69 replies to this topic

[dabus]

Ok, I think this is a misunderstanding.

I will append the text to the existing one in the edit-box at the bottom.
But I am not sure if the text should be visible only when I click on a colored mod-line or if I click or - in case the problem is related to a special component - this should be displayed when clicking on that component and not on the mod.

@The imp:
So I think I've read that you want to put all stuff that can be pinpoint to a component to that component and display "general" problems when clicking on the mod.

Uuh, the downside of leaving out the null in the front is that the text will "move" and will not have an clean alignment. So that will look bad and your precious brain and eyes will have to work more.

I cannot handle this whole selection with the batch, so no reason to think about that.

@Leomar:
Plain = The plain text from the ini-file. So I will not work on the text to make it readable.

@Lol:
Your box is looks good, but it's some extra work and my solution will be used both for the info and for the action. Your's will only be useful for the info. And I don't use richtext-controls, so bold text will not be supported.

And the difference is that DTotSC can be standalone (with BGT) while NTotSC need itself, the patch and DTotSC.

Edited by dabus, 28 November 2009 - 07:17 AM.

[dabus]

Ok, here's a little preview:

This has a fixed component-length with 4 numbers.


This does not.


I think the first one looks slightly better because you have this strict alignment.
And as you can see in the first image, the things that are related to a special component are displayed when you click that one and and when clicking on the mod itself (like in the second image).

Edited by dabus, 28 November 2009 - 07:36 AM.

[Lollorian]

This has a fixed component-length with 4 numbers.
<Image>

I think the first one looks slightly better because you have this strict alignment.

+1 and totally awesome lookin with all those colors

Btw, does the "Jump to next part of mod" jump to the next component or the next instance when it gets installed?? (cause jumping to consecutive components sounds kinda silly when the component's right below it )

And what about when some component is preferred to another component (instead of the entire mod) like the Sarevok Diary thing in both BG1UB and ... something else

Cheers,
Lol

[dabus]

I hope that there is not that much silliness in the BWS that you would assume that it jumps to the next instance of a mod if it is slitted and installed in 2 or more "piles" during the installation of the BWP.

And if one component is preferred to another, then it is ... uh... preferred?
If Mod A contains one component that Mod B has in a similar way, both mods can be installed and the similar component that is treated as worse will be left out.
I'm thinking of doing that on a default basis. If you disagree, you can just select the components you want to have.

[Lollorian]

LOL I meant how was it gonna be displayed??

UB (component 1234) is preferred over XYZMod (component 4321)??

Cheers,
Lol

[dabus]

BG1NPC (component 30) is preferred to bg1ub (component 27).
tb#quest (component 2) needs Refinements (component 0).
ATweaks (component 120) is preferred to KonTwk (component 9).
scsII (component 4060, 4061, 4062, 4063, 4064, 4065, 4066 or 4067) is preferred to BG2_Tweaks (component 1161 or 1160), cliffhistory and Oversight (component 5).

This is gonna be displayed if you click the component 30, 27, 2 and so on.

Edited by dabus, 28 November 2009 - 08:41 AM.

[Mike1072]

The related thing that I'm unsure about is the component-number.

Should it be in front of the displayed name of the component?

20: Extended ToB Item Descriptions: v18
0020: Extended ToB Item Descriptions: v18

I currently think that those component numbers should be added like in the second example since it has the same format as in the pdf.

Or do you think that these are useless now that you should be able to select them with a click and they shall be left out?
If it's left out, would it make more sense to replace the component number from above?

If I were interested in reading the component numbers, I think I'd find it easier to read them if they were left unformatted, so they matched what you'd find in WeiDU.log or a mod's .tp2. However, I think a lot of the time nobody will care about these, so maybe you could add a toggle on/off option so users could enable or disable this behaviour. The version numbers listed after each component could also be removed, since the mod title already displays the version.

Some of the dependencies you've listed (like IR and 1PP) could also be elaborated on and/or have more information embedded into the application to automatically decide what to do (if you don't already). For example, if I decided to play a game without IR's main component, I'd still want 1PP Flaming Swords and the rest to be installed.

[dabus]

@Mike1072:
Component-numbers:
If nobody cares about the nulls in front ob the numbers, then why bother and add a toggle-switch?
I think I'll make a fixes version, if anyone wants to change that, I can tell them were to set that.

Version-numbers:
Removing the version-numbers works only for a part, so I don't really know if I should add that.
The main reason for that is that there's no rule for that.

