Haven't really messed about with it too much but I'll see if I can come up with something. As for the macro then it would be slowed down by the process which I'm using to load the data in the first place, so that'll probably be even slower.
Editing ICC 2012
- Thread starter frefort
- Start date
Ok. If the speeding up doesnt work out why not just implement the filtration options in the scout to eliminate the need of exporting
That was initially my (long-term) goal for the scout. It's still in my mind actually, but I don't think I'm able to devote much time to it. Guess that's why the export option came about in the first place.
So I guess we're kinda stuck here at the moment. By how long does the export option take on your system on a new save game (about 4400 players)? I remember it taking forever on mine, but since I don't really use it anymore I guess I've ignored it for the time being.
So I guess we're kinda stuck here at the moment. By how long does the export option take on your system on a new save game (about 4400 players)? I remember it taking forever on mine, but since I don't really use it anymore I guess I've ignored it for the time being.
Exporting takes about 3-4 minutes, and the worst part is that even touching excel during the export makes it crash. If the code is in VB send me the code I will try using the macro technique and implementing the filters in the scout.
It's in C# if you want to have a crack at it...
Yeah send it over
Fe, just going over the scout and one thing that could speed up the process a little bit
Can the pointers be reduced to 3? I tried to remove the last pointer and increase the offset by 20 but the scout just kept crashing maybe I'm missing something.
Can the pointers be reduced to 3? I tried to remove the last pointer and increase the offset by 20 but the scout just kept crashing maybe I'm missing something.
Not too sure really. But I think in all the versions that I've coded the scout (since 2008) it was a 4-level pointer. I did find some 5-level (and 6-level) ones as well which do the same thing, so it is possible that there is a 3-level one, I suppose.
Not too sure how that would speed it up though.
Have a look at the pointers I have in the artmoney table, and I am looking at any place where I can remove a line of code in hopes that it will help make it more efficient
simrat1990
School Cricketer
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2011
- Online Cricket Games Owned
How to edit the player attributes in icc2012 using artmoney or anything else please help !! ?
mrtwisties
Club Cricketer
Just re-reading, it looks like we haven't quite cracked the problem of making sure our edits to player attributes "stick". From what I've read, if you set the "potential" or "catching" field (or whatever it is) to 50,000 then the player ratings simply don't change at all (so much for development) - and then later on you get all these people who average 100+ turning up. Is that right?
If so, does anyone have any ideas about how we might be able to fix that? Happy to help - since it seems Pat Cummins is never going to get on the park in real life, I need to turn to a simulated reality for my "Aussie express bowler" fix.
If so, does anyone have any ideas about how we might be able to fix that? Happy to help - since it seems Pat Cummins is never going to get on the park in real life, I need to turn to a simulated reality for my "Aussie express bowler" fix.
mrtwisties
Club Cricketer
Hmmm... have the spent last hour or two playing with Frefort's "25 26" Artmoney tables. Kudos to you and Fe98 for all the good work you've done on this. Contrary to my previous post, it actually all seems to work pretty seamlessly.
Only thing I'm a bit confused by is the economy value for bowling. I ran a test case where I standardised ten English bowlers with 320/1 bowling abilities and potential and "52" as the standard bowling type, then played around with a variety of different values for the two economy fields. Yet at the end of the season, all of the players had very similar economy values - certainly not the variance from 2.5 - 4.0 that I was expecting!
Am I doing it wrong, or is there more to it than that?
Only thing I'm a bit confused by is the economy value for bowling. I ran a test case where I standardised ten English bowlers with 320/1 bowling abilities and potential and "52" as the standard bowling type, then played around with a variety of different values for the two economy fields. Yet at the end of the season, all of the players had very similar economy values - certainly not the variance from 2.5 - 4.0 that I was expecting!
Am I doing it wrong, or is there more to it than that?
For economy, the lower value the better. It is a little tricky because it depends on the bowling ability, aggression, and the accuracy of the players.
Also of note, bowling aggression it keeps changing almost from match to match
Also of note, bowling aggression it keeps changing almost from match to match
aliaamir287
School Cricketer
- Joined
- May 15, 2012
- Online Cricket Games Owned
i want player editor of icc 2002
aliaamir287
School Cricketer
- Joined
- May 15, 2012
- Online Cricket Games Owned
please create icc 2012 player editor
