Talk:Enemy Unknown (1994) Extended - Revision history

Euman: moved Talk:Enemy Unknown Extended to Talk:Enemy Unknown (1994) Extended: Clarify version

2013-03-22T22:43:20Z

moved Talk:Enemy Unknown Extended to Talk:Enemy Unknown (1994) Extended: Clarify version

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:43, 22 March 2013
(No difference)

Oathbreaker: /* XcomUtil + UFO Extender etc */ new section

2013-02-07T21:58:50Z

XcomUtil + UFO Extender etc: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:58, 7 February 2013
Line 557:		Line 557:

	:I assume you're not seeing these issues when you don't launch the game through the extender? You could also try asking [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/X-COM-Support-f10.html here]. - <span style="font-size:xx-small"> [[User:Bomb_Bloke\|Bomb Bloke]] ([[User_talk:Bomb_Bloke\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bomb_Bloke\|Contribs]])</span> 20:59, 19 June 2011 (EDT)		:I assume you're not seeing these issues when you don't launch the game through the extender? You could also try asking [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/X-COM-Support-f10.html here]. - <span style="font-size:xx-small"> [[User:Bomb_Bloke\|Bomb Bloke]] ([[User_talk:Bomb_Bloke\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bomb_Bloke\|Contribs]])</span> 20:59, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

			== XcomUtil + UFO Extender etc ==

			Started a section. I'm a bit of a tech neanderthal, was hoping others could help out.

			Q: Is there a way to get more map variety with TFTD maps in UFO? [[User:Oathbreaker\|Oathbreaker]] 16:58, 7 February 2013 (EST)

Bomb Bloke: /* Crashes */

2011-06-20T00:59:27Z

Crashes

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:59, 20 June 2011
Line 549:		Line 549:

	I've run into several problems since installing the patches - game crashing, mouse issues and the battlescape not displaying properly. What would be the best place to ask for help? [[User:Majick\|Majick]] 11:17, 18 June 2011 (EDT)		I've run into several problems since installing the patches - game crashing, mouse issues and the battlescape not displaying properly. What would be the best place to ask for help? [[User:Majick\|Majick]] 11:17, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

			:Here is probably as good as anywhere; unfortunately it doesn't look like Seb will be working on this for some time, so it may be that there's no solutions to your specific problems.

			:More information will be required in order to help, though; details on your exact OS, when the game crashes and what error messages it produces, exactly when the mouse works and when it doesn't, and exactly what graphical errors you're seeing are all important.

			:You previously mentioned you're running the Steam release via Windows 7. Note that if you launch this through the Steam interface, it'll run the DOS release of the original game via DOSBox. UFO Extender uses the Collector's Edition version of the game instead (Steam provides both). You may need to use [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/files/index.php?dlid=680 this patch] to clear up some issues later versions of Windows have with the CE releases.

			:I assume you're not seeing these issues when you don't launch the game through the extender? You could also try asking [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/X-COM-Support-f10.html here]. - <span style="font-size:xx-small"> [[User:Bomb_Bloke\|Bomb Bloke]] ([[User_talk:Bomb_Bloke\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bomb_Bloke\|Contribs]])</span> 20:59, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

Majick at 15:17, 18 June 2011

2011-06-18T15:17:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:17, 18 June 2011
Line 546:		Line 546:
	::Oh NVM. I see that you meant 9.7. I found it and will have to give it a look.[[User:Mannon\|Mannon]] 18:43, 3 April 2011 (EDT)		::Oh NVM. I see that you meant 9.7. I found it and will have to give it a look.[[User:Mannon\|Mannon]] 18:43, 3 April 2011 (EDT)

	= ~~Mouse Issue?~~ =		= Crashes =

	I've ~~just~~ run ~~through~~ the ~~installation process for this~~, ~~but when I load it up I have no~~ mouse ~~pointer. I've using Windows 7~~ and the ~~Steam edition of the game~~. ~~I can click past~~ the ~~initial Microprose logo, but when the game brings up the language selection I'm stuck. Can anyone suggest a solution, please~~? [[User:Majick\|Majick]] 06:06, 18 June 2011 (EDT)		I've run into several problems since installing the patches - game crashing, mouse issues and the battlescape not displaying properly. What would be the best place to ask for help? [[User:Majick\|Majick]] 11:17, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

