Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Meph]

I couldnt find anything in the readme or forum... dfhack has this feature:

outsideOnly

This plugin makes it so that buildings whose names begin with OUTSIDE_ONLY cannot be built inside. If the player attempts to do so, the building will automatically be deconstructed.

Does an equivalent for insideOnly exist? Or could one be done?

[Roses]

In the new version, this is the help section of outside-only

Code: [Select]

if args.help then
 print([[scripts/modtools/outside-only
arguments
    -help
        print this help message
    -clear
        clears the list of registered buildings
    -checkEvery n
        set how often existing buildings are checked for whether they are in the appropriate location to n ticks
    -type [EITHER, OUTSIDE_ONLY, INSIDE_ONLY]
        specify what sort of restriction to put on the building
    -building name
        specify the id of the building
]])
 return
endSo it looks like INSIDE_ONLY is an option. Note that this is with the onLoad.init system so instead of naming buildings OUTSIDE_ONLY or INSIDE_ONLY you instead have something like

Code: [Select]

modtools/outside-only -building MY_CUSTOM_BUILDING -type OUTSIDE_ONLY

[Meph]

I checked the readme in the dfhack r5 thread. I guess with "new version" you mean the one with registration? How finished is it by now? The last time I checked, expwnent was still working on it, and you were porting your dfhack spells to it.

I am not sure if I can use it without breaking old content.

[Roses]

There are still a couple bugs here and there, but most of it is working. Not sure if you want to wait for a more stable version that has all the needed scripts, but just so you know it is possible. Might even be able to rig up the old version by splicing it with the new version.

[Meph]

Best would be if a dfhack version would support both. AutoSyndrome/SyndromeTrigger, as well as registration. I could install it without having to worry about breaking older features, do all new features with the new system and slowly port the older ones bit by bit. Obviously I have no idea if thats possible or not.

[Roses]

That would be a question for expwnent. Right now I don't think the option is available, but I don't know if there is a reason it couldn't be (like if it would be as simple as building it with both options or if there is some conflict)