Succeeding with something is ALWAYS great pleasure! :)

Indeed!

I was wondering - and perhaps someone can help me here - do the folks that run, edit, make additions to the main GCW site also spend time reading and posting here in the forums?

I've a question for them that I would like to have answered, but thought it might also be good to discuss it here so others can read about the question and whatever answer it receives.

Basically, I was wondering about bundling a specific NO CD patch with a specific Trainer and submitting it as a single download.

I was thinking of doing this because I could then state clearly that I have tested the Trainer with both the non-patched, original executable, as well as with the specific NO CD included in the bundle and found that it has been tested and seems fully functional with both.

I would like to ask for opinions on that, as well as asking for a reply about the GCW site runners, so I will know whether or not to contact them via the GCW site.

Thanks

patching no-cd into a trainer as an option has been done before, if the patch is to remove a normal cd/dvd check then i'd say go for it.. however.. if the patch is a workaround for a specific protection (starforce, safedisc, securom etc..) then i'd say no-no as it'd make it a loader and could have problems in the long run...

the best advice i can give is when making a trainer, and adding options into it, make sure those options are as safe as possible (eg: checking original bytes before you patch them, to make sure they match the ones you worked from.. and so on).. taking care and making the trainer easy to use are 2 main priorities you should have, the gfx/eye candy should come last... just my 2c though..

I was simply talking about bundling the NO CD in the archive. Not integrating that NO CD with the +1 Trainer, just including it as a separate item.

I'd put in the README file something like the following:

"This +1 trainer for Rise of the Witch King has been tested with the original files included in the Official 2.01 patch provided by EA as well as the NO CD for that same 2.01 version that is included in this archive."

I do prefer to keep the Trainer application itself simple and stand alone, for compatibility, stability and efficiency reasons. But I thought simply including the actual NO CD that I tested with would spare the user having to head over to GCW and grab a copy for themselves. It's for the sake of convenience, I suppose.

What think?

I did a bit of tweaking with the 2.01 trainer and now also the new 1.00 trainer I made. I think things look more evenly spaced and I wanted to add an "Update" number to the title bar to aid users in recognizing the version of the trainer itself to avoid confusion with the game version. I hope they look clean and simple while not appearing bland or boring. Anyway - thanks again.

http://www.pdscomputing.com/files/rotwk-01.png http://www.pdscomputing.com/files/rotwk-02.png

maybe for the 'update 1' part put in the version number? 2.01 etc... makes more sense that way, as 'update 1' might not make sense to some people

and maybe put a version number of the trainer in the bottom right corner etc...

puting the no-cd in the archive might be overkill, 2 seperate files is probably best - some people who want the trainer may not want to download the no-cd for example..

Cool. Thanks.

What if I changed it from Update 1 to something like one of these:

Release 1
Release 1.0
Release 1a

Would that make more sense?

He means have the version of the game instead of update 1

Oh.

Well, the version of the game is right there in the yellow text on the spiffy little ROTWK graphic background.

You can see the pics right there in the post above, right?

I think I liked Release 1 best, so I went with that and updated the screen shots.

I think I'm all done tweakin' now. For today at least. :)

Thanks