Majick: Mouse question

2011-06-18T10:06:02Z

Mouse question

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:06, 18 June 2011
Line 545:		Line 545:
	:Another concern is XcomUtil by default makes several changes to the core game, in particular it alters the crafts, making them hold more soldiers. It goes so far as to change the craft's map files (I hate the Avenger, it no longer looks like the UFOpedia entry, but like a fat flying brick.) It even makes the interceptors capable of carrying soldiers. There is no option to turn this off without altering XCUSetup.bat or at least editing XcomUtil.cfg and doing something to fix the Avenger map. I'm not sure how to make those changes easy for someone short of supplying them with an alternate XCUSetup.bat and/or XcomUtil.cfg. Though there are definitely some nice benefits to having XcomUtil installed.[[User:Mannon\|Mannon]] 18:29, 3 April 2011 (EDT)</strike>		:Another concern is XcomUtil by default makes several changes to the core game, in particular it alters the crafts, making them hold more soldiers. It goes so far as to change the craft's map files (I hate the Avenger, it no longer looks like the UFOpedia entry, but like a fat flying brick.) It even makes the interceptors capable of carrying soldiers. There is no option to turn this off without altering XCUSetup.bat or at least editing XcomUtil.cfg and doing something to fix the Avenger map. I'm not sure how to make those changes easy for someone short of supplying them with an alternate XCUSetup.bat and/or XcomUtil.cfg. Though there are definitely some nice benefits to having XcomUtil installed.[[User:Mannon\|Mannon]] 18:29, 3 April 2011 (EDT)</strike>
	::Oh NVM. I see that you meant 9.7. I found it and will have to give it a look.[[User:Mannon\|Mannon]] 18:43, 3 April 2011 (EDT)		::Oh NVM. I see that you meant 9.7. I found it and will have to give it a look.[[User:Mannon\|Mannon]] 18:43, 3 April 2011 (EDT)

			= Mouse Issue? =

			I've just run through the installation process for this, but when I load it up I have no mouse pointer. I've using Windows 7 and the Steam edition of the game. I can click past the initial Microprose logo, but when the game brings up the language selection I'm stuck. Can anyone suggest a solution, please? [[User:Majick\|Majick]] 06:06, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

Mannon: /* Craft Always Ready */

2011-04-05T03:53:41Z

Craft Always Ready

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:53, 5 April 2011
Line 443:		Line 443:
	[[User:Zaimoni\|Zaimoni]] - You still need two Interceptors per base to conveniently shoot down Terror Ships before Plasma Cannons, or to conveniently shoot down all non-Battleships in the acts with finales (Infiltration, Base) with Plasma Cannons.		[[User:Zaimoni\|Zaimoni]] - You still need two Interceptors per base to conveniently shoot down Terror Ships before Plasma Cannons, or to conveniently shoot down all non-Battleships in the acts with finales (Infiltration, Base) with Plasma Cannons.

	::I've been experimenting with this and I think my opinion has flipped on it. I think craft that aren't fully refueled should be able to take off, but a craft with damage shouldn't. The reason is two-fold. Firstly it makes sense. While you can stop refueling an aircraft and launch it relatively quickly repairing an aircraft would be a whole other story. Except for very light damage you would have to dismantle parts of the aircraft and it simply would not be possible to fly it in such a state. Secondly, it removes all threat from shooting down battleships. Without this mod battleships are always a threat because even your best aircraft can get damaged and put out of service for quite some time. This leaves you having to decide whether it's worth the risk or if you should let it land or use secondary interceptors and cluster them in hopes of minimizing damage. But with this mod it completely alters this dynamic. You no longer have to worry about craft being taken out of service at all. You just launch away. As long as your Avenger's damage isn't too high they can take out a battleship single handedly with dual plama beams and probably have enough time to repair before the next one. In the meantime they can still kill all other UFO's with impunity even if they have 99% damage. I think it changes the game too much to keep it on as is.[[User:Mannon\|Mannon]] 23:47, 4 April 2011 (EDT)		[[User:Mannon\|Mannon]] - I've been experimenting with this and I think my opinion has flipped on it. I think craft that aren't fully refueled should be able to take off, but a craft with damage shouldn't. The reason is two-fold. Firstly it makes sense. While you can stop refueling an aircraft and launch it relatively quickly repairing an aircraft would be a whole other story. Except for very light damage you would have to dismantle parts of the aircraft and it simply would not be possible to fly it in such a state. Secondly, it removes all threat from shooting down battleships. Without this mod battleships are always a threat because even your best aircraft can get damaged and put out of service for quite some time. This leaves you having to decide whether it's worth the risk or if you should let it land or use secondary interceptors and cluster them in hopes of minimizing damage. But with this mod it completely alters this dynamic. You no longer have to worry about craft being taken out of service at all. You just launch away. As long as your Avenger's damage isn't too high they can take out a battleship single handedly with dual plama beams and probably have enough time to repair before the next one. In the meantime they can still kill all other UFO's with impunity even if they have 99% damage. I think it changes the game too much to keep it on as is.[[User:Mannon\|Mannon]] 23:47, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

	=== Base Navigation Modules ===		=== Base Navigation Modules ===

Mannon: /* Base Building Stacking */

2011-04-05T03:53:18Z

Base Building Stacking

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:53, 5 April 2011
Line 466:		Line 466:

	[[User:Spike\|Spike]] - Well that is a fair point. I have not used the feature enough to swear there are no bugs. Maybe it is safer to leave this as an optional thing that people can enable if they want to.		[[User:Spike\|Spike]] - Well that is a fair point. I have not used the feature enough to swear there are no bugs. Maybe it is safer to leave this as an optional thing that people can enable if they want to.

			[[User:Mannon\|Mannon]] - I have to disagree on this one too. I don't see how this feature is too complex. It simply puts ques up the construction in areas you can't reach just yet. Construction begins as soon as an adjacent base facility is completed. This greatly simplifies base planning allowing you to lay out as much of your base as you can afford the construction costs on rather than having to make notes on what you intended to build and when. It's a huge improvement and I don't really see any drawbacks to including it.[[User:Mannon\|Mannon]] 23:53, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

	=== Assign All Personnel ===		=== Assign All Personnel ===

Mannon: /* Craft Always Ready */

2011-04-05T03:47:16Z

Craft Always Ready

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:47, 5 April 2011
Line 442:		Line 442:

	[[User:Zaimoni\|Zaimoni]] - You still need two Interceptors per base to conveniently shoot down Terror Ships before Plasma Cannons, or to conveniently shoot down all non-Battleships in the acts with finales (Infiltration, Base) with Plasma Cannons.		[[User:Zaimoni\|Zaimoni]] - You still need two Interceptors per base to conveniently shoot down Terror Ships before Plasma Cannons, or to conveniently shoot down all non-Battleships in the acts with finales (Infiltration, Base) with Plasma Cannons.

			::I've been experimenting with this and I think my opinion has flipped on it. I think craft that aren't fully refueled should be able to take off, but a craft with damage shouldn't. The reason is two-fold. Firstly it makes sense. While you can stop refueling an aircraft and launch it relatively quickly repairing an aircraft would be a whole other story. Except for very light damage you would have to dismantle parts of the aircraft and it simply would not be possible to fly it in such a state. Secondly, it removes all threat from shooting down battleships. Without this mod battleships are always a threat because even your best aircraft can get damaged and put out of service for quite some time. This leaves you having to decide whether it's worth the risk or if you should let it land or use secondary interceptors and cluster them in hopes of minimizing damage. But with this mod it completely alters this dynamic. You no longer have to worry about craft being taken out of service at all. You just launch away. As long as your Avenger's damage isn't too high they can take out a battleship single handedly with dual plama beams and probably have enough time to repair before the next one. In the meantime they can still kill all other UFO's with impunity even if they have 99% damage. I think it changes the game too much to keep it on as is.[[User:Mannon\|Mannon]] 23:47, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

	=== Base Navigation Modules ===		=== Base Navigation Modules ===

Mannon: /* May i remake the main page of this article */

2011-04-03T22:43:49Z

May i remake the main page of this article

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:43, 3 April 2011
Line 538:		Line 538:
	:This is a Wiki so everyone can edit anything. But thanks for asking first, that is considered polite, especially before modifying an article page with something that might be seen as a matter of opinion. Could you maybe post your proposed new text here on the Talk page? Also, please sign your posts with 4 tilde characters (~). [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 14:39, 3 April 2011 (EDT)		:This is a Wiki so everyone can edit anything. But thanks for asking first, that is considered polite, especially before modifying an article page with something that might be seen as a matter of opinion. Could you maybe post your proposed new text here on the Talk page? Also, please sign your posts with 4 tilde characters (~). [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 14:39, 3 April 2011 (EDT)

	:I'm a little confused here. You say that XcomUtil 6.7 has UFOextender support, but the lastest version available on the XcomUtil Homepage is XcomUtil 9.60 and I can verify that it very much does not work with UFOextender without some modding to recombine geoscape.exe and tactical.exe back into a single executable since UFOextender crashes if you try to use it to load tactical.exe. Scott's homepage does mention handing over control, but it only gives an email address.[[User:Mannon\|Mannon]] 18:21, 3 April 2011 (EDT)		<strike>:I'm a little confused here. You say that XcomUtil 6.7 has UFOextender support, but the lastest version available on the XcomUtil Homepage is XcomUtil 9.60 and I can verify that it very much does not work with UFOextender without some modding to recombine geoscape.exe and tactical.exe back into a single executable since UFOextender crashes if you try to use it to load tactical.exe. Scott's homepage does mention handing over control, but it only gives an email address.[[User:Mannon\|Mannon]] 18:21, 3 April 2011 (EDT)
			:Another concern is XcomUtil by default makes several changes to the core game, in particular it alters the crafts, making them hold more soldiers. It goes so far as to change the craft's map files (I hate the Avenger, it no longer looks like the UFOpedia entry, but like a fat flying brick.) It even makes the interceptors capable of carrying soldiers. There is no option to turn this off without altering XCUSetup.bat or at least editing XcomUtil.cfg and doing something to fix the Avenger map. I'm not sure how to make those changes easy for someone short of supplying them with an alternate XCUSetup.bat and/or XcomUtil.cfg. Though there are definitely some nice benefits to having XcomUtil installed.[[User:Mannon\|Mannon]] 18:29, 3 April 2011 (EDT)</strike>
	:Another concern is XcomUtil by default makes several changes to the core game, in particular it alters the crafts, making them hold more soldiers. It goes so far as to change the craft's map files (I hate the Avenger, it no longer looks like the UFOpedia entry, but like a fat flying brick.) It even makes the interceptors capable of carrying soldiers. There is no option to turn this off without altering XCUSetup.bat or at least editing XcomUtil.cfg and doing something to fix the Avenger map. I'm not sure how to make those changes easy for someone short of supplying them with an alternate XCUSetup.bat and/or XcomUtil.cfg. Though there are definitely some nice benefits to having XcomUtil installed.[[User:Mannon\|Mannon]] 18:29, 3 April 2011 (EDT)		::Oh NVM. I see that you meant 9.7. I found it and will have to give it a look.[[User:Mannon\|Mannon]] 18:43, 3 April 2011 (EDT)

Mannon: /* May i remake the main page of this article */

2011-04-03T22:29:10Z

May i remake the main page of this article

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:29, 3 April 2011
Line 539:		Line 539:

	:I'm a little confused here. You say that XcomUtil 6.7 has UFOextender support, but the lastest version available on the XcomUtil Homepage is XcomUtil 9.60 and I can verify that it very much does not work with UFOextender without some modding to recombine geoscape.exe and tactical.exe back into a single executable since UFOextender crashes if you try to use it to load tactical.exe. Scott's homepage does mention handing over control, but it only gives an email address.[[User:Mannon\|Mannon]] 18:21, 3 April 2011 (EDT)		:I'm a little confused here. You say that XcomUtil 6.7 has UFOextender support, but the lastest version available on the XcomUtil Homepage is XcomUtil 9.60 and I can verify that it very much does not work with UFOextender without some modding to recombine geoscape.exe and tactical.exe back into a single executable since UFOextender crashes if you try to use it to load tactical.exe. Scott's homepage does mention handing over control, but it only gives an email address.[[User:Mannon\|Mannon]] 18:21, 3 April 2011 (EDT)

