92 replies to this topic

[cmorgan]

Well, I have a report from a kind young gentleman who missed the sfx installer licence page that said "don't install this - go uninstall the mod, delete the folder, and then come back and be reading this for the *second time* - it will break your game", followed by the actal text, followed by a readme that is forced to popup first, complete with warnings...

so I do agree that it is worth the time to write the information, as long as everyone understands that there will still be folks who will manage to download and install a mod and actually blow past forced documentation. I am not criticising the user, because I hvae been known to sam "accept" rather than reading the EULA myself, just saying

Ascension64, Macready does something different than the VB code above. I just figured you could adapt the area list. I *think* he uses MD5 checksums, but I am not sure what that specifically means, let alone how he uses it. I'll be back in a bit with what I can glean out of his installer.

Edit: OK, he uses InstallSHIELD, and within setup.ins runs a check and error logging that tells the user exactly what files are missing if something is missing, and exits the install procedure. I am off to look for a program that will convert the .ins file to a readable fomat (I am getting garbage with all the standard text programs I have installed at the moment.)

Second Edit: Darn. OK. I think you will build your own code faster than I can either get/learn installSHIELD. There is a free 21 day evaluation copy if I register, but I think I may need to learn more about what I am doing, or I will waste the 21 day trial just poking about and never really learn what I am doing - if you would like, I can email you the setup.ins, or you could just PM Macready for the code he uses. From what I see in the installer that isn't nulls, hexidecimal stuff, etc, it is the same list as presented above with a script that checks for each file and outputs a list of failed file checks at the end, rather than the MD5 stuff. I found good online articles about cracking itm, and refeences to some .exe that does this, but that runs over my comfort level (and when the articles are talking about code stripping, reverse engineering tools, and decryption algorythms, I run for the hills. I know WeiDu is actually both a reverse-engineering tool and a modification/extraction/compiler all rolled into one, but I just hang around with you guys - I don't understand the skeleton).

Edited by cmorgan, 27 September 2007 - 01:48 PM.

[Anomaly]

Anyhow, I can easily make a shell script that checks for every single BG1 file. However, unless I make a sentence for every single file, I won't be able to tell the user what file they are missing. If I just checked for all files and say "Invalid installation of Baldur's Gate and Tales of the Sword Coast. Restarting..." if any one of them is missing, would that solve the issue?

Oh yes, it would be great ! It's like a sanity check. If the installation is not complete, BGT-WeiDU does not install. It's much better that its current behavior to install anyway, then crash in game when trying to load an area that is not installed, and then people are tempted to say or think : "BGT-WeiDU is crap, it crashes". I don't think there is a need to know the exact file, since most of the time the user has to reinstall BG1 correctly anyway.

And there is another thing I didn't think yesterday : some people are using damaged BG1 CDs, and when they install from them, the installer seems to simply skip the files it can't read... So the installation is not complete, but the user is not aware of it, so there is really a need of a sanity check.

That said, in this case, perhaps a way to force install anyway could be useful in case the player does not have a way to get the missing area. The game will crash when trying to load this area, but the player will know in advance that some areas may crash and will simply avoid them if possible. I'm not too sure about that though...

Do you think that people read the BGT readme before installing BG1? I'm just concerned that having a note in the readme wouldn't be terribly useful if people install BG1 first without reading the readme.

I don't think it will hurt to add it. I was suggesting it because a player just yesterday was scared by this error message, she was really thinking that the installer was denying her to go further because of the error message and so she couldn't install a full BG1.

[Ascension64]

@cmorgan: Thanks. I super-padded my shell script with IF NOT EXIST statements of all the BIFF files you mentioned in the VB script you attached, which seem to work perfectly when I decide I might rename one of my BG1 BIFFs. As for the MD5 checksums, its like a file integrity check to ensure that the contents (every single binary) of the file match what it should be. Archive files use checksums frequently to look for damaged archives, and the MD5 checker is useful to ensure that no one hacked a file to change its contents. However, if someone just happened to open up a BG1 BIFF in NearInfinity, and change it in the slightest way possible, I believe the checksum would change, rendering the entire BG1 installation useless.

