12 replies to this topic

[Salk]

Hello Ascension64!

I noticed that there are missing resources for several creatures in Candlekeep.

AR0015: The four voices all have associated non-existant dialogues (VOIEAS.CRE is missing VOIEAS.DLG; VOINOR.CRE is missing VOINOR.DLG; VOISOU.CRE is missing VOISOU.DLG and VOIWES.CRE is missing VOIVWES.DLG). The chanter has also no dialogue at all. Can the text associated to their chant be restored upon left clicking on them (VOIEAS->str4601, VOINOR->str4606, VOIWES->str4605, VOISOU->str4603) ?

AR6516: the NOBW4.DLG associated to the noblewoman fails to trigger. I compared nobl4.dlg in TotSC and in BGT and there is this difference (among others).

BGT

NumTimesTalkedTo(0)
!Dead("Noblewoman4")

TotSC

NumTimesTalkedTo(0)
!Dead("Noblewom")

but replacing the first with the second still does not make it work. Can you please take a look ?

Thanks!

Edited by Salk, 25 April 2007 - 04:44 AM.

[Miloch]

I noticed that there are missing resources for several creatures in Candlekeep.

AR0015: The four voices all have associated non-existant dialogues (VOIEAS.CRE is missing VOIEAS.DLG; VOINOR.CRE is missing VOINOR.DLG; VOISOU.CRE is missing VOISOU.DLG and VOIWES.CRE is missing VOIVWES.DLG). The chanter has also no dialogue at all. Can the text associated to their chant be restored upon left clicking on them (VOIEAS->str4601, VOINOR->str4606, VOIWES->str4605, VOISOU->str4603) ?

This isn't specific to BGT - the dialogues are missing even in BG1. I would suspect they decided to make their lines soundclips instead, and forgot to remove the dialog references.

AR6516: the NOBW4.DLG associated to the noblewoman fails to trigger. I compared nobl4.dlg in TotSC and in BGT and there is this difference (among others).

There is an existing fix for this by plainab in the BG1 Fixpack workroom. You seem to have a knack for requesting fixes that are already there - you do have Fixroom access you know? Actually it's just chance that I saw this, since I don't commonly browse the BGT forums (but this, also, is not specific to BGT).

[Salk]

Hello, Miloch!

I am actually happy that you came browsing the BGT forum because you give me a nice opportunity speaking of the upcoming BG1 Fixpack to relate it to BGT

In another Forum (BG1 UB), Ascension64 was asking if you guys are going to support BGT as well (which I do hope).

I have always been wondering why BGT needed to come with its own BG1 fixes and how it compares to Baldurdash, for instance. Personally I would advocate the deprecation of its internal BG1 fixes and let BGT rely completely on the BG1 fixpack instead. I can't see a big problem in this.

Also, just as experiment, I installed Baldurdash BG1 Fixes plus Dudleyfixes (both Dialog.tlk and all the .bcs, .cre, .itm., .dlg, .spl,ecc. ecc. corrections/tweaks) before performing the BGT conversion: I didn't get a single installation error and while this means not much per se, I would think that perhaps the incompatibilities are not really so many.

To make it short, I am just asking here if there might be the will to follow my advice and work parallely in this direction: from the BG1 Fixpack side to support BGT and from the BGT side to drop the internal BG1 fixes which at today seems rather obsolete (one less thing to support for the BGT author).

Edited by Salk, 26 April 2007 - 01:09 AM.

[Miloch]

Well, Ascension64 would have to answer most of that. For applying a BG1 Fixpack to BGT, we might run into the same problems as we would with Tutu (or EasyTutu). A minor problem is that most of the resource names are different. In Tutu this most often means an initial underscore _ before everything, with numerous exceptions. In BGT, there is often a "BG" added to BG1 resources that have the same name as those in BG2. I believe BGT at least has documentation as to what these are. A secondary problem is that the scripting styles for BGT and Tutu are BG2, so we would have to convert syntax in cases where there are differences. Since we're upgrading rather than downgrading, this isn't a huge issue - could probably be handled by some conversion routine. The biggest issue though, for Tutu at least, is the fact that the vast majority of string references are different, since it adds all the BG1 strings on top of the existing BG2 strings. For Tutu, there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to this - they aren't incremented by some arbitrary number or even in the same order as they were in BG1. Perhaps BGT handles this more intelligently, in which case an automated routine or macro could handle the conversion here too, for the game text update and anything else referencing strings.

[Salk]

Yes, Miloch. I do understand that some problems will likely arise for both support of EasyTuTu and BGT platforms. But I have faith in you and Ascension64 ...

We'll just have to take things step by step, I guess although before starting anything it might be good to ask also MacReady what he intends to do about the BG1 Fixpack. Technically, I guess that his favourite option would be to prepack EasyTuTu with the BG1 Fixpack's corrections. It seems he wants to keep the EasyTuTu installation as user-friendly as possible.

It would be different for BGT instead. The BG2 Fixpack already is supported and needs to be installed before BGT. I would reckon that a similar installation method should also work for the BG1 Fixpack so that it becomes->

Baldur's Gate TotSC (+official patch)
Baldur's Gate ToB + official patch

G3's BG1 Fixpack
G3's BG2 Fixpack

BGT

At least that is what I seem to think it's the most sensible solution. That would mean, as I mentioned, that BGT should deprecate its internal BG1 fixpack.

We will see what Ascension64 says when he comes here...

[Ascension64]

Well, if I support this idea, then I would have another round of BGT-WeiDU updates, another round of compatibility problems, and another round of stickies with "You should manually change this .bcs and that .bcs". I have to say that BGT-WeiDU is nearing that 'dumping stage', where you let go of your partner. I am extremely reluctant to re-open for more beta wishi-washness. I've already had enough headaches catering for new mods that some power above said must come before BGT-WeiDU.

...drop the internal BG1 fixes which at today seems rather obsolete...

Um, may I ask whether you actually read FixesList.htm. How are they 'obsolete'? Even if they will have duplicates in BG1 Fixpack does not class them as obsolete.

...one less thing to support for the BGT author...

Rather, I think that adding support for BG1 Fixpack, would be one MORE thing to support for the BGT author, no?

[Salk]

Hello!

Yes, I did read the FixesList.htm! Acutally more than once! I can be wrong but it seems to me that the total amount of fixes present in there won't be comparable to those included in the BG1 Fixpack. I used the word "obsolete" loosely, sorry for that. What I meant to say is that people will not report many hard to find bugs/inconsistencies when playing through BGT. The Fixpack team is working *just* in that direction instead and I believe it'll be much easier for them to produce something more complete.

That's why I was wondering if it was really worth to keep it alive and ditch the BG1 Fixpack. The idea behind the BG1 Fixpack for BGT is essentially the same that is beyond the BG2 Fixpack and I have some problems understanding why the latter would be fine while the first instead is just a pain in the ass. I remember compatibility problems between the early BG2 Fixpack versions and BGT as well but if your intention is to more or less call BGT 1.05 final then everything becomes more clear.

If you believe it is the best solution, I am all the way with it...I have just posted above one of the things that the Fixpack is fixing and that BGT has not. And I am just in Candlekeep...

Edited by Salk, 26 April 2007 - 05:59 AM.

[Miloch]

Well, this is kind of a theoretical discussion at this point. We don't even have a finished product for BG1, let alone BGT or Tutu. Once we do, this discussion would hinge on 1) having a BG1 Fixpack fully compatible with BGT and 2) including all the inherent BGT fixes. And some of those might be specific to BGT, as are those for example in Tutufix specific to Tutu, meaning the problems aren't applicable to BG1. Though we can look at including those in the future, it certainly isn't our top priority.

another round of stickies with "You should manually change this .bcs and that .bcs"

That sort of manual hackery I really don't understand at all, and I see it a lot in these BGT threads.

P.S.: I don't think there's such a thing as a "final release" for any software, unless it's really getting discontinued in favour of something else .

[Ascension64]

I can be wrong but it seems to me that the total amount of fixes present in there won't be comparable to those included in the BG1 Fixpack.