			:Another concern is XcomUtil by default makes several changes to the core game, in particular it alters the crafts, making them hold more soldiers. It goes so far as to change the craft's map files (I hate the Avenger, it no longer looks like the UFOpedia entry, but like a fat flying brick.) It even makes the interceptors capable of carrying soldiers. There is no option to turn this off without altering XCUSetup.bat or at least editing XcomUtil.cfg and doing something to fix the Avenger map. I'm not sure how to make those changes easy for someone short of supplying them with an alternate XCUSetup.bat and/or XcomUtil.cfg. Though there are definitely some nice benefits to having XcomUtil installed.[[User:Mannon\|Mannon]] 18:29, 3 April 2011 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:43, 3 April 2011
Line 538:		Line 538:
	:This is a Wiki so everyone can edit anything. But thanks for asking first, that is considered polite, especially before modifying an article page with something that might be seen as a matter of opinion. Could you maybe post your proposed new text here on the Talk page? Also, please sign your posts with 4 tilde characters (~). [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 14:39, 3 April 2011 (EDT)		:This is a Wiki so everyone can edit anything. But thanks for asking first, that is considered polite, especially before modifying an article page with something that might be seen as a matter of opinion. Could you maybe post your proposed new text here on the Talk page? Also, please sign your posts with 4 tilde characters (~). [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 14:39, 3 April 2011 (EDT)

	:I'm a little confused here. You say that XcomUtil 6.7 has UFOextender support, but the lastest version available on the XcomUtil Homepage is XcomUtil 9.60 and I can verify that it very much does not work with UFOextender without some modding to recombine geoscape.exe and tactical.exe back into a single executable since UFOextender crashes if you try to use it to load tactical.exe. Scott's homepage does mention handing over control, but it only gives an email address.[[User:Mannon\|Mannon]] 18:21, 3 April 2011 (EDT)		<strike>:I'm a little confused here. You say that XcomUtil 6.7 has UFOextender support, but the lastest version available on the XcomUtil Homepage is XcomUtil 9.60 and I can verify that it very much does not work with UFOextender without some modding to recombine geoscape.exe and tactical.exe back into a single executable since UFOextender crashes if you try to use it to load tactical.exe. Scott's homepage does mention handing over control, but it only gives an email address.[[User:Mannon\|Mannon]] 18:21, 3 April 2011 (EDT)
			:Another concern is XcomUtil by default makes several changes to the core game, in particular it alters the crafts, making them hold more soldiers. It goes so far as to change the craft's map files (I hate the Avenger, it no longer looks like the UFOpedia entry, but like a fat flying brick.) It even makes the interceptors capable of carrying soldiers. There is no option to turn this off without altering XCUSetup.bat or at least editing XcomUtil.cfg and doing something to fix the Avenger map. I'm not sure how to make those changes easy for someone short of supplying them with an alternate XCUSetup.bat and/or XcomUtil.cfg. Though there are definitely some nice benefits to having XcomUtil installed.[[User:Mannon\|Mannon]] 18:29, 3 April 2011 (EDT)</strike>
	:Another concern is XcomUtil by default makes several changes to the core game, in particular it alters the crafts, making them hold more soldiers. It goes so far as to change the craft's map files (I hate the Avenger, it no longer looks like the UFOpedia entry, but like a fat flying brick.) It even makes the interceptors capable of carrying soldiers. There is no option to turn this off without altering XCUSetup.bat or at least editing XcomUtil.cfg and doing something to fix the Avenger map. I'm not sure how to make those changes easy for someone short of supplying them with an alternate XCUSetup.bat and/or XcomUtil.cfg. Though there are definitely some nice benefits to having XcomUtil installed.[[User:Mannon\|Mannon]] 18:29, 3 April 2011 (EDT)		::Oh NVM. I see that you meant 9.7. I found it and will have to give it a look.[[User:Mannon\|Mannon]] 18:43, 3 April 2011 (EDT)