.e if I fire a rocket from the left pod, the smoke comes out of the back of the right pod

This happens sometimes with all of the choppers, but rarely. The Ka-50 is slightly more prone to the occurance because it practically fires two rockets at once.

Nothing that I can do about it. It happens rarely enough that I don't consider it a big enough deal to remove the feature.

[Taconic 0]

Hey, K.

I found a bug with your current version.

When I was firing as a gunner in the Vulcan.

I always got this massage.

script \CBT_M113a_scripts\fx\vulcancanon.sqs not found

Do you know what's this all 'bout?

Yes, I do. And I feel very, very stupid for not realizing that this would happen. It'll be addressed in the patch.

I added the M113s last minute, which is why so many odd problems have popped up. I did do a day's worth of testing, but, of course, that wasn't thorough enough, and I didn't send the version with the M113s out to the testers so that I could get things out the door a bit faster.

Oops.

[Rudedog 0]

Hey, K.

I found a bug with your current version.

When I was firing as a gunner in the Vulcan.

I always got this massage.

script \CBT_M113a_scripts\fx\vulcancanon.sqs not found

Do you know what's this all 'bout?

Yes, I do. And I feel very, very stupid for not realizing that this would happen. It'll be addressed in the patch.

I added the M113s last minute, which is why so many odd problems have popped up. I did do a day's worth of testing, but, of course, that wasn't thorough enough, and I didn't send the version with the M113s out to the testers so that I could get things out the door a bit faster.

Oops.

From what I understand, this is a conflict with Inquisitors M113. Try removing his and see if the issue goes away.