You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hello, with Warcraft 3 I see that obviously if the .exe launcher is different to the .exe that are on execution with the game open the skin can't obviously monitoring the play time.
I see this issue too with a game that first launch a launcher, and in that launcher you must click "Play game" to open the game, and after that the launcher closes and the game appears.
So I figure out that maybe could be implemented an option in Windows Shortcuts games to optionally add two paths instead of one, one will be the one that make the game launch, and the other will be the path to the .exe that must be monitorized to get the hours of play time. So for example the skin launchs Warcraft3.exe but monitorize if War3.exe is being executed or not. Or maybe better first one and then the other to avoid that [ProcessMonitor] gets a value of -1 and stops the monitorizing.
I don't know if it is easy or hard, or even impossible to implement this, but I let here this suggestion just in case you want to add it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hello, with Warcraft 3 I see that obviously if the .exe launcher is different to the .exe that are on execution with the game open the skin can't obviously monitoring the play time.
I see this issue too with a game that first launch a launcher, and in that launcher you must click "Play game" to open the game, and after that the launcher closes and the game appears.
So I figure out that maybe could be implemented an option in Windows Shortcuts games to optionally add two paths instead of one, one will be the one that make the game launch, and the other will be the path to the .exe that must be monitorized to get the hours of play time. So for example the skin launchs Warcraft3.exe but monitorize if War3.exe is being executed or not. Or maybe better first one and then the other to avoid that [ProcessMonitor] gets a value of -1 and stops the monitorizing.
I don't know if it is easy or hard, or even impossible to implement this, but I let here this suggestion just in case you want to add it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: