I don't know if any other has mentioned this, but i made a round baller put out square bales insted of round, and that worked fine. The square bale came out and got wrapped as if it was a round bale.
Could that work for you?
Can someone point me to the right place in the xml please?
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2022 12:31 am
- TheGazbeard
- Posts: 219
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2020 10:23 pm
- Location: United Kingdom
- Contact:
Re: Can someone point me to the right place in the xml please?
It's possible the xml code for the output could help to track down how it's done - thanks for asking.DeeplyDisturbed wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 9:27 am I don't know if any other has mentioned this, but i made a round baller put out square bales insted of round, and that worked fine. The square bale came out and got wrapped as if it was a round bale.
Could that work for you?
To be honest I shelved the project since I last posted here - as a streamer and video content creator I am far too busy to spend months trying to fix something that (in my opinion) should have been a base game piece of equipment. GIANTS have, and continue to, show their prejudice against square baling in FS22 (they obviously do not visit real farms away from their home region often enough).
Having shelved the project for now, that's not to say that I don't occasionally have a moan in my videos and livestreams that such a function does not exist in-game ... after all it is a game despite the game's name. If it lived up to its name, we'd have baby animals, deformable terrain, far more crop types etc. and most importantly a truly dynamic economic system.
(/rant)
-
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2022 2:25 am
Re: Can someone point me to the right place in the xml please?
Interesting thread. I wonder if you need to consider having two pieces of equipment. That doesnt necessarily mean two visible models. However you might need to define an invisible wrapper to sit in side the baler that receives the grass bale and then outputs a wrapped bale. That potentially would allow you to have a key def to turn the function on and off. The reason for having the ïnvisible wrapper is to allow a second xml def that might might not be supported in the first.