Topic: Hex Editing of Starfleet executables  (Read 184735 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline TarMinyatur

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 938
  • Gender: Male
Re: Hex Editing of Starfleet executables
« Reply #620 on: March 24, 2016, 07:27:12 pm »
I did not notice that correlation, Nemesis. In my recent battle with Tus, my flashed-and-tractored Battlehawk decloaked just in time to fire my probe at his scatterpack, destroying it before it bloomed. It was 30 degrees off my centerline.

I had an ounce of energy for Orion Pirates today so here's a look at the weapon arcs in StarfleetOP.exe. They work the same way as in CE. Draw the arc counter-clockwise. Nobody would ever have guessed that the values are integers as hexadecimal representations of 22.75555556 * n degrees. But there was a clue in CE.

OP Weapon Arc degrees in hex * 22.75555555
360 = 0x2000
355 = 0x1F8E
350 = 0x1F1C
345 = 0x1EAA

330 = 0x1D55
300 = 0x1AAA

270 = 0x1800

240 = 0x1555
210 = 0x12AA

190 = 0x10E3
180 = 0x1000
170 = 0xF1C

150 = 0xD55
120 = 0xAAA

90 = 0x800

60 = 0x555
30 = 0x2AA

15 = 0x155
10 = 0xE3
5 = 0x71
0 = 0x0

Offline TarMinyatur

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 938
  • Gender: Male
SFBR and SFBL arc modifications for OP
« Reply #621 on: March 24, 2016, 09:47:51 pm »
Here you go Adam. Add these 5 lines to your StarFleetOP.txt file.

Tab Arcs
D7E73: 1i // SFBL start // 6826 (300 degrees)
D7E78: 1i // SFBL end // 5461 (240 degrees)
D7E92: 1i // SFBR start // 2730 (120 degrees)
D7E97: 1i // SFBR end // 1365 (60 degrees)

If you want wider arcs, use:
7509 for SFBL start (330 degrees)
4778 for SFBL end (210 degrees)
3431 for SFBR start (150 degrees)
682 for SFBR end (30 degrees)

Offline Nemesis

  • Captain Kayn
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 12919
Re: Weapon Arcs
« Reply #622 on: March 29, 2016, 09:08:49 pm »
I figured out the mysterious third float in the arc function. It is the midpoint of the arc. I guess this is for AI purposes because a player doesn't care about the midpoint of an arc with such precision.

There is one weapon where that is important - the Attack Probe.

Attack Probes are 360 degree weapons in SFC. Always have been, right?

Maybe I'm confusing it with SFB rules.  How about the mauler arc? 
Do unto others as Frey has done unto you.
Seti Team    Free Software
I believe truth and principle do matter. If you have to sacrifice them to get the results you want, then the results aren't worth it.
 FoaS_XC : "Take great pains to distinguish a criticism vs. an attack. A person reading a post should never be able to confuse the two."

Offline TarMinyatur

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 938
  • Gender: Male
Re: Hex Editing of Starfleet executables
« Reply #623 on: March 29, 2016, 09:50:08 pm »
The Mauler arc in OP is 20 degrees. It has a midpoint of straight ahead, 0 degrees. How this represents the SFB arc isn't clear. I think they are close. The SFB Mauler could attack ships that were a couple hexes off the direct column of hexes at range 9 or 10.


EDIT: My contributions to this topic will continue here.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2016, 04:13:56 pm by TarMinyatur »

Offline TarMinyatur

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 938
  • Gender: Male
Re: Hex Editing of Starfleet executables
« Reply #624 on: June 29, 2016, 04:20:55 pm »
I have decided to offer my SFC 2.679 disassembly database to everyone.

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AjegRXlmIpGqglXJnFCyTRNgHi6d

I request that any executables that you create should use a splash screen version number, starting at 2.700 or greater. My work will be defined as versions 2.671 through 2.699.

I hope that someone will find this database to be useful.

Thank you.

 

Offline xeryx

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 49
Re: Hex Editing of Starfleet executables
« Reply #625 on: January 10, 2017, 02:53:49 pm »
I am sure this is another known issue, but I think since you guys are making so much progress on the .exe, I thought I would bring it up.

There is ERA start dates hard coded into the EXE. I have tested and tried this out numerous times with great frustration.
Firstly the mod I am working on starts in TOS currently at 2248-2263, 2263-2278, 2278-2293, 2293+.(15 years per ERA)

So editing the Time file is only a superficial way of showing years progression. The inner working of the game (EXE) seems to be set in stone for 2263,+10+20,+30. This affects ships being released at the correct times, drones, and fighters..etc etc.

The Dynaverse engine doesn't like using negative numbers or years, it only works correctly when you start at zero, and that is only part of the issue with starting in my TOS ERA. Ships cannot get released in the proper year because the EXE thinks it has already released them. The EXE is running from 2263 onwards as time progresses..so it is always running 15 years ahead. When I run 2263 middle era everything is fine from there on. However, If I run late ERA, ships are 5 years behind, and Xgen is 10 years behind. I logically used 15 years in an ERA's so that X-Gen would work out on the proper years. McCoy pipes in "Damn your logic Spock!!!"

So basically what is happening in my mod is any era that is not set with the original timing of the hard code or original time file, gets out of sync. Ships will be released years ahead of their time in the early era, or not released until much later in late eras. Of course, fighters and missiles also get all screwed up because of this. This is affected by any era you pick, other than the middle ERA (2263). It is crystal clear to me now that each era must have its own start date hard coded!  :banghead:

The only options I really have at this point for the campaign to "appear" to work correctly change all my early ERA ships list dates starting at 0 then add +10 to all others plus use the original 10-year eras. Basically having a "fudge factor" starting the year at 2253 in the time file. Then, of course, my X-Era will not start when it should, 2283 instead of 2293... It really bothers me to be locked you into a certain time frame! It greatly limits our flexibility and creativity.

If these could be found and if we could change these in the EXE, then mods could work correctly no matter when a mod is supposed to take place. I do feel this is an important issue to work on if it can be done, otherwise, I feel that the work I am doing on my mod will end up another vanilla style mod and will never be released.

Thank you for your time and thoughts
Xeryx
« Last Edit: January 10, 2017, 08:07:25 pm by xeryx »

Offline TarMinyatur

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 938
  • Gender: Male
Re: Hex Editing of Starfleet executables
« Reply #626 on: January 10, 2017, 03:39:48 pm »
Which version of the game do you want to use for your mod? SFC2 Orion Pirates 2.563?

Offline xeryx

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 49
Re: Hex Editing of Starfleet executables
« Reply #627 on: January 10, 2017, 06:53:26 pm »
I am currently using 2.5.6.3.

The other issue that is a real pain in the rear is the shield reinforcement slider, is there any way to either disable it completely or change the formula? So that it does not dramatically affect the rate at which shields are reinforced.  So instead of being able to apply 100% of total energy of the ship available into the shields, maybe it could only do say 20% or 10%?   I know this issue has existed since the game was released, just wondering if it is even remotely possible?

Thank You Tar
« Last Edit: January 10, 2017, 08:00:01 pm by xeryx »

Offline TarMinyatur

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 938
  • Gender: Male
Re: Hex Editing of Starfleet executables
« Reply #628 on: January 11, 2017, 12:30:57 am »
Xeryx, I don't understand the issue with shield reinforcement. If I set my energy priorities with shields at least important ("5"), then the shields will never draw much power. Only after movement, weapons, and sensors are satisfied will the shields get any juice.

I guess you're talking about the AI? Or just automating shield reinforcement to reduce micromanagement -- so the slider is disabled. I don't know where to find this function in the exe. I have no idea how the AI does anything.

Shift + Scroll Lock will save your preferences for each ship in Assets\WeaponGroups\wqsb.ini. So you don't have to adjust the reinforcement slider ever again. On red alert the preferences are loaded (takes about 5 seconds sometimes)!

[F-CA]
RedAlertOverride=1
RedAlertEnginePriority=4
RedAlertWeaponPriority=4
RedAlertShieldPriority=5
RedAlertTractorPriority=5
RedAlertEWPriority=1
RedAlertShieldReinforcement=14
RedAlertShield1=0
RedAlertShield2=0
RedAlertShield3=0
RedAlertShield4=1
RedAlertShield5=0
RedAlertShield6=0
RedAlertECM=1
RedAlertECCM=2
RedAlertSpeed=14
RedAlertWeapon1=N
RedAlertProjectileType1=
RedAlertWeapon2=N
RedAlertProjectileType2=
RedAlertPhaserCap=49

Offline TarMinyatur

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 938
  • Gender: Male
Re: Hex Editing of Starfleet executables
« Reply #629 on: January 11, 2017, 12:50:13 am »
An issue with time is missile speed. If I recall correctly, medium-speed missiles arrive at year zero +5. This can likely be modified to year zero +15 or whatever. The game uses 163 (for Y163) and 2263 as hard-coded starting dates in functions. As you know, the first year of a campaign can be set at 0 or 1984 or 2010 or whatever. This is unfortunately a cosmetic number with no SFB-based meaning.

time.gf
[Clock/StartingDate]
BaseYear   = 2263
0   = 0
1   = 10
2   = 20
3   = 40

I asssume these values for 0,1,2,3 are ignored?

