No entry 'bin\config.bin/CfgModels.default'

[modemmaik 53]

I noticed this error using ECS + user addons (like RHS T-64, Törnis M60A3). No entry 'bin\config.bin/CfgModels.default'

When the following section is added to the addons, the error does not pop up again any more (instruction from this Thread):

Quote[/b] ]...

class CfgModels

{

class Default

{

sectionsInherit="";

sections[] = {};

skeletonName = "";

};

...

so far, so good. But I may ask the question: Does this section also have negative consequences?

Thanks,

mike

[sickboy 13]

I don't believe it should be created.

It should either be inherited (class Default;), if it actually exists per default in arma, which doubt.

Or the problem should be resolved at it's root;

Possibly one of the addons contains a model that isn't specified in a CfgModels section, and not binarized. Something for the original authors to fix IMO.

[General Barron 0]

As sickboy said, the problem lies with the original addon(s).

Addons should NEVER have a class CfgModels in their config.cpp, because it can lead to problems like the one you are seeing.

Instead, addon makers should binarize their addons, and use a model.cfg.

I suspect that a lot of addon makers don't use the proper tools pipeline, but rather try to use community pbo packers and other tools to make their addons. That leads to problems like these, unless the addon doesn't include p3d models.

[wld427 1705]

we ran into this problem with our aircraft in project RACS.... all we had to do was binarize the models for the ammo

[[aps]gnat 28]

I suspect that a lot of addon makers don't use the proper tools pipeline, but rather try to use community pbo packers and other tools to make their addons.

BAH! .... sure, if the friggin tools worked as BIS say they are meant to, or in many cases, as BIS is silent on!

[wld427 1705]

Gnat @ July 11 2008,02:17)]

I suspect that a lot of addon makers don't use the proper tools pipeline, but rather try to use community pbo packers and other tools to make their addons.

BAH! .... sure, if the friggin tools worked as BIS say they are meant to, or in many cases, as BIS is silent on!

right on brother

[General Barron 0]

Gnat @ July 10 2008,17:17)]BAH! .... sure, if the friggin tools worked as BIS say they are meant to, or in many cases, as BIS is silent on!

Is there a consolidated list of bugs anywhere? Perhaps the problem is a lack of documentation, not bugs?

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Gnat @ July 10 2008,17:17)]BAH! .... sure, if the friggin tools worked as BIS say they are meant to, or in many cases, as BIS is silent on!

Is there a consolidated list of bugs anywhere? Perhaps the problem is a lack of documentation, not bugs?

I've only just started making addons recently and had just recently created that very cfgModels error and used the same workaround. Now I can stand corrected.

Documentation seems to be the biggest issue for me at the moment especialy as I have no wish to learn all there is by trial and error alone. But since I started teaching myself the various aspects of addon making the gaps have been slowly filling.

But there has been some corker issues with learning some of BIS's tools. Like I had no idea how to use BINPBO till the latest version

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Hmm.. I'd noticed that the BINpbo log mentioned looking for 'default' classes in its root directory and as i was putting together a building I dropped the building 'model.cfg' into it and turned what had previously been a 9meg log into just 107bytes.

Was this the right thing to do as far as work 'pipeline' is concerned ?

[Synide 0]

Quote[/b] ]Was this the right thing to do as far as work 'pipeline' is concerned ?

perfect.

The key to using BinPBO is understanding how and where it's subordinate tool binarize.exe gets called and where and what it goes looking for with respect to 'reference material' you may be specifying in your config's.

With regards config.cpp's and model.cfg's - Binarize.exe uses a slightly different processing method with .cpp's as opposed to .cfg's.

What you did by including the BIS definitions directly in your model.cfg is 1 method of doing it... and quite acceptable...