Mikhail Ragulin

Update news: There's a new version on the way soon. Here's a quick rundown of what it contains... Some new weaponry; a line of automatic rifles, a new addition to the explosives category (M202), a couple of replacement machine pistols (replacing the Trejo and VP70), and fully functioning grenade launchers: The auto rifles are like bigger versions of the assault rifle (more power, but higher recoil). The M202 is a multi-shot incendiary rocket launcher, capable of burst fire. The MP's are in for their bigger magazine sizes (MP's have had a little buff in general). The Type 10 is a grenade discharger that can lob frag and tear gas grenades further than the eye can see (which in game terms, isn't excessive). Another change is inventory sizes. The vanilla size backpack and belt is back, due to their being more small stuff that can fit in them (the last version saw the inclusion of a big anti tank grenade, and the new Type 10's also fits in there). Some items will fill the backpack, however, namely the medikits and M9A1-7 ammo - and primary weapons don't fit in.

I have a couple of non-reloadable weapons. The ammo shows up in the equip screen though so it's not exactly what you're looking for, but it's still a neat way of doing it. Make an ammo for the weapon. For example, one of my non-reload weapons is the einstoss - so it uses an ammo called einstoss_ammo. Give it the same image (or a trimmed version - in fact, giving it a transparent image would probably work, and there'd be an empty space where the ammo should be in the equip screen). In ammos, the einstoss_ammo size is set to 0x0 - this way, it can't be moved or selected, and the image is just a placeholder. Therefore, although it has an ammo...it doesn't.

It might be OpenOffice, or it might be a user error. The best way to check would be to open up a vanilla file with OO, save it, and then see if the same thing happens - this would confirm if OO is the culprit or not.

And, may I add, full of something else.

Yes - I'll get right on it. It's true. They know nothing.

Speaking of random kill shots, I think I've managed to decrease them. I was getting pissed off with being wasted behind cover (from distance), so in this edition the cover value (at the top of weapons_gc) has been increased slightly (1, from vanilla's 0.9 - basically, it gives cover a higher value, like 45% cover is now 50%), and I'm not getting the random deaths. If troops die, it's my own damn fault - either the aliens have got too close, or I've left myself open from the side.

It's probably a play-style thing. I tend not to pick up many kills with rifles, I get most of them with the breaching weapons. I'm screwed without them though, as they soften a lot of targets before I go in for close range satisfaction. Terror sites use the same timer as vanilla. They're on the map for between 12 and 24 hours. However, I'm pretty sure that if there is a bird on route to them, then they stay on the map - which means that they could be on the map for much longer than this, if it's on the other side of the world and charlie is on its way. It's quite exploitable too - knowing that it's going to be there for at least 12 hours, I like to wait until sunrise. But you had a ship on route? I make that pop/poop typo quite often. The last time was when messaging some hot girl. Didn't hear back from her, oddly enough.

I only get success with the burst from point blank range (and sometimes, not even then). Give it a try at 4 - or another way would be to up the TU% (to 80 from 60), which might be better...that way, it could only be used defensively. If there is going to be a weapon that's OP compared to the others, I'd be happy if it is the AR. Yeah, that's a vanilla bug, I've reported it before. It happens when the inventory is full (or close to full - in which case the smaller inventory sizes amplify the frequency) - sometimes the item just vanishes. Bit annoying when it's a weapon that disappears. I get around it by dropping the item from the hand, and moving another over, then putting the first item into the backpack manually. I got used to it after a while.

Is it possible to add some kind of "upload completion %" bar, or "time remaining"?

That's odd...the snipers shouldn't be hitting for that low. Keep an eye on it. The starting one, the enfield, does 35 damage (so the very lowest it can go, with the random damage modifier, should be 18). Yeah, the carbines are pretty nice now. It's useful having a weapon that can hit for two aimed shots (even though it's range is low). The levers, they're like a treat...I usually wait until I've got someone with strength and accuracy over 65, and then they're so much fun. How about the new-style AR's, with the bigger burst/less range?

