These are chat archives for BSData/wh40k

14th
Apr 2016
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 14 2016 00:03
That's cool!
cartag
@cartag
Apr 14 2016 00:04
I am tempted to start on the GST file for the 2.0 update, start getting the centralized rules and weapon profiles put in there
this way we won't have to have a Boltgun listed in 83 different data files
cartag
@cartag
Apr 14 2016 01:34
blob
So I removed the Boltgun profile from the KDK file, put it in the GST
blob
It works fine
cartag
@cartag
Apr 14 2016 01:40
Shared rules work equally well in the GST instead of the CAT file. This will make one file larger, but the rest substantially smaller
S Raev
@afraeve
Apr 14 2016 02:05
@cartag - If it helps any, all the files made by khambatta have matching id codes on the shared rules/profiles
cartag
@cartag
Apr 14 2016 02:05
Matching id codes to what?
S Raev
@afraeve
Apr 14 2016 02:20
These:
id codes.jpg
cartag
@cartag
Apr 14 2016 02:21
What I'm doing is copying over rules and profiles into the GST file, the main game file for 40k. The catalogs, the .CAT files, can then reference it instead of them each having to have their own copy of the rules/profiles.
I'm still trying to understand the point you're trying to convey with matching id codes in that
S Raev
@afraeve
Apr 14 2016 02:25
If you copy those codes when you copy the profiles across, then the cats might not need as much editing to work with the updated gst.
cartag
@cartag
Apr 14 2016 02:26
Those ID codes are different for every file though
S Raev
@afraeve
Apr 14 2016 02:29
They're matched up in all the Imperial FW files, the SM supplements, renegades & the orks.
cartag
@cartag
Apr 14 2016 02:30
No, they're not. I just did a random spot check on a few, and the ID codes for rules are not matching.
Good thing is, no files will break on day of release. It's up to the person making the file if they want to use the shared versions or not, this will just help reduce file size for almost every file that gets synced
Besides, if we set up the shared ones with the same IDs as existing data files, that would actually break something
S Raev
@afraeve
Apr 14 2016 02:37
99% of the common rules in those files do match each other, that's how they were made.
cartag
@cartag
Apr 14 2016 02:38
so if I go in and spot check three random ones, they will all three have the same ID in shared rules, is that what you're saying?
The fact remains though, if we set it up with the exact same ID for them, it would break the files. When somebody tried to create a roster using those books, it would find duplicate IDs for the rules and cause it to crash
S Raev
@afraeve
Apr 14 2016 02:41
Take something like the FW Knights - their rules & profiles across all the lists I've mentioned are all synced.
cartag
@cartag
Apr 14 2016 02:42
This will accomplish roughly the same thing, only instead of each rule being in each file, they will be in the GST. If the IDs are doubled up, one in the GST and one in the data file, it will very likely cause issues
let me do it right now
blob
For this I set the ID for the Bulky special rule in the KDK file to the same ID as the one in the GST.
blob
We don't want the IDs to be the same in the GST file as they are in the CAT files.
cartag
@cartag
Apr 14 2016 03:37
To all other data authors: This is how the Shared Rules section for KDK looks now that I started switching rules over to the GST. I'll put it up in a repo soon so you can all start converting over also if you wish. This will not be necessary if you choose not to.
blob
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Apr 14 2016 08:09
@cartag sounds awesome, good work man :D
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Apr 14 2016 08:16
out of interest, and sorry if this has been covered (i've not really kept up with the alphas) but does mean we could in theory have a file for the Space Marine Forgeworld units & link to them from the seperate army datafiles
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Apr 14 2016 14:54
Yeah. @cartag I figured we would end up doing something like that as soon as 2.0 was released.
cartag
@cartag
Apr 14 2016 15:57
@penguin20000 it would be nice if we could, at the current state of things it can only reference the GST and itself
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Apr 14 2016 15:57
ahh :(
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 14 2016 16:17
So, would we want to put items in as 'Books' of stuff?
(Should we go that route.)
