
If there are any actual errors that you have noticed, please add them here.
Moderators: michaelm75au, angster, RoryAndersonCDT, MOD_Command
This not entirely so Michael, it relates to the category code for the mobile type facility. Ie those of type facility, category 500x. The category in non-pro is picked up based on textual parsing of the unit name for those of category 5001. ie "SAM Bn ...xyz" is type: facility, sub-type 5001, category 6, something with " Mech Inf ...." will be category 11. Place a s400 and do a print(unit.category) you'll get 6 back. It's also used in filters for unitsBy(type,[category][subtype]).michaelm75au wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 2:15 am That is correct, but the 'Mobile' relates to a new type of unit 'Ground' which is not in the Public builds.
I'll update the page to indicate it is 'Pro Only' at the moment.
Code: Select all
0 = None
1 = Infantry
2 = Armor
3 = Artillery Gun
4 = Artillery SSM
5 = AAA
6 = SAM
7 = Engineer
8 = Supply
9 = Surveillance
10 = Recon
11 = MechInfantry
Code: Select all
0 None
1000 Infantry
2000 Armor
3000 Artillery Gun
4000 Artillery SSM
5000 AAA
6000 SAM
7000 Engineer
8000 Supply
9000 Surveillance
10000 Recon
11000 MechInfantry
Code: Select all
1001 Troop Carrying
1002 Open Topped
2001 Amphibious
2002 Combat Swimmer
3001 Reactive Armor
3002 Mesh Skirting
3003 Depleted Uranium Armor (1st Gen)
3004 Depleted Uranium Armor (2nd Gen)
3005 Depleted Uranium Armor (3rd Gen)
4001 Wheeled Vehicle
4002 Half-Track Vehicle
4003 Tracked Vehicle
I think that will be very helpful and welcomed by most.michaelm75au wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 7:16 am As I am going thru every line of the documents at the moment, I will be checking and correcting the page or code that may be incorrect.
One thing I am doing is expanding the function details; they will be more consistent in what they show.
Also I am putting in the actual parameters that are valid for the function rather than relying on the 'selector'. I have found that the 'Selector' is often too broad and doesn't indicated additional (or not valid) items.
This also helps in that you don't need to jump back and forth between the command and the selector pages.lua doc
Example below
Proposed:ReferencePointSelector
Reference point selector.
To select reference point(s), specify either
name and side, to select a reference pointname belonging toside [name AND side if possible] or
guid, if the unique ID of the reference point is known [preferred] or
area, table of reference points (name or guid)
GUID method takes precedence over name/side if both present.
...
For instance you can't use DeleteReferencePoint({guid=validguidhere}) at present in 1147.44 or prior, you need to provide the side as well.ReferencePointSelector
Reference point selector.
To select reference point(s), specify either
name and side, to select a reference point name belonging to side or
guid, if the unique ID of the reference point is known [preferred] or
area, table of reference points (name or guid) - valid for certain functions, such as GetReferencePoints().
GUID method takes precedence over name/side if both present.
In cases where side is not know by context, then both guid and side may be required, such as DeleteReferencePoint().
...
I have picked this up in the last round of checks.KnightHawk75 wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 10:00 am ScenEdit_SetMission | AAR table.
The documentation leads one to believe TankerMissionList accepts names or guids, such as
TankerMissionList= {'support mission1','support mission2'}; is valid when it is not. At present it must be the mission guid.
ie
TankerMissionList= {'ABCDEF-0000000000123','ABCDEF-0000000000124'};
The code that looks up and the array entry text is fine (it checks both name or guid successfully) and returns the mission, however the outer call also does a check upon return and it only validates/compares checks on the guid property vs the entry text. The later seems to not know the former already did the validation for it, so other then the null check the rest of the extra checks causes the issue (and probably no longer needs to be there).
So either the docs need clarity, or the code eyeballed and tweaked to work as expected and believe already desired.
Found another one generating 404 for Tool_LOS_Points.michaelm75au wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 11:58 am Yea, it is missing from the upload. I will find and repost to docs.