@Anomaly: Shell script done. I added a note that people can abort the installation during the BG1 directory prompt if they need to fix things up. The only downside of aborting installation at this step is those people wanting to use auto-install and their BG1 installation is incorrect need to manually delete a file before trying to install again, but those people running a normal install shouldn't have a problem. The shell script checks for all BG and BG:TotSC BIFFs, BGMain2.exe and chitin.key, since I think it is just the chitin.key and all the BIFFs that are required to use WeiDU --biff-get-rest on anyway, even if you don't have a full BG1 installation.

I don't think it will hurt to add it. I was suggesting it because a player just yesterday was scared by this error message, she was really thinking that the installer was denying her to go further because of the error message and so she couldn't install a full BG1.

I can add it to the requirements section to ignore disk space warnings if you like.

Edited by Ascension64, 27 September 2007 - 04:18 PM.

[Salk]

Few notes:

* arowkc.itm and arrophe2.itm are just fire arrows (arow08.itm) that monster use but they have an unfair bonus to hit and damage of +2. I think it should be removed.

* After BGT-conversion using International English, StrRef 7149 ("Book" in BG1 Dialog.tlk) is no longer "Book" but a wrong "Lium's Journal of Malevolent Magicks" (valid strings would be 61859 or 63852 or 63853)

EDIT: Actually I am a bit confused about this now. After a clean installation of ToB, I can see that the game has the same issue which has then nothing to do with BGT. Is it perhaps a false alarm?

* Misc1j.itm has gtreas01.bam as ground icon. It should be instead ggem01.bam

Edited by Salk, 06 October 2007 - 03:27 AM.

[Ascension64]

* arowkc.itm and arrophe2.itm are just fire arrows (arow08.itm) that monster use but they have an unfair bonus to hit and damage of +2. I think it should be removed.

Wouldn't the original purpose of these be to deliberately make monsters hit better?

* After BGT-conversion using International English, StrRef 7149 ("Book" in BG1 Dialog.tlk) is no longer "Book" but a wrong "Lium's Journal of Malevolent Magicks" (valid strings would be 61859 or 63852 or 63853)

Items requiring 0 lore to identify automatically use identified description if the StrRef specified exists, so it doesn't end up producing a problem.

* Misc1j.itm has gtreas01.bam as ground icon. It should be instead ggem01.bam

Are you sure? A lot of other gems I just checked also use GTREAS01.BAM.

[Salk]

* arowkc.itm and arrophe2.itm are just fire arrows (arow08.itm) that monster use but they have an unfair bonus to hit and damage of +2. I think it should be removed.

Wouldn't the original purpose of these be to deliberately make monsters hit better?

In unmodded Baldur's Gate 1, all Fire Arrows have +2 to Thac0 and +2 to Damage. Baldur's Gate 2, removes the bonus - and rightly so - from the arrows of fire that players use (arow08.itm) but just forgets to be consistent with the monsters' arrows of fire which originally are identical.

* After BGT-conversion using International English, StrRef 7149 ("Book" in BG1 Dialog.tlk) is no longer "Book" but a wrong "Lium's Journal of Malevolent Magicks" (valid strings would be 61859 or 63852 or 63853)

Items requiring 0 lore to identify automatically use identified description if the StrRef specified exists, so it doesn't end up producing a problem.

Perfect okay then...

* Misc1j.itm has gtreas01.bam as ground icon. It should be instead ggem01.bam

Are you sure? A lot of other gems I just checked also use GTREAS01.BAM.

I see. Well, the gems have their own bam and I guess it might be good to have them use all their specific ground icon? But it's just a minor detail that is out of the scope of BGT, I guess. I might ask what people at BG2 UB and/or BG2 Fixpack think without bothering you with it...

Edited by Salk, 07 October 2007 - 06:56 AM.

[Ascension64]

In unmodded Baldur's Gate 1, all Fire Arrows have +2 to Thac0 and +2 to Damage. Baldur's Gate 2, removes the bonus - and rightly so - from the arrows of fire that players use (arow08.itm) but just forgets to be consistent with the monsters' arrows of fire which originally are identical.

OK, will look at and fix.