I found the variable that is added to the shiplist's Year First Available. This is called the "Date Introduced" in the vessel library. I tried a value of zero, instead of the default 2263. The vessel library can handle negative numbers. So the Fed CA shows as  "-33" in that case for its YFA.

Add these lines to your StarFleetOP.txt in the SFC_Editor folder...

Code: [Select]
Tab Year

CDA68: 1i // Vessel Library's "Date Introduced" (Shiplist YFA is added to this value) // 2263

All seems cosmetic. I don't know how the dynaverse campaign time works yet. Somewhere "BaseYear" gets +10. So it would be something like the following in IDA:

mov eax, BaseYear
add eax, 0Ah
« Last Edit: January 11, 2017, 09:40:48 pm by TarMinyatur »

Offline xeryx

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 49
Re: Hex Editing of Starfleet executables
« Reply #630 on: January 11, 2017, 09:47:41 am »
Tar,
Thank you!!

I will add this soon and see how the TOS section works.

Think of it as 2 clocks. One in the EXE and one from the Time file.  We can change the Time file, but if the EXE time is not matched to the same a the eras in the Time file then the two will become out of sync. Because the game uses the EXE game clock for almost everything.

The easiest way to test this is to watch for ships to be introduced in the campaign, I spent a lot of time doing this trying to figure out this issue. Initially, I was focused about my TOS scratching my head about how ships that should not be available to buy at the auction kept showing up.  I kept playing with the dates of the ships and then I decided to try the other eras. Middle worked exactly as it was supposed to, ships released on their commissioning dates. The rest is explained above.

If you watch the news in the campaign, it will tell you when a ship is commissioned.  To properly get your ships commissioned through the eras, your time needs to start at a zero date.  For example, when I run my TOS era..every ship is already commissioned in TOS, because the EXE Zero date is 2263, It isn't using the Time file for those things. It is using a time clock in the EXE for missiles, fighters, and ships. The Time file is used for what YOU see and giving YOU a superficial way of changing the start dates of eras and stuff.
If you deviate from the 10-year eras in the TIME file then that is where the problems start.

In a nutshell; Any and all (-) service dates are seen by the game as already commissioned (again watch the Auction you should see those ships available in the auction in and in the News you will never see them).  They are not released year by year, I repeat they are not released the year of their in-service date, they are all released at one time. You would use these (-) in-service dates to supplement your early auction with ships for the first year, until more ships get commissioned.

The start date is 2263 in EXE and 0 in the ships and fighter lists, in a stock campaign starting in the Early era which is 2263 all ships before zero are already commissioned. Then you will see new ships appear with a start date after zero get commissioned on a yearly basis when available.  Like you said about missiles, it is set to like a +10, 20, or whatever and that is how it know when to release them. But it uses the start date in the EXE to do this, not the TIME file. The TIME file is only a cosmetic change for the years to appear on the screen as you want them.  The Real-Game Clock is based in the EXE at 2263, This RGC  is what the ships list and fighter list use to release the ships (watch the news feed in the campaign). That is why it is always based on 2263 in the ships list.

In my mod; if I change this Start year in the EXE 2263 to 2248 then all ships must have +15 added to them for the service dates. Then I should see the TOS ships, and all ships thereafter, commissioned in the proper years after 2248.

So until the other ERA start numbers can be found then we will only have 10-year eras to use, and your Time file must match or ships will not commission in the proper years when starting in different ERAS. 

I realise that BPV Matching is the most important for Battles but the game also uses ships from the era, so it is important not to have the AI pulling from a more advanced ERA, because it thinks that that ship is already commissioned.  For example; In my mod I was seeing TMP era ships in battle against me in the TOS era, because to the game time started at 2263, not my start time of 2248.  This was using a fully stocked shipslist, the only faction modded was the feds, with plenty of ships for BPV availability and matching. So it was not a BPV issue but a time issue.