Item Revisions by Demivrgvs: v2 (Hotfix 20091009)
Horace - BGII: v1.71
de'Arnise Romance for Baldur's Gate II, v2
Moongaze's Kari v1
Kelsey: TdB - Version 1
Saradush: beta 4

I can remove the : v1.71 and so on, since that is a logic that I can reproduce, but the others are a bit outside of that.
I don't know if it is good to keep some and remove some.
Since it will be a lot of work to keep up to the development - even more then now - I don't think that - whoever will have that duty - will see the urge to remove the version numbers.

More logic:
Well, it'll be enough to keep me thinking about the new stuff I'll add now, adding additional stuff (at runtime ?) won't be an option now. At least I don't think so, currently. So you will have to decide at the end of the selection how you want to solve conflicts and then go on, just like it is the case now.

Edited by dabus, 29 November 2009 - 02:52 AM.

[Mike1072]

@Mike1072:
Component-numbers:
If nobody cares about the nulls in front ob the numbers, then why bother and add a toggle-switch?
I think I'll make a fixes version, if anyone wants to change that, I can tell them were to set that.

Ah, sorry if I was unclear about the component numbers. That's what happens when I edit random sentences before posting. I meant to say that perhaps you could add a toggle to turn on or off the display of component numbers entirely. I think many people won't care what the component numbers are and showing them all the time is a bit distracting. If I wanted to quickly match up component numbers with components, I'd find the version without prefixes the easiest to read.

Version-numbers:
Removing the version-numbers works only for a part, so I don't really know if I should add that.
The main reason for that is that there's no rule for that.

Item Revisions by Demivrgvs: v2 (Hotfix 20091009)
Horace - BGII: v1.71
de'Arnise Romance for Baldur's Gate II, v2
Moongaze's Kari v1
Kelsey: TdB - Version 1
Saradush: beta 4

I can remove the : v1.71 and so on, since that is a logic that I can reproduce, but the others are a bit outside of that.
I don't know if it is good to keep some and remove some.

Well, the component listing in the screenshot looks like stuff taken from WeiDU.log entries, which consist of the component name followed by ": %version_string%" if the mod uses VERSION. In the list above, the de'Arnise Romance and Kari mods have components which include a version number in their names instead of using VERSION. I'm not really bothered by those because the mod author has chosen to display it that way. The setup for IR would display "Install Component [Item Revisions by Demivrgvs]?" while the setup for de'Arnise Romance would display "Install Component [de'Arnise Romance for Baldur's Gate II, v2]?"

The reason I'd like to turn off the display of version information is because it's distracting for mods with multiple components.

If adding crazy mod dependency logic isn't yet on the table (and I don't blame you for that), maybe the descriptions of the dependencies could just be expanded with some of the info from the BWP .pdf.

Edit: By the way, I should mention that I'm looking forward to the new BWS, which is what prompted my feedback. I've not used the BWS or BWP before, as my installs are usually small enough that it's easy enough to handle everything on my own, but the direction you are taking the tool in now should make this a handy utility for just about everyone wanting to get 5 or more mods installed together smoothly.

Edited by Mike1072, 29 November 2009 - 02:44 AM.

[dabus]

Version-numbers:
I use weidu --list-languages ATP2.tp2 ANUMBER to get the component-name, so I don't know about version-strings.
Knowing how to parse a TP2 would not be of that much use that I would be willing to do it just for the sake of a name without a version - in some or most cases.

This is what I already have been trying to do with string-management:

If StringInStr($p_String, ': ') Then 
	$Test=StringTrimLeft($p_String, StringInStr($p_String, ': ', 1, -1)-1)
	If StringRegExp($Test, '\A(:|\x2e|\s|\d|v)*\z') Then Return StringReplace($p_String, $Test, '')
EndIf
Return $p_String

If the string contains a colon, see if the string after this colon is made of the colon, period, space, numbers and the letter v. In that case, remove this string.

Dependencies:
Ah, I just corrected the text. The dependencies will be used to enable a selection between components that have conflicts. When you leave the selection screen, you will be asked what mod/component you would like to keep like it is done now. I may also add a switch to remove all conflicts that can be removed by selecting the superior option, but I don't know if that would be a good decision until I have coded the logic on detecting the selection.

And last but not least: You reminded me that text can also be added to components like it can be assigned to mods. So if anyone wants to go ahead and feels the urge to add some to a component (because it is special/has some sort of conflict, needs a special handling that needs to be explained), it can be done.
Since I just don't like doing the paperwork and keep the data up to date, I will not do that.

If someone feels like doing so, the possibility already exist.

[Lollorian]

Ok, this probably isn't the right place to request this, so if I erred, sorry

Since the L1NPC mod allows you to customize any and all NPCs (and mod NPCs too ... in the next version), I was thinking whether an additional checkbox could be made (in the part where you choose resolution) asking "Do you wanna customize your NPCs with the L1NPC mod???"

