I can verify it is working on Vista....just did an upload and it fixed my scripting errors messages not showing just fine. Thanks for the fix Ned! :foodndrink:

But I needz it to work on XP and stuff

I sent Ned a privmsg and stuff. I am wondering if his program really just cannot work on XP.

It would sure be convenient to have the script debugger back. I have found that I can code like this but it's more time consuming.

@Tarrant
Did you try http://www.newvegasnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=36290? It's an alternative version of the patch. Maybe it works on XP. I can't check it in the moment no XP around.

I shall try it now.

Awww..... look what it says right on the front.

Ya, same deal here. He's aware of the problem and is working on it.

The assembly source is included and compiles under XP using FASM, but it has the same issue. Wish I knew assembly.

That statement totally confused me. Sent me to google to make sure I hadn't lost my mind.

Assembler/machine language doesn't get compiled exactly, and it doesn't have source. It's assembled. Compilers are used to turn source code into executables, and assemblers are used to turn the mnemonics of machine language into executables.

Well, unless stuff's changed. Maybe people started calling that process 'compiling' in these recent years? It will always sound weird to me, if so.

Machine language was the second language I ever programmed in. It's very, very fast in execution once assembled, in fact I've read that it runs faster than compiled code (I don't know if that's true any more but in the past I was told so). But boy it is it a low-level beast to write, edit, or mess with. I have never seen assembler on a PC like we use today.... I sorta cringe to think about it.

Err, ya - I assembled it under XP. I know diddly squat about assembly. Took me a few hours to find FASM and figure out how to "assemble" it. Just wanted to see if it would make a difference - which it did not.

"mnemonics of machine language" is a mouthful, I'll just refer to it as "ASM's"

Noted.

The differences between compiling and assembling are giving me a "crossed my eyes too long" headache.

Assembly is basically the next level above 0's and 1's. An assembly instruction is translated to what is called an opcode, which is simply a number that is put into the binary number system and then fed directly into the CPU as digital sequences, which tells it to behave in a certain way. The exact values for these opcodes vary from OS to OS (and from CPU to CPU), but in Fallout2.exe, for example, which is a 32-bit Windows 9x program, the assembly instruction "mov ebx, 6" is translated to the hex numbers BB and 06 00 00 00, which is read backwards, so it's "187", "6", which is "10111011", "110", which is "STORE THE NUMBER 6 IN THE MEMORY SPACE NAMED EBX RIGHT NOW OR DIE".

Did you ever wonder how the if-function is implemented? I did. Turns out it's an assembly function, which means it's a physical part of your CPU that gets activated every time you put "if" in a script, instead of some math going on in the sublevels of the code itself.

Anything written in any programming language, be it C-derivatives or Java, will ultimately be translated to opcodes, or values passed with already existing opcodes.

Well, it is true to some extent, but modern assemblers are higher-level than simple mnemonics over machine codes. You get automatic address calculations, macros, even certain optimisations. And comments. Most tedious work is done for you. So I don't see a reason to not call it compilation. And the source is much easier to read than disassemble the results.

Except that using FASM instead of some other assembler was a mistake.

By the way, now PowerUp supports XP.

Whew I shall give it a try right away - - I hope it allows the GECK's script compiler to work for me!

hm. I guess it is not surprising, the direction you're saying that assemblers have taken. I mean, my own take on machine language coding was that part of its identity was getting down and dirty with the tedius parts of the machine's guts. But it is as you say - - tedius as heck. A whole lot of working out tiny details that are meaningless to your process except that your process requires it. Sorta like you have to first grow the tree, and then cut it down so that you can make the boards necessary to build the house ...

well, it does seem to be supplying compiler errors for me! I guess I cannot complain at this point and can be happy and stuff!

Now, on to coding!