Restore NonVehicle= function

Bug #894997 reported by Bug Importer
6
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Ares
Fix Released
Wishlist
AlexB

Bug Description

In Tiberian Sun: Firestorm, adding "NonVehicle=yes" to a vehicle made that unit impossible to be picked up by aircraft types with Carryall=yes and also made that unit immune to hijacking. In RA2 and YR, the Carryall function works just fine, but, though there are conflicting results of various modders' attempts to research into that topic, NonVehicle= does not prevent a unit from being picked up by a carryall, nor does it prevent it from being hijacked (though a No Entry cursor appears when targeting such a unit with a Hijacker).

Could you please either restore the NonVehicle function to its Firestorm functionality, or, which would maybe be even better, include a
WeightLimit= tag for aircraft with Carryall=yes. Similar to the SizeLimit, this would prevent the Carryall from picking up vehicles above the weight specified in the tag (maybe even include this for normal transports?). To protect a unit from hijacking, you could then do another tag like "Hijackable=" along the lines of "Parasiteable" and "Bombable", which makes the unit immune to hijacking if set to "no".

Revision history for this message
Bug Importer (bug-importer) wrote :

Lt Albrecht:
Tat's actually quite a good Idea and would allow a lot of interesting things,for instance allowing a carryall for light units and a different one for heavy units, fixing of the ship/caryall bug where the ship can't be put back down.

Revision history for this message
MRMIdAS (mrmidas) wrote :

I am in suport of said tags.

It would make it easier to tweak certain aspects of said mod ( like hijackers stealing terror drones).

Revision history for this message
Bug Importer (bug-importer) wrote :

SUGGESTION: Make 'Capturable=y/n' from BuildingTypes valid for UnitTypes, only on them, it defines not wether they are capturable by Engineer, but by Hijacker.

Revision history for this message
Renegade (renegade) wrote :

Severity -> feature. RTFM.

Revision history for this message
Renegade (renegade) wrote :

Survived DFD.

Revision history for this message
Renegade (renegade) wrote :

What the fuck does that have to do with the request?

Revision history for this message
Bug Importer (bug-importer) wrote :

Code related to this issue has just been checked in!
Author: AlexB
Location: ft-hijacker, r1039
Commit contains DLL: Yes
Revision comment:
Related to issue #322: VehicleThief doesn't check NonVehicle any more. It now uses VehicleThief.Allowed.
Related to issue #733: Unlinked permanent mind-control and delete hijacker if KillDriver is used.
Fixed issue #762: Hijacker and mind control should work well together now.
Fixed issue #1403: VehicleThief doesn't need Thief=, Infiltrate= or Agent= to work.
Fixed issue #1493: CanDrive= implemented to reclaim neutralized vehicles. Compatible with VehicleThief.

Documentation updated.
SVN: http://svn.renegadeprojects.com/Ares/1039

Revision history for this message
FS-21 (jagarni1983) wrote :

Tested r1039 & "VehicleThief.Allowed" works as planned with both boolean values.

Revision history for this message
mevitar (mevitar) wrote :

I can also confirm: NonVehicle= isn't checked, VehicleThief.Allowed= works.

Revision history for this message
Untrue (untrue) wrote :

Confirmed FS-21 and mevitar's claim. Also confirmed issue #1403 and #1493 working.

Revision history for this message
DCoder DCoder (dcoder1337) wrote :

Looks fixed to me.

Revision history for this message
Rogan (pdrogan) wrote :

Nope.

On the latest revision for this branch, I attached NonVehicle=yes and VehicleThief.Allowed=yes on a unit and the Hijacker couldn't even target the unit.

Revision history for this message
DCoder DCoder (dcoder1337) wrote :

Reopening as per last comment.

Revision history for this message
AlexB (alexander-b) wrote :

Is the target unit a train?
Ok, found the problem. NonVehicle is still obeyed because a certain function checks for it. I can exclude the function (it's sole purpose is to return whether something is to be considered a unit), but it will allow buildings to be captured as well (Hijacker.Allowed defaults to yes).

A) Leave this check as it is, but simply do not use it for units. NonVehicle would have no effect anymore. Buildings aren't affected.
B) Remove the check altogether. This would allow non-undeploable buildings with non-1x1-foundations to be hijacked also. Mind the default; you'd have to change all buildings a hijacker shouldn't try to steal.
C) Option B, but changing the default to yes for all units, and no for all buildings. The default will only depend on the type, no support for fancy things like ConsiderBuildingAircraft or any other tag (thus, it cannot include the foundation).

Which one shall it be? I vote for A, because it is the solution with the smallest scope and it doesn't introduce any new features.

Revision history for this message
DCoder DCoder (dcoder1337) wrote :

A.

Revision history for this message
Steel Mirage (steel-mirage) wrote :

A.

Revision history for this message
MRMIdAS (mrmidas) wrote :

I'm in favour of A

Revision history for this message
Rogan (pdrogan) wrote :

A then.

Revision history for this message
cranium (cranium) wrote :

A sounds good

Revision history for this message
Graion Dilach (graiondilach) wrote :

What the others said.

Revision history for this message
AlexB (alexander-b) wrote :

Code related to this issue has just been checked in!
Author: AlexB
Location: ft-hijacker, r1159
Commit contains DLL: Yes
Revision comment:
Related to issue #322: NonVehicle= isn't checked for unit types any more.
SVN: http://svn.renegadeprojects.com/Ares/1159

Revision history for this message
mevitar (mevitar) wrote :

I think this works now. Tested with a unit with Organic=yes, NonVehicle=yes and VehicleThief.Allowed=yes, and could capture it normally.
BTW, does 'NonVehicle isn't checked for units anymore' mean tags like Carryall=yes should now ignore it too (I didn't check it, that's why I'm asking)?

Revision history for this message
Rogan (pdrogan) wrote :

Yeah, it's working as it should now. NonVehicle= is ignored in this revision.

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.