[Ghildrean]

Er, a question.

In the journal, when you arrive to Nashkel and talk with the guy that tell to you about winter wolf skin, he gives a quest saying about you can sell the winter wolf skin for gold, etc. But this quest cannot be completed. Would not be better it to go in the journal entries instead of quest entries?

I remember that there is another quest that can't be completed, but i don't remember which is.

[Chevalier]

But this quest cannot be completed.

It worked for me a few days ago. I had a Winter Wolf pelt with me and he bought it from me.

[melkor_morgoth75]

The quest is completed, but it remains in the journal as "active".

mm75

[Ascension64]

You can sell him pelts forever, so I recall. The journal entrie is thus removed when you transition to BG2 (when the quest can no longer be continued).

[Ghildrean]

The quest is completed, but it remains in the journal as "active".

mm75

This is what i say. It could be changed to diary instead of quest.

[Salk]

Changing it to a Journal entry would make sense.

[Ascension64]

Changing it to a Journal entry would make sense.

I liked the idea of keeping it as a quest, similar to bandit scalps, to remind you that you can still do sell the pelts, scalps, etc. It gets lost in the journal entry section. That was my opinion anyway. Thoughts?

[melkor_morgoth75]

Changing it to a Journal entry would make sense.

I liked the idea of keeping it as a quest, similar to bandit scalps, to remind you that you can still do sell the pelts, scalps, etc. It gets lost in the journal entry section. That was my opinion anyway. Thoughts?

It's an idea yes ... but remember please that a player can always write down a journal entry by himself in the "personal" section of the journal.

I'd prefer for example the fix BG2 fixpack implementation, which stops the chance to sell pelts after the fisrt as intended (apparently) by the game. But it's s VERY VERY minor discussion/problem for me ;-)

mm75

Edited by melkor_morgoth75, 18 October 2007 - 05:38 AM.

[Salk]

In unmodded Baldur's Gate 1, all Fire Arrows have +2 to Thac0 and +2 to Damage. Baldur's Gate 2, removes the bonus - and rightly so - from the arrows of fire that players use (arow08.itm) but just forgets to be consistent with the monsters' arrows of fire which originally are identical.

OK, will look at and fix.

There is some discussion going on about this at the BG1 Fixpack Forum and there is no consensus about being a fix. I'd say you don't bother with it though in my game it will certainly be so for consistency/game balance reason.

Some people there said that it'd be strange that the developers would create an undroppable kind of fire arrow if they then intended for them to use the "normal" kind. They have a point in that. I replied that there are many things that the developers have not given much thought...

[Salk]

Can you perhapt give an estimate when we can expect 1.05 ? 1 month, 2 months, doesn't have to be precise, more a general idea

It depends on the translators, really. I would guess that everything is ready save the missing translations.

[Ascension64]

In unmodded Baldur's Gate 1, all Fire Arrows have +2 to Thac0 and +2 to Damage. Baldur's Gate 2, removes the bonus - and rightly so - from the arrows of fire that players use (arow08.itm) but just forgets to be consistent with the monsters' arrows of fire which originally are identical.

OK, will look at and fix.

There is some discussion going on about this at the BG1 Fixpack Forum and there is no consensus about being a fix. I'd say you don't bother with it though in my game it will certainly be so for consistency/game balance reason.

Some people there said that it'd be strange that the developers would create an undroppable kind of fire arrow if they then intended for them to use the "normal" kind. They have a point in that. I replied that there are many things that the developers have not given much thought...

Well, in this case, I would have thought that the developer's made an 'undroppable' version just so that they are 'undroppable'.

Can you perhapt give an estimate when we can expect 1.05 ? 1 month, 2 months, doesn't have to be precise, more a general idea smile.gif

It depends on the translators, really. I would guess that everything is ready save the missing translations.

Yep, just waiting for the translations to be reviewed. No pressure on them, please. I just got the Korean translation. You'll see what is pending in the 1.04 release thread.

Apart from that, I have had problems installing my own BGT mod due to what I think is some software incompatibility, but I've been too busy to do any further testing at this time.

Edited by Ascension64, 22 October 2007 - 09:34 PM.