Quote
time.gf
[Clock/StartingDate]
BaseYear   = 2263
0   = 0
1   = 10
2   = 20
3   = 40

I asssume these values for 0,1,2,3 are ignored?

The RGC (real game clock) ignores these, however like you said they coincide with the ERA's that are hard coded in the EXE. If you change them you will see your campaign era start when you think it should start.  Meanwhile, the RGC is always starting at 2263. That is why missiles will not be commissioned correctly because you cannot change the service dates like you can fighters.

You can easily prove what I have said.
Change your TIME file start date to 2258 then find a couple of ships or fighters and change their service date to 1,2, and 3.  Then start the campaign in the early era.  Even though you will see the year as 2258 when one year passes (2259) ship/ftr 1 should be available and show in the news feed and so on and so on.

So just to reiterate, the 0 year in ships list and fighter list are directly linked to the start year in the EXE, not the TIME file. So when you change the start year in the EXE to 2248 in my case. A ship with an in-service date of 2 will show up in 2250. Not 2265 as intended by the original numbers in the ships list.  You would have to change all of the in-service dates to compensate for this change, but ships will commission properly on the date they are supposed to.   

Another example, let us say I wanted to do a TNG mod with a start year of 2363 for sake of easy numbers.  Let's assume I am starting from scratch with all new ships.  Using the stock game file, and using the fictional in service dates, I would have to add 100 to all my ships, for them to come out on actual start date...but guess what! Since the RGC  is still starting at 2263. I would have to wait for 100 years to pass in the game for those ships to show up at the auction and be commissioned and show up in the news feed. To make that work, you would have to do some fancy trickery and not use actual in-service dates of the ships, they would all be based on 2263 and 10 year eras. While changing the TIME file to give you the proper visual of the proper year passage.

What if someone wanted to do a real multi-era mod from Pre-TOS to TNG? Naturally, they are limited to 4 ERAS because of the game, so they have to compensate by stretching out each ERA.  Do you see where I am going with this? If we can find those additional dates of the +10, +20, and +30 in the EXE, then we can make much better mods where time flows correctly and then we are not locked into a 10 year ERA because of the EXE.

« Last Edit: January 11, 2017, 01:20:27 pm by xeryx »

Offline TarMinyatur

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 938
  • Gender: Male
Re: Hex Editing of Starfleet executables
« Reply #631 on: January 11, 2017, 02:50:17 pm »
Yep, the time stuff is annoying. The +10, +20, and +40 modifiers are in the .exe somewhere. 2273, 2283, and 2303 are not used (at least as integers) in the code as immediate values. So we're looking for these bytes: 0A 14 28

Are you sure the campaign's advanced era begins at +30? I'll look for both +30 and +40...

It could also be determined by date = 2263 + n*10, where n is 0, 1, 2, 3. The 0Ah is the clue. Perhaps the value of "early" is zero, "mid" is one, "late" is two, and "advanced" is three.

Some people have used trickery to make early era feel longer. The first year has 3650 days instead of 365. So ten years of gameplay occurs before the game clock increments to year +1. The server admin adjusts the cycles per year thereafter. Everyone playing sees the year as 2263.1825 by midyear. But 2264.183 would be the next midyear. Not ideal, but you do what you can with the tools we have.

Edit: I found the variables for the eras in Skirmish mode. I don't think they apply to Campaign mode.

Code: [Select]
Tab Year

CDA68: 1i // Vessel Library's "Date Introduced" (Shiplist YFA is added to this value) // 2263
47BFE4: 4i // Final inclusive year of Era in terms of YFA for Skirmish Mode (Early, Mid, Late, Advanced) // 0, 7, 35, 100
« Last Edit: January 11, 2017, 06:00:47 pm by TarMinyatur »

Offline xeryx

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 49
Re: Hex Editing of Starfleet executables
« Reply #632 on: January 11, 2017, 08:06:12 pm »
Tar,
I did some testing.

The year change works completely for ships in the early era!!! WOOT WOOT
All of my ships show up correctly, all of the ships after 0 show the in-service date 10 years sooner in early era (I changed my start date to 2253).  They also show up when supposed to in the campaign, in both the news and the Auction. I still have other eras to test, after my shipslist is complete, but initial testing looks promising.

The fighters however, may be tied to another number.  I got strange results but I need to do more testing to ensure my numbers are good.

Here is what I did, I have 4 hawks, I took hawk one, made the ISD (in service date) -15 to 11, Hawk 2 11-21, Hawk 3 21-31, and Hawk 4 31-999.

When I went into skirmish mode and loaded up a CVA, in the early era. Then I went into the supply hanger and when I cycles the fighters, I received a ship not found error! This usually happens when dates don't overlap properly. When in middle era the Hawk 1 shows up, but in Late era, all of them show up.  That is very strange, to say the least.

In the campaign, my fighters did not show up when they were supposed too.  Maybe you can see if you can replicate this, I will try with a different fighterlist tomorrow, just in case mine has an error.

I wonder if they use this that you mentioned.
Quote
The game uses 163 (for Y163)
I guess all we can do is "Hope" that they used the same dates as the Time.gf file.

Well good job TAR! just finding the start year was a huge help. Thank you very much.

I still have to go through my ships list and change dates for testing.  Maybe tomorrow, not sure as I have to study. I will post more as soon as I can test further.

Unfortunately, I am not a coder by any stretch of the imagination. I wish I could help you find them, though.
I guess baby steps are in order for this.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2017, 08:33:45 pm by xeryx »

Offline TarMinyatur

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 938
  • Gender: Male
Re: Hex Editing of Starfleet executables
« Reply #633 on: January 11, 2017, 08:37:41 pm »
Glad to help, Xeryx. Upon second thought, the Y163 reference is only found in SFC2 Community Edition. I guess Firesoul and Bonk had some input back in 2012 to get SFB-style dates in the game somehow.

The SFC_Editor can modify missile speeds if the campaign is not working as you hope. Let's say medium-speed missiles arrive too early. Just change the speed variable to slow (8, 12, 16 or whatever) for all ship-based missiles (Type-1 and Type-4).

Let me know what's going on with fighters when you figure it out. If a fighter with a YFA of 2268 arrives in 2263, that's a pain. I don't know how to fix that. Hopefully fighters and ships will obey their in-service and retired-from-service dates. There are reports of units not obeying these limits in campaigns. Perhaps there is a % chance for obsolete units to remain in service... Or perhaps there's a % chance for early entry -- prototypes. Just guessing.

Offline Captain Adam

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 754
  • Gender: Male
Re: Hex Editing of Starfleet executables
« Reply #634 on: January 11, 2017, 08:56:33 pm »
Hmmm, you mean Kirk is refusing to decommission the Enterprise when he's suppose to, it's plausible.
Sidebar: Tar, I just put the Saratoga Mega Phasers on an Excelsior pylons, LMAO, looks like a BEAST!

Odo :    
"Being accused of a crime is not a disgrace, Chief. Some of the great figures of history have shared the honour with you."
to O'Brien
DS9 : Tribunal

Offline d4v1ks

  • D.Net VIP
  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 788
  • Gender: Male
Re: Hex Editing of Starfleet executables
« Reply #635 on: January 12, 2017, 06:54:23 am »
Tar, I just put the Saratoga Mega Phasers on an Excelsior pylons, LMAO, looks like a BEAST!




 :o  you are not trying to tease up people with a model pack of some sort, are you?
"But he isn't wearing anything at all!" (The Emperor's New Clothes)

Offline Captain Adam

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 754
  • Gender: Male
Re: Hex Editing of Starfleet executables
« Reply #636 on: January 12, 2017, 09:29:55 am »
If I didn't have to work 9+ hours and have this terrible NYC commute each day I would but you know how time and fatigue affect modding. Sorry.

I will work harder on it.  :P
Odo :    
"Being accused of a crime is not a disgrace, Chief. Some of the great figures of history have shared the honour with you."
to O'Brien
DS9 : Tribunal

Offline xeryx

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 49
Re: Hex Editing of Starfleet executables
« Reply #637 on: January 12, 2017, 06:24:10 pm »
I have been able to do some testing this afternoon, and I am very pleased to say that I have great news.

The new values that TAR provided for the Skirmish helped a lot.

Initially, I used fighters as my testing tool.  I spaced out all fighters 2 years apart. So I could determine the effects of the numbers in the era's.  Then I could see what fighters showed up and when. When I reached the end of a fighter in the list, It gave me the year. Which corresponded somewhat with the numbers below.

The original values are
0= early,7= middle, 35=late, 100=advanced

Thankfully the numbers were actually very straight forward.

The original year (2263) value is the zero year in the fighter list as well! Mine is set to 2253

In the EXE, I set my year tab numbers to these in the Skirmish mode 9,19,29,100. I kept the hundred years out so that all ships could be included.  Then I set up my fighters were also set for ISD's of -50-11, 11-21,21-31,31-999 Great news! All fighters showed up correctly for each era.

Testing revealed that the numbers should be used for the ending date of the ERA.  We are now one step closer. 

Once I have my ships list complete I will verify with it as well, but I am pretty sure it works just fine.

I am unsure if those numbers above affected the campaign at all, but my fighters worked in exactly as they were supposed to in the campaign as well.

Right now I am just glad things work correctly. 

Need to test this; To see if these numbers affect the ERA's in the Campaign, if not then there is another set of numbers that do. Maybe they are similar to the ones Tar already found?  Also, the missile ISD's which I will find the exact dates for and report them here.  They will be like these numbers were, additive because they acted the same after changing my start date.

I will test my campaign after I make my years of in-service edits, so that should be this weekend sometime.

Great JOB! TAR!
BTW I need my account activated or an activation email sent to me on Hot and Spicy, but no one has answered my multiple emails to them.  So that is why I am posting here.

Great Scotts what a great looking ship you have there.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 07:15:06 pm by xeryx »

Offline TarMinyatur

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 938
  • Gender: Male
Re: Hex Editing of Starfleet executables
« Reply #638 on: January 12, 2017, 11:48:14 pm »
I tested missile speed availability tonight. The game treats this differently in campaign mode.

In skirmish mode the era acts as an incremental counter (0 to 3).

Early (0) does not activate the right arrow next to missile speed, so you're stuck with slow.
Mid (1) activates the right arrow, allowing you to choose medium speed missiles. The right arrow is dark.
Late (2) activates the right arrow when you choose medium speed, allowing fast missiles. The right arrow is dark.
Advanced (3) activates the right arrow when you choose fast speed, but nothing is better than fast. The right arrow is bright but useless.

The Skirmish Eras for the SFC_Editor are ignored in Skirmish mode for missile speed. All that matters is the Era choice via the Era button.

Customized Eras do indeed affect ship and fighter selection. If I set the values to 0, 1, 2, 3 then only ships with YFA of 3 or less (Year 2266 by default) will appear in the Advanced-era vessel library. Only fighters with a YFA of 3 or less will appear in spacedock.

In campaign mode, missile speed upgrades are determined by the time.gf modifier.

[Clock/StartingDate]
BaseYear   = 0 // 2263 is just for show
0         = 0 // (Negative numbers or letters are converted to zero).
1         = 0 // Medium speed drones arrive in 4th year.
2         = 2 //  Medium speed drones arrive in 2nd year.
3         = 10 // Medium instantly available. Fast drones arrive in 7th year.

So obviously the game has hardcoded the values 4 and 17 for missile speed upgrades.

04 00 00 00 11 00 00 00 are the 8 consecutive bytes to search for in the .exe.

Fighters seem to be delayed in appearing in the dynaverse spacedock. A fighter with a YFA of 7 wasn't available until 3 years later than expected. Could simply be some lag in updating the ftrlist. My game turns were quicker than typical, just 90 seconds/turn instead of 10 minutes or whatever for a real campaign.

Offline TarMinyatur

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 938
  • Gender: Male
Re: Hex Editing of Starfleet executables
« Reply #639 on: January 13, 2017, 03:22:33 am »
The dates for missile speed upgrades can be customized for your campaigns. It doesn't have to be +4 and +17.

Good thing Taldren picked a number like 17 for the year of fast missile arrival (2280-2263=17). Searching for 16's would have been brutal! IDA found a small number of cmp eax,17h. I actually found the button elements first. Lots of verification going on in the UI.

StarFleetOP.txt:

Code: [Select]
Tab Year

CDA68: 1i // Vessel Library's "Date Introduced" (Shiplist YFA is added to this value) // 2263
47BFE4: 4i // Final inclusive year of Era, in terms of YFA, for Skirmish Mode (Early, Mid, Late, Advanced) // 0, 7, 35, 100
8689F: 1b // YFA Medium-speed Missiles (button highlighter) // 4
86B4F: 1b // YFA Medium-speed Missiles (button click) // 4
DB0FB: 1b // YFA Medium-speed Missiles (verifier) // 4
868B7: 1b // YFA Fast-speed Missiles (button highlighter) // 17
86B63: 1b // YFA Fast-speed Missiles (button click) // 17
DB100: 1b // YFA Fast-speed Missiles (verifier) // 17