Добредојде на GTA5-Mods.com

@DataModderProgrammer
Hi! I saw that you've updated your mod, thank you. So I tested your new version 1.2.1.0 in the same way as with your previous versions (and with GTA V 1.53). ;-)

1_ Tests with a bugged original file (MPHEIST4 DLC):
Whether in ADD mode or in REPLACE mode, if the lines of "handling.meta" are well built, everything is fine (it adds the vehicles or replaces the values of the parameters of each vehicle well).
Regarding <strAdvancedFlags> , your version 1.2.1.0 does as for your version 1.2.0.4 . So we lose the <strAdvancedFlags> parameter if it isn't correctly tagged as said in your previous message.

2_ Tests with a corrected original file (MPHEIST4 DLC) so adding the 2 missing lines for the <strAdvancedFlags> tag in the "handling.meta" file where needed (see BRIOSO2):
Whether in ADD mode or in REPLACE mode, if the lines of "handling.meta" are well built, everything is fine (it adds the vehicles or replaces the values of the parameters of each vehicle well).
Regarding <strAdvancedFlags> , your version 1.2.1.0 does as for your version 1.2.0.4 . So we keep the <strAdvancedFlags> parameter and it can be changed when using REPLACE mode.

3_ The log file is welcome and it's fine. It will help those who want to check their files to possibly make a correction in order to use them with your mod.

4_ I don't know what you think about TAMPA2 but the site https://gta.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Vehicles (heading "Vehicle class" in the vehicle card) says that its category would be SPORT and not MUSCLE. Thanks for LANDSTLKR2, SQUADDIE, BANSHEE2 and MESA, that's fine.

Have you found a solution so as not to lose the <strAdvancedFlags> parameter in a case like BRIOSO2 when working with a bugged file (like for that of the MPHEIST4 DLC containing BRIOSO2)?

Your mod is well improved while staying fast. This is a very good tool for "handling.meta" files. Thanks in advance for your answer and future update if you do. Have a nice day. :-)

@DataModderProgrammer
Hi! Thank you for your answer. This allowed me to better understand some changes during mergers.
However, I wanted to see how your versions 1.2.0.2 and 1.2.0.3 reacted to the BRIOSO2 bug compared to your latest version 1.2.0.4. This could eventually allow you to know how to provide a reliable solution in your future update by incorporating what you want to integrate. These 2 previous versions showed the same findings below for BRIOSO2. I had not checked over REPLACE mode last time when I noticed the bug in ADD mode in your previous version.

1_ Tests with a bugged original file (MPHEIST4 DLC):
a_ In ADD mode:
For vehicles with well-built lines, everything is fine. But, your mod had removed the BRIOSO2 vehicle completely.

b_ In REPLACE mode (in this mode I set the value 14999999 for <strAdvancedFlags> to see if it replaced or not, and some other parameters had other values):
For vehicles with well-built lines, everything is fine. For BRIOSO2, Your mod doesn't override the values of other parameters and gives me the result below in the <SubHandlingData> tag :

<SubHandlingData>
<Item type="NULL"/>
<Item type="NULL"/>
<Item type="NULL"/>
14000000
</strAdvancedFlags>
<Item type=""/>
<Item type=""/>
</SubHandlingData>

=> After the <SubHandlingData> tag starts, it doesn't put <Item type="CCarHandlingData"> (nor further, its ending </Item> ) but 3 lines <Item type="NULL" /> , followed by the unreplaced value and then curiously, the ending </strAdvancedFlags> and copied what was original (2 lines <Item type=""/> ).
There is also an error that causes the file to be in XML syntax validation error with an XML checker: </strAdvancedFlags> does not have its input start in BRIOSO2 ( <strAdvancedFlags> ).

2_ Tests with a corrected original file (DLC MPHEIST4) so adding the 2 missing lines in the file "handling.meta" that must frame <strAdvancedFlags> ... </strAdvancedFlags> where it should be:
a_ In ADD mode:
The files "handling.meta" being well built, everything is fine and we find BRIOSO2 as it should be with all its values (with also the <strAdvancedFlags> tag and its value).

b_ In REPLACE mode (with the value 14999999 for <strAdvancedFlags> to see if it was replacing or not, and some other parameters had other values):
The files "handling.meta" being well built, everything is fine and we find BRIOSO2 as it should be with all its values (with also the <strAdvancedFlags> tag and its replaced value).

I hope this will help you. This allows you to see the differences between your latest version 1.2.0.4 and the other two. If you wish, I'm ok for testing your future update. Have a great weekend. ;-)

@DataModderProgrammer
Hi! To do my tests with your version 1.2.0.4, having previously found an original file "handling.meta" bugged the game version 1.53 (the one containing BRIOSO2 of the MPHEIST4 DLC), I used it and I made a corrected version with the 2 notified lines to add so that it works without worries. I also used the original file without modification in the "update.rpf" because it seems ok to use your mod reliably. That of "update.rpf" undergoes only one change during a REPLACE. This doesn't affect the behavior in the game in any way, especially since there is no parameter value in it ( <Item type="CBaseSubHandlingData"/> is replaced by <Item type="NULL" /> for the METROTRAIN vehicle). Your mod does everything almost authentically with the original file "handling.meta" du " update.rpf".

1_ Tests with a bugged original file (MPHEIST4 DLC):
a_ In ADD mode:
If the files "handling.meta" are well built, everything is fine.
Regarding <strAdvancedFlags>14000000</strAdvancedFlags> , if this line type isn't between the 2 lines I talked about previously to fix the bug cleanly ( <Item type="CCarHandlingData"> and </Item> ), your mod removes it, then replaces it with:
<Item type="NULL" />

b_ In REPLACE mode:
If the files "handling.meta" are well built, everything is fine.
Regarding <strAdvancedFlags>14000000</strAdvancedFlags> , it does the same as ADD mode no matter if we would have put another value.

2_ Tests with a corrected original file (DLC MPHEIST4) so adding the 2 lines in the file "handling.meta" where it's missing, or where it needs to be:
a_ In ADD mode:
If the files "handling.meta" are well built, everything is fine.
Regarding <strAdvancedFlags>14000000</strAdvancedFlags> , your mod takes and copies the line as it's between the 2 lines: <Item type="CCarHandlingData"> and </Item> if while fine found in the tag <SubHandlingData> ... </SubHandlingData>

b_ In REPLACE mode:
If the files "handling.meta" are well built, everything is fine.
Regarding <strAdvancedFlags>14000000</strAdvancedFlags> , it replaces well the value contained in <strAdvancedFlags> if as in ADD mode, everything is well there under the same conditions.

=> When the "REPLACE!" button or " ADD!" button is pressed, it would be very useful if your mod creates a log file indicating the vehicles that it doesn't add in ADD mode as well as the vehicles that your mod doesn't replace the parameters in REPLACE mode and also those that are in the same case as BRIOSO2 (to add manually the 2 lines correcting this bug if you don't allow your mod to do it automatically). This would make it possible to go directly to see where the real mistakes are. I propose this because when you have several thousand lines, it becomes cumbersome to check.
For a concern of authenticity of the desired content, it's better to warn automatic changes for the type BRIOSO2 bug by a log file.

3_ Something else I realized and of which I don't know the cause, why as for the SLAMTRUCK or WINKY vehicle, it adds 1 extra line and useless:
<Item type="NULL" />
Therefore, by controlling the number of lines, one wonders if there isn't an error in some vehicles while it doesn't affect the behavior in the game of these vehicles concerned by this addition.
In addition, if we want to check line by line everything becomes shifted between the file to be modified and the one from which we add or replace.

4_ Classification of certain vehicles:
Why did you put LANDSTLKR2 in the OFFROAD category and not in SUV as it would seem to me more sensible?
In the same way, why did you put SQUADDIE in MILITARY and not in SUV?
Same for BANSHEE2 that was put in SPORT not in SUPER?
For MESA handling, it's quite tricky. Certainly, the MESA and MESA2 vehicles are in SUV and the MESA3 in OFFROAD: it remains a choice according to each.
By the way, I consulted the site https://gta.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Vehicles (item "Vehicle class" in the vehicle card) to check. Maybe this could help you to classify them. The other vehicles are very well classified.

5_ What is good:
_ Replacing the lines <Item type="" /> with <Item type="NULL" /> and this is consistent although it takes away the authenticity of the original line. ;-)
_ The various features of your mod to add vehicles or settings, and also to replace the settings of all or some vehicles (including the selection / deselection of any vehicle belonging to the same category by the right click: it's great and productive). :-)
_ Updating the categories for each vehicle (except maybe for some vehicles (noted in my comment part 4) which I would have put in a different category than the one you chose, but nothing serious). :-)
_ Although they disappear in the file to be edited, comments no longer prevent merging in either ADD or REPLACE mode. Depending on what is requested, all vehicles add well or parameter values replace well. ;-)
_ The speed of execution of the requested tasks when pressing the " ADD!" or " REPLACE!". :-)

6_ What is no good:
_ Replacing automatically a line of code said "unknow" other than <Item type="" /> with <Item type="NULL" /> because it removes the authenticity of the desired parameters of the vehicle concerned (especially if this type of change isn't warn in a log file). A log file as I mentioned in my comment part 2 would be welcome (with the BRIOSO2 case as an example).
_ The Automatic addition of extra line <Item type="NULL" /> as for example for SLAMTRUCK or WINKY (DLC MPHEIST4). When there is only one for example, it isn't worth adding another because it changes the number of lines per vehicle. So we wonder why and we will check if there isn't an error. However, this isn't really a mistake in itself and it has no influence on the game. As a result, we needlessly waste time checking what shouldn't be.
_ It lacks a log file to do the checks where the authenticity of modification of the lines of type BRIOSO2 bug isn't there: listing only the names of the vehicles concerned would already be good.
_ It's a pity to lose one or more parameters influencing the behavior of the vehicle in the game by replacing the line with <Item type="NULL" /> . It would have been better to be able to benefit by putting them in their respective tags if we know where they need to be. If you delete settings, it's better to warn by a log file.

I hope this will help you improve your mod as much as possible. Let me know whether or not you will bring each of these proposals for its improvement. If you do, thank you in advance for sharing us its update. I'd like to test your future update. Have a good week. Good courage. :-)

@DataModderProgrammer Hi! Ok thanks, I will check your version 1.2.0.4 when it's available and as soon as possible.
Yes, this is what I said previously that it must be an error when developing this DLC (MPHEIST4) and so it isn't due to your mod for BRIOSO2. To clarify, I recently did the test with version 1.53 when I discovered the BRIOSO2 bug. This is why I wanted to warn so that if someone wants to add BRIOSO2, it's necessary to manually add the 2 lines described previously for BRIOSO2 in the original file "handling.meta" from the game's MPHEIST4 DLC (version 1.53) before using it in your mod. So don't modify your mod for the BRIOSO2 anomaly. ;-)
Your update for the categories of the new vehicles is really welcome.
The most important thing is that we retrieve fully all the lines of each vehicle as in the original files "handling.meta" of the game where there is no syntax error in the code. And this, in order either to be able to add the desired vehicles (with all their full content) or to be able to replace the values in each parameter of these vehicles by our custom file. When adding a vehicle, it is better to add all or nothing of this vehicle because it allows you to better know where the errors are and see if the number of added lines matches between the file to be modified and the other file. This is what I found really good in your previous ones
Optionally, it might be good to display the number of vehicles added or modified when your mod has finished its work or put it in an automatic log file (with the list of vehicles performed if it's in log file). However, I don't want it to weigh down your mod because I appreciate its speed of action given the number of changes it is supposed to make.
Thank you to tell me whether or not you will do what I propose to improve your already awesome mod. Don't worry, I will soon test your new version 1.2.0.4 and I will tell you what I think.
Have a nice day. :-)