BroadcastComms MFD [Release]

[Milo]

Hi phkb,

Just a reminder that my post above has not been incorporated into this mod as yet (1.2.11 does not reflect the latest proposed revision).

Also, in comparing my local tweaked code to 1.2.11, I noticed the initialization of the _surrenderTimer_Pirate variable differs. I have it initialized as null, but in 1.2.11 it is initialized as {}.

I don't recall, is {} a non-truthy value? Elsewhere in the code, it checks if the variable is false. Either way, for consistency with other timers, the variable probably should init to null.

Cheers,
Milo

[Cholmondely]

Digebitian Version:

What makes more sense: to upload the Digebitian version as a separate oxz (possibly confusing for some, and I will probably not develop the skills needed to update it continually), or to include it as a configurable option within the official version?

[Milo]

Digebitian Version:

What makes more sense: to upload the Digebitian version as a separate oxz (possibly confusing for some, and I will probably not develop the skills needed to update it continually), or to include it as a configurable option within the official version?

What is this Digebitian version of which you speak?

[Cody]

See here.

[Milo]

Thanks Cody.

[phkb]

Just a reminder that my post above has not been incorporated into this mod as yet (1.2.11 does not reflect the latest proposed revision).

Sorry Milo, I'd lost track of this change. I'll get it in the next release.

Also, in comparing my local tweaked code to 1.2.11, I noticed the initialization of the _surrenderTimer_Pirate variable differs. I have it initialized as null, but in 1.2.11 it is initialized as {}.

Good catch. Given how fluid JS is with variable types, it probably won't change functionality, but it does make the code slightly easier to read.

What makes more sense: to upload the Digebitian version as a separate oxz (possibly confusing for some, and I will probably not develop the skills needed to update it continually), or to include it as a configurable option within the official version?

I'll need to explore how easy it would be to add an alternate set of responses. I've got an idea to try out which might make it quite simple.

[phkb]

Digebitian Version:

What makes more sense: to upload the Digebitian version as a separate oxz (possibly confusing for some, and I will probably not develop the skills needed to update it continually), or to include it as a configurable option within the official version?

Well, my tests went well. I've got an add-on for Broadcast comms that switches all the responses to the "Digebitian" vesion. The only question left is: What do you want to call the OXP?

[Cholmondely]

Digebitian Version:

What makes more sense: to upload the Digebitian version as a separate oxz (possibly confusing for some, and I will probably not develop the skills needed to update it continually), or to include it as a configurable option within the official version?

Well, my tests went well. I've got an add-on for Broadcast comms that switches all the responses to the "Digebitian" vesion. The only question left is: What do you want to call the OXP?

My dear chap - you did all the hard work. I merely tweaked a couple of inconsequentials. No need to change anything, I'd have thought. Your hard work, your idea, et cetera, et cetera.

[phkb]

My dear chap - you did all the hard work. I merely tweaked a couple of inconsequentials. No need to change anything, I'd have thought. Your hard work, your idea, et cetera, et cetera

Well, my track record for giving my OXPs good names is rather patchy. I’m thinking “BroadcastComms - Digebitian Variations”, but that seems long winded.

And for the record, the code change ended up being three lines in BCC. In the adding, there’s more lines in the script header than in the code itself. So, not that much work in the end.

[Cholmondely]

My dear chap - you did all the hard work. I merely tweaked a couple of inconsequentials. No need to change anything, I'd have thought. Your hard work, your idea, et cetera, et cetera

Well, my track record for giving my OXPs good names is rather patchy. I’m thinking “BroadcastComms - Digebitian Variations”, but that seems long winded.

And for the record, the code change ended up being three lines in BCC. In the adding, there’s more lines in the script header than in the code itself. So, not that much work in the end.

You have written, what, a hundred oxp's?

The names describe what they do. Maybe one or two out of your hundred could be more descriptive, but so what? The oxp's are the important things. The names are merely a handle. If you were selling them for a living it might be different, but, thank heavens, it's not! And your choice of name is absolutely fine. Who knows, maybe it will inspire Hiran or Cdr James to come out with something similar for Esredice or Ededleen?

[Milo]

One thought on naming. These Digebitian texts are a replacement / overwrite, effectively an alternative to the standard texts used by Broadcast Comms, not an expansion. However, they are only replacing the text, not the full functionality of BCC, which means this replacement OXP requires the user to also install BCC. Such relationships should be made clear through the description and/or name so that users confronted by BCC and BCC - Digebiti in the expansion manager can understand whether they need to install one, the other or both to obtain their desired experience.

How about calling it BroadcastComms Text Replacer - Digebitian Variations? Makes clear that it is an add-on and what it does.

[Cody]

Long-winded? FACT - Feudally Appropriate Comms Transmissions

[Milo]

Amusing ... but not all feudal systems are populated by English colonials. Also I think it's best to keep a common prefix (Broadcast Comms) for OXPs in the same "family."

[phkb]

OK, v1.2.12 of BCC is now up, with the code changes as suggested by Milo (@Milo, please let me know if I've transferred everything in correctly).

And the "Broadcast Comms - Digebiti Variations" OXP is now available in the download manager. No more tweaking required.

[Milo]

Only technical difference I see is on line 1671, you have == where I used ===. Since it comparing the target of a police ship to the player ship, I don't think it matters here.