You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
On the Jun 14th, 2022 commit, it appears that the territory-type(s) were duplicated in the CETool\ChernarusPlus\chenarusplus.xml - was that intentional?
It is causing an issue with the DayZ-CE Tool, such that only one of the groups is exported back out of the tool (appears to be the second in the list).
That was a source of a lot of frustration for me, as I was editing the first on the list, and would never see my changes applied - thought perhaps, if not intentional it should be cleaned up to save someone else from the same frustrations... I'd do it in a PR, however, there are different values between the first and second group, and I'm really curious as to which was the values expected for consumption (or perhaps both were intended to be merged...).
Thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
P.s. ^ Isn't a complaint, awesome tool & thank you, just thought it might be helpful to point it out...
Let me know if you'd like me to clean it up and PR it. esp. considering one set of values appear to be ignored when you import / export, so maybe it's just "pick a winner and go with it" - although subsequent tests seem to indicate which one is ignored from the export might be less determinate than the actual order in the list.
On the Jun 14th, 2022 commit, it appears that the territory-type(s) were duplicated in the CETool\ChernarusPlus\chenarusplus.xml - was that intentional?
It is causing an issue with the DayZ-CE Tool, such that only one of the groups is exported back out of the tool (appears to be the second in the list).
That was a source of a lot of frustration for me, as I was editing the first on the list, and would never see my changes applied - thought perhaps, if not intentional it should be cleaned up to save someone else from the same frustrations... I'd do it in a PR, however, there are different values between the first and second group, and I'm really curious as to which was the values expected for consumption (or perhaps both were intended to be merged...).
Thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: