C3 CON Tools v4.0.0 [01/25/18]
- This topic has 1,149 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Updated Le Fluffie for RB3 to v1.2.
v1.2.0 – added automatic package creator!
– Content Images can now be replaced by any size images in JPG/PNG/BMP formats, no longer limited to 64×64 PNG images (software will auto convert and resize on the fly) (in all sections of the program)
– You can click on the image box or just drag and drop them there
– reworked the signing and unlocking method to be more efficient and work faster than before
– added progress animations so you know it’s not “stuck” or “crashed” – if animations are moving, program is still working hard for you
– improved Extract Package option under “Open Existing File” – will auto-extract by default to the same folder the input file is, using the input file name + _extracted
– minor updates and modifications to virtually all parts of the program
– About and Help messages link to README file – DO NOT DELETE IT!
– deeper cleaning of the old code + IntelliSense and ReaSharper analysis and compliance
Download here: http://keepitfishy.com/d.php?5189f6400a21f
Having TU5 is not a priority for me since I don’t play online, and I don’t mind putting in the minimal work of creating a new custom package with the harmonies added in and resigning as a con. I have the original DLC files on my pc and can always redownload them to the xbox if need be.Yeah, I get that, I was just clarifying the difference (RB:HP method for making the change he wants to make shouldn’t break online play or play under TU5, though obviously it doesn’t actually get rid of the songs).
So you’re either renaming the artist zzzzzzz or the song? Either way I don’t see why you would want that or to even seperate RB3 version songs. Why not just get rid of the non RB3 versions and remove the (RB3 Version) line from the song’s name to just have one version?I change both, so it will sort to bottom in both song sort and artist sort.
And yes, the purpose of it is that I don’t have to keep the files around seperately for TU5 or repackage them. It’s a silly thing, but I want at least the official DLC to remain “legit”.
I used the “cache fakeout” method to play around with the library last night. It was nice to see official Harmonix content re-titled in the setlist, and working fine under TU5!
When I’m done with my library tweaks, I’ll be able to hide songs when running TU4. It’ll be even better than the 1-lighter method in TU5 in my opinion, since it will utilize the song ratings that have been modified in the cache. No more songs disappearing because your friend accidentally hit the blue button while browsing the library!
Hmm, and with trojannemo’s new update to Le Fluffie, I wonder if I can throw all my modified .dta files into a single dummy package? Time to start experimenting!
So you’re either renaming the artist zzzzzzz or the song? Either way I don’t see why you would want that or to even seperate RB3 version songs. Why not just get rid of the non RB3 versions and remove the (RB3 Version) line from the song’s name to just have one version?I change both, so it will sort to bottom in both song sort and artist sort.
And yes, the purpose of it is that I don’t have to keep the files around seperately for TU5 or repackage them. It’s a silly thing, but I want at least the official DLC to remain “legit”.
So basically, you have Queen – We Are The Champions renamed to zzzzzz – zzzzzz so you don’t get them sorted under Queen alongside the (RB3 version)? Why not just extract the original packs to remove the RB1 version songs and entries from the dtas? ‘d rather have absolutely no fat hanging out, I went far enough to do things like including the RB3 version of Wanted Dead or Alive in my RB1 export, replacing the original and removing the RB3 tag while restoring the original album art rather than keeping the Greatest Hits art. I fixed the album covers on all covers and greatest hits/compilation records for all my songs. Examples include Black Sabbath’s Paranoid, the No Doubt Greatest Hits songs and such. But getting off point, this tool makes fixing album art and cherry picking song packs super easy and there’s no reason to not use it that way.
The reasoning you’re asking for is in the quoted post.
He doesn’t want the files to be non-functional under TU5, and doesn’t want to tamper with the originals.
so he’s not modifying the songs.dta in the song files, he’s doing a RBHP approach to update JUST the sorting the same way you update the songs to add harmonies?
if so, cool idea. the impression I think C16 has and what I definitely had, was that he was editing the song files, which in turn changed them to CON so he couldn’t play them under TU5, hence our confusion.
so he’s not modifying the songs.dta in the song files, he’s doing a RBHP approach to update JUST the sorting the same way you update the songs to add harmonies?That’s what I got out of his posts, at least.