Who determines what would get added to the GST?
e.g. Any of the items in the end profile section?
cartag
@cartag
Apr 14 2016 16:18
I am putting everything in the BRB into the GST, nothing from sub books unless it's a system-wide rule (applies to everybody or almost everybody)
So things like Bolters, flamers, meltas, frag/krak grenades, plasma cannons, things that apply to multiple armies that are all in the BRB
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 14 2016 16:19
I like that @cartag. Makes it easy to add the codex stuff on separately.
cartag
@cartag
Apr 14 2016 16:19
If you scroll up you can see some screenshots of what I've done so far. it is really easy to work with this way, and is less reliant on updating multiple files if they change something major like the wording of a rule in 8E (if and when it comes out years down the road)
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 14 2016 16:23
Looks good :)
Lol 8th. At this rate 8th will be a supplement.
cartag
@cartag
Apr 14 2016 16:24
Thanks :) If you've not messed around with the alpha yet I highly recommend it, as long as you keep a separate install folder for it
Tell me about it, and CSM STILL won't have an updated codex
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 14 2016 16:25
Do we have confirmation from all the maintainers their updating codexes yet?
cartag
@cartag
Apr 14 2016 16:26
No, but the updating of the rules themselves won't break anything
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 14 2016 16:26
oh that's good then.
cartag
@cartag
Apr 14 2016 16:26
although now that I think about it, if the GST is updated it may break things for users who haven't updated BS yet but have updated their data files
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 14 2016 16:26
Yea it would I bet.
The gst wouldn't work in old bs at all
cartag
@cartag
Apr 14 2016 16:28
If anybody was working on BS when the shift happened from 6E to 7E we may want to do something similar with archiving the old and doing a different repo for 2.0 data
I wasn't, I just started using it at that time
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 14 2016 16:28
It might be worthwhile to do a 'break over'
@amis92 Thoughts on doing an 'archived' data for the 1.15 to 2.0 battlescribe transition?
though ... it should only make it so that lists are 'read only'
cartag
@cartag
Apr 14 2016 17:06
Wait a sec, I had an idea... if we reset the data files and GST to version 1, it will prevent it from auto updating on anybody's system that has a higher version number than that. But, anybody who is doing a fresh install of it will get the newest data. This way nothing of the old stuff will break, but we'll still be able to continue on BAU
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 14 2016 17:09
Or we do a file name change, or update the guid on the file.
Aren't lists associated with the guid of the file?
cartag
@cartag
Apr 14 2016 17:09
They are, but it would then download the new GUID file and erase the old one
Old lists are going to be broken regardless most likely
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 14 2016 17:10
But people's old lists wouldn't link
cartag
@cartag
Apr 14 2016 17:10
They wouldn't link because there wouldn't be a data file with the ID
the new file would replace the old one
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 14 2016 17:10
And people would get a "data files not available"
So old data would just be viewable from old lists.
cartag
@cartag
Apr 14 2016 17:11
Not even that if it can't pull from an applicable file
just uploaded Chaos updates, so you can stop asking, @OftKilted :P
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 14 2016 17:14
@cartag Who me? adjusts halo to hide horns
cartag
@cartag
Apr 14 2016 17:21
I'm going back to my work on 2.0 stuff now :angry:
actually, I should probably toss it up in a repo, shouldn't I
cartag
@cartag
Apr 14 2016 17:31
If anybody wants to start with it, I've gotten my stuff started here: https://github.com/cartag/wh40kbs2data
If you sync to your desktop, just add in your own data files. You can link to the shared rules and profiles in the GST, they will be grayed out
blob
cartag
@cartag
Apr 14 2016 17:40
Instructions here on how I'm updating mine to shared profiles: https://github.com/cartag/wh40kbs2data/wiki
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 14 2016 19:00
Nice work, thanks!
cartag
@cartag
Apr 14 2016 19:12
no problem! I figured if we put our work on a separate repo it would be easier to splice in when the time came.
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Apr 14 2016 21:27
@cartag actually it could be a branch in the main repo. and then we could make pull request so everybody would know where that came from.
and everybody would have access.
cartag
@cartag
Apr 14 2016 21:28
I'm not too knowledgeable about how Git operates, that's why I did it this way o.O
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Apr 14 2016 21:29
well branches exist side by side, kind of.
but they have common ancestors, and so can be easily "merged" together
cartag
@cartag
Apr 14 2016 21:32
I'll do research on how to do that so I can do all the heavy lifting for it. That way I'll know for next time :)
cartag
@cartag
Apr 14 2016 22:34
Branch for bs2prep is up
cartag
@cartag
Apr 14 2016 23:38
I know there was discussion a while back about fortifications... should we use this as an opportunity to roll the fortifications from Stronghold Assault into the main data file? This way we can actually use that part of the FOC vs taking an entirely separate detachment just for fortifications. Thoughts?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 14 2016 23:39
Unless we get the ability to use cross-catalog detachments.... adding formations from SA into the GST would make sense.
Sorry. Fortifications