If that box gets checked, the BWS could pause once the main component of L1NPCs gets installed and run Setup-L1NPC again, allowing the user to customize their NPCs. So, when that's done, the BWS could resume again and complete the widescreen/gen_biff stuff

Thanks,
Lol

[dabus]

Yes!
Stupid dependencies and conflicts are half way implemented.
(I need some stuff for the installation-part, though, but I hope that I can reuse the existing code.)

So, here is what I've got:
Conflicts/Dependencies between single mods or components
Conflicts/Dependencies between multiple mods and one/multiple components

Really simplistic 1-level autosolve for conflicts/dependencies, may add more "levels".

Here is a screenshot:



Do you think you miss something in the screen?
As you see, you got the option to remove conflicts within the local problem or remove items that hinder the component/mod or remove parts from the mod itself if is causes problems globally.

Dependencies can be solved or the item can be removed.

I think this is a real big step forward.

[Jarno Mikkola]

Here is a screenshot:

Do you think you miss something in the screen?
As you see, you got the option to remove conflicts within the local problem or remove items that hinder the component/mod or remove parts from the mod itself if is causes problems globally.

Well, you could use the mods name + and then the components number + name in the description, as the "Alter Mage Spell Progress Table -> PnP Table: v8" is a bit unclear and hard to understand where the unheaven it comes from. And you should only have one remove option per selected row, so you can and should select the other when you wish to remove that...

So the display would be: Mod, Component(the headers)
Mod1 name, Component number + Description(the table content, conflicting file 1)
Mod2 name, Component number + Description(the table content, conflicting file 2)

And when you right click the conflicting mod1 or it's component...

Conflicts with "Mod2 name", Component number + Description (problem description, over the line)
__________________________________________________(this, )
Remove "Mod2 name" component, Component number + Description
Remove "Mod2 name" all components.
Do nothing.

The last part is just so the conflict persists but you can cancel your selection of your mod/component... without the need to go outside the box, so the small red user doesn't get confused.

Edited by Jarno Mikkola, 06 December 2009 - 11:27 PM.

[dabus]

Huh? How can you be confused where the mod comes from when you clicked with your right mouse-button on it?
As you can see, there is always the Mod- & Component-Name.

And using all this stuff in one line might easily be as big as your screen, so I think I'll skip that.
But I might add the numbers to have the context to the line at the bottom & straighten the fact that it's a component.

I also think wont remove the "remove others"-options since there are scs(II) and tweak-mods that have an annoying number of conflicts. If one wants to remove them all, this is a one-click-action.

And are you sure you would not click somewhere else to get out of the menu, so the imp needs this "Do nothing-thing"?

[Jarno Mikkola]

Huh? How can you be confused where the mod comes from when you clicked with your right mouse-button on it?

Well, if your mouse is badly placed within the menu when you right click, you'll block the whole-nearly_the_whole_blue-ed line that notes the line you are at.

And are you sure you would not click somewhere else to get out of the menu, so the imp needs this "Do nothing-thing"?

No, but I am sure I could use the option if one was represented to me inside the box. So you only have to add it to the box, not remove the one outside of it...

Edited by Jarno Mikkola, 07 December 2009 - 01:41 AM.

[dabus]

Well, you should not click anything if you don't know what you are doing.
And no context menu I know has that do nothing-entry.

[Lollorian]

Agree with Jarno that the >>XXX<< looks kinda bad ... "XXX" is good

But, I dunno about the "Don't touch it" option like dabus said, you could always click somewhere else for the menu to go away

(btw, the current number of 'tiers' - component, mod, all conflicts is great Dunno what ya have in store next .. can't imagine any more tiers)

Cheers,
Lol

[dabus]

Here's a modified version.
It's more clear what is what and I don't think you'll get confused any more.

[dabus]

I guess I should list the components and mods that have been edited by the auto-solve-part, right.

Edit: Option to look at removed/added mods and take selection or reset old settings was added.

Edited by dabus, 11 December 2009 - 04:53 PM.

[dabus]

Another one:

Do you think Aurora should get a special treatment? (Closed)

Money is an issue, at least if I look at the batch-file, since it makes some "special" adjustments.
What would you prefer?

A) Defaults are set for the different pre-selections. User-actions are not taken into account.
B) If the recommended settings are not met and leave the selection, you get a message to inform you about that.
C) Different approach.

I removed "adding and removing big mods changes the defaults" from my list, since it would be annoying to reset those if you add a mod and want other settings.

Edited by dabus, 12 December 2009 - 12:01 PM.