” src=”/wp-content/uploads/invision_emoticons/default_SA_cheeky.001.gif”>Speaking of the “RBHP approach,” is there a way to package a bunch of dummy files together? I tried the packager in the new Le Fluffie, but it glitches out at the point where it tries to extract the files (probably because the dummy files have nothing but a single .dta to extract!).
My current method is working, but I’m gonna have a LOT of single-song dummy files by the time I’m done. A dummy package that I could keep updating would make things much easier!
Speaking of the “RBHP approach,” is there a way to package a bunch of dummy files together? I tried the packager in the new Le Fluffie, but it glitches out at the point where it tries to extract the files (probably because the dummy files have nothing but a single .dta to extract!).My current method is working, but I’m gonna have a LOT of single-song dummy files by the time I’m done. A dummy package that I could keep updating would make things much easier!
RB:HP packager should work. Drop all your dummies in song-specific folders (or in one folder, all in one songs.dta), put them in the input folder, and run it. It should spit out one giant dummy package.
Speaking of the “RBHP approach,” is there a way to package a bunch of dummy files together? I tried the packager in the new Le Fluffie, but it glitches out at the point where it tries to extract the files (probably because the dummy files have nothing but a single .dta to extract!).My current method is working, but I’m gonna have a LOT of single-song dummy files by the time I’m done. A dummy package that I could keep updating would make things much easier!
RB:HP packager should work. Drop all your dummies in song-specific folders (or in one folder, all in one songs.dta), put them in the input folder, and run it. It should spit out one giant dummy package.
I actually tried this last night and it didn’t seem to work. The usual RBHP tracks showed up in the temporary library, but none of the .DTAs in my manually-added folders seemed to register. Does the RBHP packager expect to find a .mid and an upgrades.dta in each folder, maybe?
I actually tried this last night and it didn’t seem to work. The usual RBHP tracks showed up in the temporary library, but none of the .DTAs in my manually-added folders seemed to register. Does the RBHP packager expect to find a .mid and an upgrades.dta in each folder, maybe?I /believe/ the last version of the code I had was supposed to check for an upgrades.dta if a mid was found but process a songs.dta normally. If it’s not working, the new version that thomeval worked on for me definitely does (I added such functionality in a couple of days ago with the caveat that you have to watch out for collisions yourself for songs.dta info). That’ll be going out ideally with the new release but potentially just over the weekend.
I actually tried this last night and it didn’t seem to work. The usual RBHP tracks showed up in the temporary library, but none of the .DTAs in my manually-added folders seemed to register. Does the RBHP packager expect to find a .mid and an upgrades.dta in each folder, maybe?I /believe/ the last version of the code I had was supposed to check for an upgrades.dta if a mid was found but process a songs.dta normally. If it’s not working, the new version that thomeval worked on for me definitely does (I added such functionality in a couple of days ago with the caveat that you have to watch out for collisions yourself for songs.dta info). That’ll be going out ideally with the new release but potentially just over the weekend.
Nice, I’ll be looking out for that!
Meanwhile I was able to implement some of my .dta edits directly into my RBHP package, as long as a given song happened to already be covered by RBHP. So instead of making my own separate dummy file for “Atomic,” for example, I was able to just open the “atomic” input folder in RBHP’s file tree, and edit the .dta in there. When I made a fresh RBHP package, Atomic showed up with a proper song rating in-game, just like I wanted it to!
One more thing– I noticed that one of the RBN pro drum upgrades (UGC_5003339 (Emperor – Curse You All Men (Live))) has the wrong song ID entered near the bottom of the code. 5003144 instead of 5003339. I noticed that my updated rating for that song wasn’t registering in the library, so I dug around and found the ID conflict as the culprit. I fixed it on my end, but but who should I contact about this issue?
One more thing– I noticed that one of the RBN pro drum upgrades (UGC_5003339 (Emperor – Curse You All Men (Live))) has the wrong song ID entered near the bottom of the code. 5003144 instead of 5003339. I noticed that my updated rating for that song wasn’t registering in the library, so I dug around and found the ID conflict as the culprit. I fixed it on my end, but but who should I contact about this issue?Any issues like that should be reported to me so I can fix them up.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.