Taking friendly fire to a whole new level! The auto rifles will be the "daddy" version of the current AR's. They'll be more powerful, as they all fire normal rifle cartridges (unlike the intermediate ones in the AR's) - probably following the same, or slightly lower, model as the semi auto's (30-60), rather than that of the AR's (20-40) - but will have bigger recoil (probably 65, and less suppression than the lmg's so as not to tread on them). They'll have a bit more range than AR's, but probably less than the semi auto's. So they'll be good for riflemen who have high strength (over the recoil limit). The one I couldn't remember may well have been the avs-36.

That could actually be in the next version. I'll be adding a line of "automatic rifles" - which is why the m14 has disappeared in this version (with it not being strictly an assault rifle, due to it's full sized chambering), as it will be in that category (with probably the avtomat, fg 42, and one more that I can't remember). The m14 is still in the game at the moment...but only friendly AI units have them. Which gave me a thought - I could add the colt single action army that you mentioned earlier as a civilian only weapon, making it sort of a battle pickup gun (like the m14 is in this version).

We're all systems go for v1.09. I've updated the download link in the first post with the new one. I'll update the details in the first post this evening and tomorrow (there's been quite a few changes, but they're mostly within the weapons as oppose to gameplay). In the meanwhile, here's the new weapon stat-sheet. The bits in bold are changes from the last version (all will be explained later). The tool-tips and what-not in the game are all up to date, so this sheet is really just for referencing changes from the last version (and spotting new guns): Also, the thread title needs updating to 1.09 - can I do this, or is it a job for a higher power?

Looking at the inverse situation, I'd do the same as you - carry on. Can we go as far to say that he's asking development to stop via a facebook message? In which case I'd carry on, and ignore the fb message! This is because Xenonauts is using none of the original UFO stuff that JG made. Here, he'd just be kicking up a fuss over nothing (in reality, I'm sure he's a nice guy) - with Xeno not using any elements of the original game (code, graphics, anything). I don't think, in this situation, that it would even be a question of morals for whoever's making Xeno - the only thing in question is non-material (the inspiration to make a similar game, something that's been lacking from the marketplace for a while), as the new game is a tribute to a genre and does not require anything from the OG to function. I'd tell him of my disappointment at his views on my project, and inquire as to what he thinks he is trying to achieve, and then plough on.

It doesn't - so long as the original modder is ok with the person using their work. If it is just changes, chances are it'd be a download of a few mb. The issue to me looks like Xenophobia is way more than that (>100mb is more than a tweak or two), which is obviously going to impinge on the design of the original mod. Sub-mods of that size aren't sub-mods. An interesting analogy would be patches and dlc. A few balance changes would be like a patch, whereas the dlc is (or should be!) more game-changing - and Xenophobia, for example, would firmly fall into the camp of the latter. Would you let someone release dlc for Xenonauts without your permission, as long as they credited it appropriately? Although the question could be what counts as appropriate credit? Does the original maker need to be informed/on-board? If you'd decided to make Xenonauts a dlc update for the original X-com, which required the original game to play instead of being the standalone version it is, surely one would need the permission of Gollop? And without this permission, would you then carry on making it as a dlc (and going so far as to publicly state that the wishes of Gollop are worthless, and you'll carry on disrespecting said wishes for as long as you damn well please, and there's not a hoot he can do about it), or would you respect his decision (even if not agreeing with it) and make it as a standalone instead? I wouldn't complain - and haven't. There's a few guys who have stated, in the M'nauts thread, that they use their own mods/alterations on top of it. I wouldn't dream of telling someone how to play it (thou must play it this way, or not at all!), I'm not into that. There wouldn't be a problem. The issue with XNT/Xenophobia is that those changes had gone too far for the XNT guys, and when they requested Slayerjerman to stop, they were greeted with accusations of aggression, bullying and harassment. None of which was visible from the XNT guys in anything I read; the lack of respect was coming from Slayerjerman and other Xenophobia users. This is the main issue for me - the lack of clear rules/code as to what can be done with other peoples work without their consent. I don't want to read crap like what was being levelled at the XNT guys, when all they asked was for their content to be removed. I'd rather see respect for fellow forum users, which surely isn't too much to ask for. It's a big grey area, and it's clear that for such projects to work, there needs to be communication between the parties. Without that, it just degenerates into shit-slinging. I don't think a system of letting people use the work of others as long as they says thanks in a thread, without actually having the consent of the guys who have spent a lot of time and energy (and in XNT's case, money) on the project, is a good idea - it could cause resentment. For me, it's a morality issue. What can be done about it? Not much probably. It's just not nice to see.

It's a big old dollop of grey area. Hopefully, this thread can go someway to clarifying things. Ah, sub-mods. From my experience in other modding communities, they're fine - up until a point. As long as there is the permission of the original mod-makers (MM), then there's not a problem. However, I think that if, or when, the original MM decides that they no longer feel the sub-mod is respecting the values of the original mod, then the sub-mod should be pulled. Sub-mods tend to outgrow themselves, and evolve into something different. At this point, it's a better idea to make a standalone mod, an original, from scratch....modifying vanilla files instead of the mod, and not requiring anything from the original mod. If the MM say don't use our stuff, then that's the gospel. If someone said that to me about my mod, I'd be livid. I'm disappointed it was said to anyone, and it's not the kind of thing I want to read, or even be involved in a forum where stuff like this would go on. That breaks any respect in a modding community - anyone joining up after reading something like that...what would they think? That this behaviour is the norm? That it's ok to disrespect the work and wishes of other people? Now, as someone who has made a sub-mod which eventually grew to standalone status, I can say it doesn't have to happen like the above example. The MM found himself involved in commercial projects and didn't have the time to devote to the original mod, so they were never in direct competition - which is a pretty rare situation. However, if at any point he'd have said "that's it", I'd have stopped it and started another mod - from scratch - involving none of the work from the original mod. That's respect, and that's what a modding community needs in order to function smoothly. Assets themselves are a grey area too. For me, in this game, it's mostly artwork. Code is code, it's all based on vanilla anyway, just changing numbers in a file. That can't be "protected" - and even if it's not, that's not an excuse to rip off ideas from other mods. For me, modding is about creativity. Like something in another mod, and want to include it? Find a new way of doing it. I'm sure there are concepts in M'nauts that are similar to other mods here, but done differently. One example would be between kabill's enhanced crash sites mod - in M'nauts, I've brought back power core explosions to make crash sites more crashy. The same as what kabill is doing in his mod - similar end result, two different ways of doing it. But that's just me, I value creativity highly - I haven't actually played any Xeno mods, as I want my ideas, and the execution of them, to be my own. If xml's and the like were to become grey area's, it can create paranoia and uglyness. On another forum, there was one guy who was convinced I had "stolen" code from his mod. This guy was all kinds of wrong - he admitted openly to not being able to make sense of the file in question (it was LUA), and that he'd had his code-guy check over it and found nothing, but he still persisted in frequently making accusations and derogatory remarks to anyone and everyone who'd listen. Why? Who knows. In all likeliness, it was due to ambiguity in the modding "code of conduct" regarding text files (coupled with the fact he was also an obnoxious pr...). That's a good example of why text files, are, essentially, a free-for-all. But, again, this doesn't mean that they have to be ripped-off. That ain't modding, Jim.

Don't worry about it, I double post in there quite often. It's finished, just needs packing up and a final check. I'd say they'll be a new link up for it by this time tomorrow (I could have done it by tonight, but I'm shattered, and wouldn't want to miss any bits out).

Oh my.

The png's are all in the "none" folders because the soldier can't use a weapon when flying, so the weapon is holstered/put away. So there are no animations for flying soldiers with weapons in hand. I should imagine it's possible to just change what the animation source is pointing at if you want airborne troops with weapons in hand, but one might lose the glow effects.

Regarding file size, I'd say 100mb is more than adequate. I'd snap your hand off for 50mb, and I'd probably still only use half of that.

Good idea. I pack my stuff up as .rar. How much mb do we get? My attachments bit says ~96mb, which seems very generous.

I forgot to mention, it's the same for sentinel armour too.

Dropship escorts find a place when going after landed UFO's. They're a good idea, but not much use with vanilla landing/bounty settings, as it's easy to get all the materials needed from just crashed UFO's.

I guess you mean for the assault shields? The reason the sprites don't work for them when flying is the same as why the wolf armour won't work for you when flying - there is no code for the flying part in the spectres. It's easy to see when one opens up a working buzzard shield spectre - for example, combat shield & pistol: <anim src="units/xenonaut/armour.buzzard/none/hover_w" anim="hover_NY"/> <anim src="units/xenonaut/armour.buzzard/none/hover_e" anim="hover_K"/> <anim src="units/xenonaut/armour.buzzard/none/hover_n" anim="hover_E"/> <anim src="units/xenonaut/armour.buzzard/none/hover_s" anim="hover_D"/> <anim src="units/xenonaut/armour.buzzard/none/hover_nw" anim="hover_ENY"/> <anim src="units/xenonaut/armour.buzzard/none/hover_ne" anim="hover_EK"/> <anim src="units/xenonaut/armour.buzzard/none/hover_sw" anim="hover_DNY"/> <anim src="units/xenonaut/armour.buzzard/none/hover_se" anim="hover_DK"/> <anim src="units/xenonaut/armour.buzzard/none/prehover_w" anim="prehover_NY"/> <anim src="units/xenonaut/armour.buzzard/none/prehover_e" anim="prehover_K"/> <anim src="units/xenonaut/armour.buzzard/none/prehover_n" anim="prehover_E"/> <anim src="units/xenonaut/armour.buzzard/none/prehover_s" anim="prehover_D"/> <anim src="units/xenonaut/armour.buzzard/none/prehover_nw" anim="prehover_ENY"/> <anim src="units/xenonaut/armour.buzzard/none/prehover_ne" anim="prehover_EK"/> <anim src="units/xenonaut/armour.buzzard/none/prehover_sw" anim="prehover_DNY"/> <anim src="units/xenonaut/armour.buzzard/none/prehover_se" anim="prehover_DK"/> <anim src="units/xenonaut/armour.buzzard/none/posthover_w" anim="posthover_NY"/> <anim src="units/xenonaut/armour.buzzard/none/posthover_e" anim="posthover_K"/> <anim src="units/xenonaut/armour.buzzard/none/posthover_n" anim="posthover_E"/> <anim src="units/xenonaut/armour.buzzard/none/posthover_s" anim="posthover_D"/> <anim src="units/xenonaut/armour.buzzard/none/posthover_nw" anim="posthover_ENY"/> <anim src="units/xenonaut/armour.buzzard/none/posthover_ne" anim="posthover_EK"/> <anim src="units/xenonaut/armour.buzzard/none/posthover_sw" anim="posthover_DNY"/> <anim src="units/xenonaut/armour.buzzard/none/posthover_se" anim="posthover_DK"/> <anim src="units/xenonaut/armour.buzzard/none/hoverglow_w" anim="hoverglow_NY"/> <anim src="units/xenonaut/armour.buzzard/none/hoverglow_e" anim="hoverglow_K"/> <anim src="units/xenonaut/armour.buzzard/none/hoverglow_n" anim="hoverglow_E"/> <anim src="units/xenonaut/armour.buzzard/none/hoverglow_s" anim="hoverglow_D"/> <anim src="units/xenonaut/armour.buzzard/none/hoverglow_nw" anim="hoverglow_ENY"/> <anim src="units/xenonaut/armour.buzzard/none/hoverglow_ne" anim="hoverglow_EK"/> <anim src="units/xenonaut/armour.buzzard/none/hoverglow_sw" anim="hoverglow_DNY"/> <anim src="units/xenonaut/armour.buzzard/none/hoverglow_se" anim="hoverglow_DK"/> These are at the end of the file. Open up one for the assault shield, and it doesn't have these (and neither do any does wolf armour, hence no rotation when flying when you tried that). Easiest way to remedy is to copy the spectre file, replace all "combat" with "assault", and put the spectre in the assaultshield.pistol folder. Rinse and repeat for other shield.item variations.

Nah, only once. Their health is pretty low, so the first explosion kills them (although, on very rare occasions, they do survive the first blast and set another one off). I'm not a fan of save or die either - which means reapers have been turned down a bit. In the current version, the Sebs bring two along for every mission type, but it's now one (apart from terror missions, which is still two). Two on non-terror maps gets a bit too hard (the terror maps generally have longer lines of sight, so they're easier to kill).