Join Us On:

[To see links please register here]

(June 04, 2022) x

(Senior Member)

Registration Date: 07-09-2011
Date of Birth: Not Specified
Local Time: 10-03-2023 at 07:23 PM
Status: Offline

RadeonUser's Forum Info
Joined: 07-09-2011
Last Visit: 04-03-2022, 03:18 PM
Total Posts: 278 (0.06 posts per day | 25.62 percent of total posts)
(Find All Posts)
Total Threads: 42 (0.01 threads per day | 11.29 percent of total threads)
(Find All Threads)
Time Spent Online: 3 Days, 22 Hours, 2 Minutes
Members Referred: 0
Total Thanks Received: 1 (0 per day | 25 percent of total 4)
(Find All Threads Thanked ForFind All Posts Thanked For)
Total Thanks Given: 0 (0 per day | 0 percent of total 4)
Reputation: 0 [Details]
Additional Info About RadeonUser
Gender: Undisclosed

Best Answers Given:0

RadeonUser's Signature

[To see links please register here]

RadeonUser's Most Thanked Post
Post Subject Post Date/Time Numbers of Thanks
Exclusive Cheats 10-08-2020, 12:00 AM 1
Thread Subject Forum Name
Exclusive Cheats W.I.P Dev » Project 64 1.6.x Dev » Project 64 1.6.1 Dev (Old) » Core
Cheat Development
Post Message
Gent and I talked about the need of this feature earlier and felt the need to post before I forgot the majority of what we talked about (This has happened all too often)

The reason behind this feature is simple.
There exists cheats that should not be enabled together.

Enabling the cheats together will trigger something bad, either a soft lock or undefined behavior.

Therefore another format will be added to better control these cheats.
Enabling one of these exclusive group cheats will disable the enabled cheat within the same group.

I was thinking of Cheat_E0 as the format to go with, where E0 is the group name (Exclusive Group 0)
This will also have an additional underscore and number to follow the cheat numbering scheme we currently have.

Yes that will get wordy but it's necessary because we need some way to note things are grouped and we will need to have a unique way of identifying cheats (Since they may have options, notes, etc...)

Unfortunately we cannot hobble something together and keep backwards compatibility.
This has to be a change that breaks from the previous convention because of the way 1.6 and 2.X handle cheat searches (Namely, they start at 0 and increment until it fails to read a cheat at a number.... so if Cheat10 is not inside the file it will stop counting up)
At least that's been my impression so far with what I've touched, if I'm wrong and we can keep some semblance of compatibility it would be fantastic but I am by no means going to purposefully maintain compatibility.

RadeonUser's Received and Given Thanks
  Thanks Received Thanks Given
Last week 0 0
Last month 0 0
Last 3 months 0 0
Last 6 months 0 0
Last 12 months 0 0
All Time 1 0
Most thanked by
Gent 1 100%
Most thanked
RadeonUser has not yet thanked.