2) including all the inherent BGT fixes

I have been profusely wondering about why BGT's inherent Fixpack was never overtly considered as a useful base for making a BG1 Fixpack. Fixes are clearly documented in the Developers' Documentation, which is always kept up-to-date by version. Perhaps Dudleyville just precedes by reputation (although the way both Dudleyville and I describe the fixes are both very comprehensive), but a more holistic approach to incorporating fixes (c.f. narrow meanderings) would be much more useful. I am getting the feeling that BGT appears as a black box to everyone, and that the DevDoc is hands-off eyes-only material.

Still, by the time BG1 FIxpack hits its first release, BGT will have probably hit the 'modding graveyard', i.e. finished.

[Miloch]

I have been profusely wondering about why BGT's inherent Fixpack was never overtly considered as a useful base for making a BG1 Fixpack.

Eh... well maybe because you've had access to the BG1 Fixroom almost as long as I have (maybe even longer) and AFAIK you've never brought it up?

Also we have no one else working on the Fixpack with any BGT expertise, with the exception of Salk who is a relatively recent joinee. Salk did (just today) post the list of BGT fixes in the Fixroom, which is useful I guess. But of course it'd be more useful to have actual code, rather than just a laundry list of what needs to be fixed (which we already have from several sources - Dudley et al.). For that matter, we haven't even gone through the EasyTutu change log (yet) for the same reason - it'd just give us a list of stuff to fix (much of which may be redundant or specific to Tutu) rather than actual fixes.

Still, by the time BG1 FIxpack hits its first release, BGT will have probably hit the 'modding graveyard', i.e. finished.

I don't think there's such a thing as a "final release" for any software, unless it's really getting discontinued in favour of something else .

So does that mean you're going over to Tutu or what? Though I doubt all the BGT modders are going to do the same...

[Ascension64]

Eh... well maybe because you've had access to the BG1 Fixroom almost as long as I have (maybe even longer) and AFAIK you've never brought it up?

Alright, then. It's overtly there now. By some quick skimming, I can already see some fixes that people are requesting that already appear in BGT-WeiDU fixpack, e.g. 2 childs bodies from the Temple of Umberlee. What I can guarantee is that all the major problems in BG1 already have fixes included in BGT-WeiDU fixpack, and some minor ones. Very minor ones you most likely won't seen in BGT-WeiDU.

Also we have no one else working on the Fixpack with any BGT expertise, with the exception of Salk who is a relatively recent joinee. Salk did (just today) post the list of BGT fixes in the Fixroom, which is useful I guess. But of course it'd be more useful to have actual code, rather than just a laundry list of what needs to be fixed (which we already have from several sources - Dudley et al.).

Actual code is all segmented if you simply search by the ResRef. Don't know about Dudleyville, which I think might have hard-code changes rather than WeiDU code, but you should find structured code in any mod you find, unless someone went through some re-sorting acrobatics with it. 'Hard-coded' actual code in BGT-WeiDU is all spelled out (its dodgy WeiDU code, I made shortcuts so copy-and-paste won't suffice) in the DevDoc.

For that matter, we haven't even gone through the EasyTutu change log (yet) for the same reason - it'd just give us a list of stuff to fix (much of which may be redundant or specific to Tutu) rather than actual fixes.

I don't believe Macready has done anything anywhere near as comprehensive c.f. BGT-WeiDU in listing how things work and what IE scripting has changed. This makes compatibility and adaptibility so difficult for EasyTutu (dig yourself into a hole) and was the exact reason why I painstakingly made the DevDoc in the first place. Plus, if I for some reason kicked the bucket, some willing enthusiast might find it much easier to pick up from where I left off.

So does that mean you're going over to Tutu or what? Though I doubt all the BGT modders are going to do the same...

Merger is still on the cards, and guess what? No one has to stop what they are doing because it will use Tutu naming conventions. Mequel project is still a distant possibility. Of course, BG1UB is of more immediate attention.

Edited by Ascension64, 27 April 2007 - 01:24 AM.

[Ascension64]

Finally took a look at the NOBL4 and NOBW4 thing. Its simply a WEIGHT problem, but I'm sure plainab figured this one out.

[Miloch]

Eh... yeah I think so. There were a couple other issues with charming and another issue with Hull's sword in Candlekeep, but I think they're all fixed, according to this Fixroom post.