Difference between revisions of "Talk:Internal Error"
m (Note on second footnote: link broken) |
m (Re:footnote) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
The link in the second footnote to c-gen doesn't work. Maybe someone diggs out this workaround or the note should be removed. --[[User:Gordon-creAtive|Gordon-creAtive]] 13:08, 29 July 2007 (CEST) | The link in the second footnote to c-gen doesn't work. Maybe someone diggs out this workaround or the note should be removed. --[[User:Gordon-creAtive|Gordon-creAtive]] 13:08, 29 July 2007 (CEST) | ||
| + | :C-GEN? The second footnote points to CNCDEN. I do remember reading that post, but it indeed seems to have been removed. //''[[User:DCoder|DCoder]] 10:55, 30 July 2007 (CEST)'' | ||
Revision as of 10:55, 30 July 2007
I've just added a new error reason with Eip. Testet that for hours to figure out the exact conditions that make it happen. --Bachsau 20:04, 20 May 2007 (CEST)
About warheads in the warhead list:
// This is not always true. I have well over 60 new warheads not listed
and everything works great. - Fenring
Note to note from Fen -For some reason, it gave me an IE when I didn't list my unit's WH in the list, listed it and it works fine --anon
Given that it is possible for new warheads to cause an IE if not placed in the warhead list, I have ammended the Internal Error causes list appropriately. --Marshall
My weapons never IEd when I didn't declare their new Warheads, however, it's bad coding practice and whatnot, so I advise people to always keep that list up-to-date. --DCoder
The link in the second footnote to c-gen doesn't work. Maybe someone diggs out this workaround or the note should be removed. --Gordon-creAtive 13:08, 29 July 2007 (CEST)
- C-GEN? The second footnote points to CNCDEN. I do remember reading that post, but it indeed seems to have been removed. //DCoder 10:55, 30 July 2007 (CEST)
