Difference between revisions of "Talk:INTER.DAT"

From UFOpaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Refining this info slowly)
(Moving to main article)
Line 1: Line 1:
Just for reference before I forget. Not sure enough yet for main article page.
 
 
File length 0x238 568 bytes
 
4 records per interception window x Record length 0x8E 142 bytes
 
 
Record structure:
 
*0x00 (word): active/inactive window:
 
**0= active window (aircraft exists & is in intercept range)
 
**1= no active window (aircraft does not exist or does exist but is not in intercept range now)
 
*0x02 (word): ?aircraft type or icon? 3=Interceptor?
 
*0x04 (word): ?aircraft number to use as label on minimised window? Or is 0x08 the aircraft#?
 
*0x6/8 (words): 4-3 3-2 2-1 1-0. Some kind of previous/current/next window linked list?
 
*0x0a/c (words):  window/icon type/status?
 
** 0008 0004 is maximised. 0004 0000 is minimised. 0006 0001 is yellow cross on Geoscape.
 
*0x0e (word): ?window open =1 minimised =0 ?? No, seems not...
 
*0x12 (word): y position of window (accessed as a byte where I found it but it is most likely a word).
 
*0x14 (word): x position of window (x position is accessed as a word)
 
*0x16 (word): status message (starting at offset 0x397 in [[ENGLISH.DAT]])
 
*0x18 (word): count down before the status message is cleared
 
*0x1A (word): attack mode 0=Standoff 1=Cautious 2=Standard 3=Aggressive
 
*0x1C (word): ?current distance to target? (km x8) - can exceed standoff range (if 0x00 = 01)
 
*0x1E (word): requested distance to target (km x8) eg '''30 02''' = 560 = 70km (stand off)
 
*0x22 (word): air speed (current? max?) eg '''18 15''' = 5,400 = Avenger
 
*0x24 (word): ?current damage sustained by this XCom craft?
 
*0x76 (dword): memory pointer to [[CRAFT.DAT]] entry of the attacking craft
 
*0x7A (dword): memory pointer to attacking [[Talk:GEOSCAPE.EXE#Craft_type_data | craft builtin stats]]
 
*0x86 (dword): memory pointer to CRAFT.DAT entry of the attacked UFO
 
*0x8A (dword): memory pointer to attacked craft builtin stats
 
 
It is difficult to get saved inter.dat files while air combat is happening. The Options shortcut key from UFOExtender helps somewhat. It seems to be easier to do if you have 4 aircraft engaged, vs just 1 or 2. Or maybe it's just easier if your aircraft are faster than the UFOs and can keep station with them effortlessly.
 
  
 
== Logging Interception status window messages to file? ==
 
== Logging Interception status window messages to file? ==
  
 +
(Spike to Seb76)
 
Dude, if there is any way you could enable your Extender to log the status messages out to a log file that would really help me in figuring out the air combat mechanics. It's very difficult/impossible to reliably read the status messages off the screen. And there are not that many other options to be able to count when a craft hits or misses another craft. But then you are probably way ahead of me on figuring out the mechanics since you are decompiling the logic directly! :)
 
Dude, if there is any way you could enable your Extender to log the status messages out to a log file that would really help me in figuring out the air combat mechanics. It's very difficult/impossible to reliably read the status messages off the screen. And there are not that many other options to be able to count when a craft hits or misses another craft. But then you are probably way ahead of me on figuring out the mechanics since you are decompiling the logic directly! :)
  
 
cheers, [[User:Spike|Spike]] 06:52, 5 July 2009 (EDT)
 
cheers, [[User:Spike|Spike]] 06:52, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

Revision as of 22:39, 17 February 2010

Logging Interception status window messages to file?

(Spike to Seb76) Dude, if there is any way you could enable your Extender to log the status messages out to a log file that would really help me in figuring out the air combat mechanics. It's very difficult/impossible to reliably read the status messages off the screen. And there are not that many other options to be able to count when a craft hits or misses another craft. But then you are probably way ahead of me on figuring out the mechanics since you are decompiling the logic directly! :)

cheers, Spike 06:52, 5 July 2009 (EDT)