-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 149
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
JAM - Add 1.92 vanilla mag wells #1133
Conversation
vanilla:
cba:
|
@@ -6,76 +6,73 @@ class CfgWeapons { | |||
class Rifle_Short_Base_F; | |||
|
|||
class mk20_base_F: Rifle_Base_F { | |||
magazineWell[] = {"CBA_556x45_STANAG", "CBA_556x45_STANAG_L", "CBA_556x45_STANAG_XL", "CBA_556x45_STANAG_2D"}; | |||
magazineWell[] = {"STANAG_556x45", "CBA_556x45_STANAG", "CBA_556x45_STANAG_L", "CBA_556x45_STANAG_XL", "CBA_556x45_STANAG_2D"}; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe we should just use += ?
Currently we also break any mod that gets loaded before CBA and tries to add magwells.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you even += with all the inheritance going on?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sure. If a subclass just uses =
that will not be of any use. But that would also break our =
in the base class so that doesn't matter.
Just need to make sure that requiredAddons is correct, which is already correct.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
+= also fails horribly if the magazineWell token is inherited. I guess I will have to check all classes, but thankfully I have the config dumps.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
wasn't += built to work with inheritance? so that you can just add elements instead of overwriting..
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No. It breaks for inherited tokens, but it works for different config patches adding to the same class.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It even breaks in funny ways like adding the same array element twice overwriting the old ones. It goes completely bonkers. It is a terrible idea to rely on it for this stuff, but whatever rocks their boat. I will quickly eat something and then do what we need to in CBA and ACE PRs. Gimme a minute.
close #1132