Allow More Building Styles - DLL Plugin

[TheMurderousCricket 5,107]

6 hours ago, Null 45 said:

I just checked, and the property was working for my test file. Could you post a screenshot of the building exemplar?

While I think it is unlikely, I am wondering if the property has the wrong type. Currently the DLL would treat that as a silent failure, with the building being considered non-W2W.

It was a BOOL which I think you intended. However, I added the property through PIM-X autocalculation option and this is why I wonder whether this is the case...

[Null 45 3,116]

3 hours ago, TheMurderousCricket said:

It was a BOOL which I think you intended. However, I added the property through PIM-X autocalculation option and this is why I wonder whether this is the case...

It is supposed to be a BOOL, with a rep count of 0 in the Reader. I have always used Reader v0.93 for editing exemplars, as the later versions are unstable. I am not familiar with PIM-X, but looking at New_Properties.xml, it looks like the templates should correctly set that property to a Boolean.

[TheMurderousCricket 5,107]

15 minutes ago, Null 45 said:

It is supposed to be a BOOL, with a rep count of 0 in the Reader. I have always used Reader v0.93 for editing exemplars, as the later versions are unstable. I am not familiar with PIM-X, but looking at New_Properties.xml, it looks like the templates should correctly set that property to a Boolean.

I see. I'll have another go in the afternoon and I'll let you know how it went. 

[TheMurderousCricket 5,107]

Unfortunatelly, I am unable to achieve a W2W building using the "Building is W2W" property. The behavior is how I described it - the buildings start to grow only after "W2W + normal" are selected. Otherwise it just won't work.

The building in question looks like this in iLives. I noticed that there is an xml file in it, which has some properties that are totally different from what can be found in the exemplar file... This led me to believe that the xml is probably to blame and causing some conflict, but deleting the file broke the BAT entirely...

 

Any ideas? Suggestions?

[Andreas Roth 629]

Deleting the XML file shouldn't affect the game at all. In the old days, Maxis used these to transfer properties from the original Maxis tools (BAT -> Plugin Manager -> Lot Editor), and to put this information into the original SC4 exchange database on the Maxis/EA website. A common suggestion in the custom content creation community back then was suggesting to remove the XML with the Reader, so people wouldn't "pirate" custom content and upload those to the official exchange.

The game itself only reads the Exemplar files of the building and the lot and uses the properties that are defined there. If removing the XML renders the building in the game useless, there might be something wrong with the internal file structure, so the file breaks upon saving the changes in the Reader. I'd try to create an entirely new SC4Desc file with PIM-X and check if the problem persists.

[Tyberius06 12,267]

1 hour ago, TheMurderousCricket said:

Unfortunatelly, I am unable to achieve a W2W building using the "Building is W2W" property. The behavior is how I described it - the buildings start to grow only after "W2W + normal" are selected. Otherwise it just won't work.

The building in question looks like this in iLives. I noticed that there is an xml file in it, which has some properties that are totally different from what can be found in the exemplar file... This led me to believe that the xml is probably to blame and causing some conflict, but deleting the file broke the BAT entirely...

 

Any ideas? Suggestions?

Two things.

The exemplar is non-compressed, the XML is compressed. The DIR file is only needed if you had at least 1 compressed exemplars/files in the list. If you removed the the XML you need to remove the DIR file too. In theory since there isn't any compressed file left in the list you don't need to reindex and rebuild the dir file, but you can do it. And just after this save the file. 

Ok, I did not follow the building style development for a while and never that closely, but your residential does not have building style. I don't know what the 0x0000201d ID is for, but last time I heard about it for custom building styles you need the actual dedicated building style property in the exemplar (like the submenu property). Which you don't have. Does the dedicated building style property is still needed @Null 45?

So I can imagine that could be a problem.

Building and prop exemplar related XML files are useless 

These days. The only XML which is useful is the model name XML. But that has a different Type ID.

[TheMurderousCricket 5,107]

8 minutes ago, Tyberius06 said:

I don't know what the 0x0000201d ID is for, but last time I heard about it for custom building styles you need the actual dedicated building style property in the exemplar (like the submenu property).

I think you are referring to the property which is needed for industrial buildings in which this is indeed true.

This is a residential with a 0x201D building style and it works as intended in the game. W2W property is what seems to be off in my case, but I'm not sure if xml or some other item is to blame.

[Tyberius06 12,267]

24 minutes ago, TheMurderousCricket said:

I think you are referring to the property which is needed for industrial buildings in which this is indeed true.

This is a residential with a 0x201D building style and it works as intended in the game. W2W property is what seems to be off in my case, but I'm not sure if xml or some other item is to blame.

Have you tried to add the BTE - W2W occupant groups? BTE - W2W Residential or BTE - W2W general?

[TheMurderousCricket 5,107]

4 minutes ago, Tyberius06 said:

Have you tried to add the BTE - W2W occupant groups? BTE - W2W Residential or BTE - W2W general?

Yes, these work. I am having trouble with the new, dedicated "Building is W2W" property. But as long as the remaining ones work, it's good enough.

[Tyberius06 12,267]

31 minutes ago, TheMurderousCricket said:

Yes, these work. I am having trouble with the new, dedicated "Building is W2W" property. But as long as the remaining ones work, it's good enough.

Isn't it possible that you meant to use the Occupant Groups AND the building is W2W: True property together?

We made the PIM-X W2W building exemplars that way by default. You have the OG plus the dedicated true W2W property.