Yeah, you're supposed to use 65535. To my knowledge, SRB2DB is the only editor that accepts negative tags, and even then it just converts them to the corresponding positive unsigned tag immediately. I might do something like that too at some point, but for now I've just changed all mentions of it on the wiki so that it tells you to use 65535.Bug report: ZB disallows negative numbers for tags, which matters since a tag of -1 supposedly applies an effect to the entire map.
EDIT: Tagging it as 65535 has the same effect, though. Of course it does
Probably not, unless I'm really bored one day. As you said, when it comes to custom Things you made yourself, you'll probably remember what all the fields mean anyway. And if you've got a mod with a lot of custom Things, you're probably better off writing a new config file for it.Alright. We got $Sprite and $Name for custom Things. Though... Can we expect $Extra, $Flip, $Special, $Ambush, and/or $Angle in the future?
I might add something that makes it easier to set up custom FOFs at some point, but for regular FOFs? No. I don't see how it would be very useful considering how easy they are to make.Can you bring back the FOF Creation tool that was once available in SRB2DB1 ?
Can you bring back the FOF Creation tool that was once available in SRB2DB1 ?
This is more of a feature request than anything, but... you know the tag labels that nobody in the community knew ZB had? Is it possible to programmatically add some default tag labels for things like "Apply to Everything" and those other magic numbers that are somewhere in the source? I could see that being really handy. (And hey, maybe it'll show people that tag labels are a thing lol)Yeah, you're supposed to use 65535. To my knowledge, SRB2DB is the only editor that accepts negative tags, and even then it just converts them to the corresponding positive unsigned tag immediately. I might do something like that too at some point, but for now I've just changed all mentions of it on the wiki so that it tells you to use 65535.
It may be a bit extra work, but I can live with it.It would technically be possible, but I don't see the point, considering that you can save and select different testing configurations. I'd rather have the user do a few extra clicks when they actually want to change their testing settings than force them to click away that window every time they want to test.
Then you can also live with the extra work of opening the Preferences window when you want to change your testing settings.It may be a bit extra work, but I can live with it.
I should stop you there MK.exe, Romio wasn't referring to a tool for making sloped FOFs (I think?).
.
That's the extra work I was talking about. Not the extra work you'd have to do to implement the function.Then you can also live with the extra work of opening the Preferences window when you want to change your testing settings.