Display posts from previous
Sort by

Re: (almost)MAV-less Blitz3D

#11 by Sad_ness
juanjpro wrote:If you're referring to the modified CB build, I wouldn't be surprised if it became an official part of the game.

As for Blitz3D itself, I'll never have to update code, because it's dead.
hm, ok.

also, I tried playing the modified SCP:CB and got a MAV when I tried to use the S-Nav.

Re: (almost)MAV-less Blitz3D

#15 by zornor90
Started a new playthrough of 1.3.1 using this mod. It seems a lot more stable. I did have two MAVs: one in 914 when raising the gamma, and one during 049's event in the surveillance room when I tried to use 1499 to teleport and escape him. Overall though, it played well and seemed to load faster as well.

Re: (almost)MAV-less Blitz3D

#17 by Vane Brain
juanjpro wrote:That's not nearly stable enough, I'll look into it.
This thing is actually dangerous and work like a virus! It start writing log over and over. And you can have a txt file with GIGABYTES on it!
Example
Spoiler

Code: Select all

***************
Field reference: Object does not exist
EntityX: Entity does not exist
Field reference: Object does not exist
EntityZ: Entity does not exist
Field reference: Object does not exist
***************
It writes this over and over and over...
Image

Re: (almost)MAV-less Blitz3D

#18 by juanjp600
Not sure if you're joking here, but that's intended behavior. You could add a check in the code to prevent it from spamming the same error over and over again, or even just close the game after a certain amount of errors.
In fact, you should place error checks in more places and give each check an ID to make debugging easier.

Anyway, I think I know where I missed some error checks, I'll get to that eventually.

Re: (almost)MAV-less Blitz3D

#19 by Vane Brain
juanjpro wrote:Not sure if you're joking here, but that's intended behavior. You could add a check in the code to prevent it from spamming the same error over and over again, or even just close the game after a certain amount of errors.
In fact, you should place error checks in more places and give each check an ID to make debugging easier.

Anyway, I think I know where I missed some error checks, I'll get to that eventually.
I'm not joking, but ID idea is good :D
Image
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion”