Skip to content

Conversation

@Fly-Star-him
Copy link
Contributor

@Fly-Star-him Fly-Star-him commented Jan 13, 2026

Fixed an issue where miners affected by Passengers/DeployFire were unable to unload minerals
修复采矿载具受到Passengers/DeployFire的影响无法卸载矿物的问题。


  • When a vehicle has Passengers and possesses DeployFire/IsSimpleDeployer/DeploysInto, it can perform custom deployment actions beyond merely releasing passengers.

  • 载具拥有Passengers且存在DeployFire/IsSimpleDeployer/DeploysInto时可执行其他部署操作而不是仅限释放乘客。

    • Unload.SkipPassengers enables vehicles to bypass the passenger release process and perform other deployment actions.

    • Unload.SkipPassengers支持载具跳过乘客释放流程执行其他部署操作。

    • Unload.NoPassengers enables vehicles to perform other deployment actions after losing all passengers.

    • Unload.NoPassengers支持载具失去所有乘客后执行其他部署操作。

  • Mining vehicles that have not yet unloaded minerals can now perform other deployment operations.

  • 未执行卸载矿物任务的采矿载具现在可执行其他部署操作。

    • Unload.SkipHarvester allows mining vehicles to perform other deployment actions when not unloading minerals.

    • Unload.SkipHarvester支持采矿载具未卸载矿物时执行其他部署动作。

    • Unload.NoTiberiums allows mining vehicles to perform other deployment actions when no minerals are present.

    • Unload.NoTiberiums支持采矿载具没有矿物存在时执行其他部署动作。

In rulesmd.ini:

[SOMEVEHICLE]                   ; VehicleType
Unload.SkipPassengers=false     ; boolean
Unload.NoPassengers=false       ; boolean
Unload.SkipHarvester=false      ; boolean
Unload.NoTiberiums=false        ; boolean

@Fly-Star-him Fly-Star-him changed the title update Vehicle Deployment Enhancement Jan 13, 2026
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jan 13, 2026

Nightly build for this pull request:

This comment is automatic and is meant to allow guests to get latest nightly builds for this pull request without registering. It is updated on every successful build.

@TaranDahl
Copy link
Contributor

I think it would be best to reorganize WW's Unloading shit into multiple independent Unloading behaviors, and then use flags to control which ones are enabled and which ones are disabled.

@TaranDahl TaranDahl added Needs testing ⚙️T1 T1 maintainer review is sufficient ❓Unhardcoding / Customization Make something more tweakable labels Jan 13, 2026
@KuroNoSeiHai
Copy link

I have tested. It works well.

@TaranDahl
Copy link
Contributor

I think it would be best to reorganize WW's Unloading shit into multiple independent Unloading behaviors, and then use flags to control which ones are enabled and which ones are disabled.

@Fly-Star-him Are you going to finish these, or are you just going to leave them as they are? This is just a suggestion.

@Fly-Star-him
Copy link
Contributor Author

Fly-Star-him commented Jan 16, 2026

I think it would be best to reorganize WW's Unloading shit into multiple independent Unloading behaviors, and then use flags to control which ones are enabled and which ones are disabled.

@Fly-Star-him Are you going to finish these, or are you just going to leave them as they are? This is just a suggestion.

Maybe it's possible, but I still don't know what to do.

@TaranDahl
Copy link
Contributor

I am thinking something like this:

  • Unload.AllowedBehaviors determines which behaviors are available. Behaviors not listed will be disabled.
  • Unload.AutoFallback determines whether to attempt to use other behaviors when a particular behavior is unavailable or meaningless.
    • Note: The order of attempts to deploy behaviors is hardcoded.
[SomeUnit]
Unload.AllowedBehaviors=All ; List of vehicle unloading behavior enum (All/DeployFire/IsSimpleDeployer/Harvester/DeploysInto/Passengers)
Unload.AutoFallback=false ; boolean

Perhaps a similar thing is also needed for buildings, but here we can only consider vehicles.

@Fly-Star-him
Copy link
Contributor Author

Perhaps a similar thing is also needed for buildings, but here we can only consider vehicles.

Are you referring to replacing DeployFire=yes, IsSimpleDeployer=yes, DeploysInto= these?

@TaranDahl
Copy link
Contributor

Are you referring to replacing DeployFire=yes, IsSimpleDeployer=yes, DeploysInto= these?

No.
I would like to say that there are many unloading behaviors here. In the Vanilla case, some behaviors can prevent other behaviors from taking effect (for example, DeployFire can prevent Harvester from taking effect, and IsSimpleDeployer can prevent DeployFire from taking effect). I think the ideal situation should be that they take effect simultaneously, or be checked and take effect in a certain order. In short, it's not good for them to prevent each other.

@Fryone
Copy link
Contributor

Fryone commented Jan 16, 2026

Suggestion: I thought about one feature for harvesters - "Deploy to Return". Or maybe other missions too?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

⚙️T1 T1 maintainer review is sufficient Tested ❓Unhardcoding / Customization Make something more tweakable

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants