Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - OmerMor

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 31
1
SCI Development Tools / Re: Decompilation Archive
« on: July 07, 2021, 01:52:25 PM »
For a moment there you got me confused... I thought you meant this 1998 non-SCI game, while you meant the 1992 Nick's Picks one.  :)

2
SCI Development Tools / Re: Decompilation Archive
« on: July 04, 2021, 10:45:33 AM »
I wonder if Omer might have the source for any of these?

Unfortunately, I don't.

3
Zvika, maybe consider working with the script disassemblies instead of decompiled source?

4
SCI Development Tools / Re: Is there a SCI32 compiler? If not - why?
« on: July 01, 2021, 12:10:05 PM »
How easy is it to use those Sierra compilers anyway? I assume they won't just straight up work with Companion scripts?

No idea...

5
SCI Development Tools / Re: Is there a SCI32 compiler? If not - why?
« on: July 01, 2021, 11:00:54 AM »
As I've been told in other thread, Scicompanion can't compile SCI32 games. Do we have any other tool that can do that?

If not, is there a technical reason for this? Some complexity maybe? Or it's just that noone had the time/interest to write one?

You have Sierra's own compiler (SC.EXE). I *think* I shared various versions of that compiler, ranging from 1988 to 1996.

6
Amazing feat Zvika! Congratulations!

7
Just got back from reading about the LB1 randomizer crack.

My blog doesn't even compare.

Hey, don't be so hard on yourself - I love reading your blog! <3

8
I highly recommend sluicebox's (the most active SCI scummvm dev these days) blog post:
https://www.benshoof.org/blog/space-quest-iv-easter-eggs

In general I recommend sluicebox's and Kawa's blogs. Tons of SCI treasures!


9
That's awesome Kawa!

10
I have never heard of machine type 20 being referred to as 'AmigaOld'; that's a new one to me. (I never spent a lot of time with ScummVM; I always preferred NAGI when I needed a modern AGI engine (and I usually prefer to use the original Sierra binaries in DOSBox anyway). If someone has some more definitive information to confirm it, I don't mind adding it to the help file for completeness.

ScummVM documents the following:
Quote
Code: [Select]
* At least these Amiga AGI versions use value 20:
 * 2.082 (Space Quest I v1.2 1986)
 * x.yyy (Manhunter NY 1.06 3/18/89)
 * 2.333 (Manhunter SF 3.06 8/17/89)

It was added by Kari Salminen and Travis Howell back in 2008-2009.

11
I second Zvika's suggestions.
Additionally, you might try to reach out to Ken himself. He's on facebook.

12
SCI Development Tools / Re: Message file format?
« on: February 28, 2021, 04:41:30 PM »
There are three common formats in use. Their format is like this:

First, the resource identifier magic bytes as usual. Then two bytes for the version number (up to 2101 for lame, up to 3411 for okay, anything higher for best), then two pad bytes.

Then, if it's a lame version, you get two bytes for the amount of messages, then that many times you get a byte for the noun, a byte for the verb, and two bytes for the offset to the text. After all of that is the actual message strings, one after another. Anything after that is general use space for comments or whatever, which can be ignored.

If it's an okay version, you skip two bytes, then read the amount of messages. Each entry is a byte for the noun, verb, condition, sequence, and talker, then two bytes offset to the text, and three bytes of padding. Again, the actual text follows.

If it's the best version, you get two bytes as a pointer to the end (to quickly find the comment area?), two bytes of mystery, then two bytes message count. Where the okay version has three padding bytes, the best version instead has four reference bytes, in the order noun/verb/cond/seq.

And that's the format!

I know for a fact that the end of version >4000 is used for optional comments because I've seen the actual Sierra Message Editor matching that version, and I know for a well-informed guess that the padding in the middle version is just that.

In SCI11+, the comment area ends with "UTF8" if the message text is to be interpreted that way. This is for my tools' use, not the interpreter itself. The interpreter doesn't give a rat's behind.

Here's the actual struct for the best version:
Code: [Select]
_Packed struct MsgData {
UInt32 version;
UInt16 length; // size of file starting at count field, excluding
// comments
UInt16 lastMsgNum;
UInt16 nEntries;
IndexEntry entries[1];
};

There's goes the mystery out of your mystery bytes.  ;D

13
AGI Development Tools / Re: Russian translation / AGDS tool?
« on: February 17, 2021, 03:50:02 AM »
Also - take a look at this thread:
http://sciprogramming.com/community/index.php?topic=1814.0
The tools I shared there might help you.

15
SCI Syntax Help / Re: Importing a Character (a la Quest for Glory)
« on: February 11, 2021, 10:21:13 AM »
Huh. Surprisingly small amount of green in QfG3 RIMPORT there...
What green?

it's definitely not the latest version of that script; it doesn't use the message system at all, which the final one of course does.
That's correct. This is the qfg3 import script written during the qfg2 development time.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 31

SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
Simple Audio Video Embedder

Page created in 0.116 seconds with 22 queries.