So, I do intend on creating a version of SimpleCheats for SimplePlanes 2 if I am selected for beta testing, though I'm not sure how I should format it. Since SP2 will be backwards compatible with SP1, there will be a lot of overlap in terms of XML attributes. This raises the question of how I should format SC2.
Should I:
A:
have SimpleCheats 2 act as a companion document to SimpleCheats II, only having things exclusive to SP2, leaving SimpleCheats II to have everything from SP1 including the ones that are used in SP2 a lot. This will let me publish complete documentation on the game's public launch as I will have time to consult the devs for what does , but you will have to consult 2 seperate documents.
B:
have SimpleCheats 2 be its own seperate document, containing all things that transfer from SP1. This will require me to do lots of redundant work, likely delaying the document to months after SP2's public release and limiting my time I could be spending with the developers discussing the document. But this will also be a complete, self-contained document.
SimplePlanes 2 will likely have part versions exclusive to it, such as SP1 and SP2 fuselages functioning fundamentally different under the hood. If B is picked, I will have to somehow differentiate the SP1 and SP2 versions of a part.
Also I need a better naming scheme, I don't wanna remove the II from the SP1 document as it's a sequel to the original SimpleCheats, but it's also called SP2 and SimpleCheats 2 works well. Having the documents be differentiated by how I display a number will cause confusion.
One last thing, expect the SP2 document to be formatted much better than the SP1 one, I have a far clearer idea of what I'm doing this time.
(Question for WNP78, will there be overload for SP2? Will make work on this much faster.)
@V if I get into the playtest before you I’ll be happy to start doing the groundwork and getting the xml stuff together as much as possible for you to compile into the doc
@V oh i misread the text as "as i'm selected for beta testing"
@Solent if I don't end up in the play test, the document will not be released on launch.
I think it should be a separate document releasing to the public on the game's launch, but with everything initially copied over. You could just colour everything red that's not "confirmed" yet and add a huge disclaimer at the top about it. then it will be available for everyone who wants to use it asap, but you still have time to check/edit everything.
@V oh gotcha
@StockPlanesRemastered the new parts would be in the SP2 document. If there is a difference between the SP1 version of the part and the SP2 version, all attributes of said part regardless of backwards compatibility will be in the new document. My thinking was that if there is no change between the old and new versions of a part, there is no reason to add it.
We are still speculating on the workload. If it's easier to just do a whole new document, that's what we'll do
There are also plans to do a full rewrite of the SP1 document as well after the SP2 document is done.
B because I think you're greatly over estimating the overlap. Yes you will be able to load an SP1 aircraft into SP2 but I think the UI for each part will be more similar to Juno. For example the wings, I think we're actually getting the wings from Juno and those have all kinds of more attributes than in Simpleplanes, physical shape and leading/trailing edge taper being a few of them. And that's just the back compat parts. We're getting a tone of new parts as well.
@V sorry, i'll delete it.
@keiyronelleavgeek566 he'll get to it when he gets to it. Don't ping devs at random