Posted 07 December 2013 - 12:47 AM
All this discussion is moot if A64 doesn't return to modding.
However, I agree with 10th here. I feel BGT:EE would still have a meaning although its scope would be reduced compared to the original project, due to the BG1:EE and BG2:EE sharing the same engine.
Edited by Salk, 07 December 2013 - 12:47 AM.
Marvin
Posted 07 December 2013 - 05:22 AM
Why? Is he the only one that could do it?
Not good, see EVIL is better. You'll LIVE.
Posted 07 December 2013 - 06:25 AM
Why? Is he the only one that could do it?
Well, no... but it would help the project quite bit as he(A64) should have the deep and intimate knowledge of the current code to know what's what there for. As he was there to make the non-weidu BGT conversion to BGT-weidu, which added compatibility to immense amount of mods. So it might not take additional 2 years just for this to happen.... and as should you know, he also has a large stake(knowledge) in the ToBEx.
Yep, Jarno Mikkola. my Mega Mod FAQ. Use of the BWS, and how to use it(scroll down that post a bit).
OK, desert dweller, welcome to the sanity, you are free to search for the limit, it's out there, we drew it in the sand. Ouh, actually it was still snow then.. but anyways.
Posted 07 December 2013 - 11:02 PM
C'mon guys, let's just wait for an answer from the master of BGT. I really hope he's got some present for Christmas for all of us. Wouldn't be counting on it though.
From the technical point of view, assuming that BGEE and BGIIEE engines are 100% same, converting BGEE to BGIIEE should be quite easy mainly changing area names to avoid any duplicates. I may be mistaken but all DLG and other fixes should be included already. The transition itself could have some more modding insight though.
Posted 08 December 2013 - 01:06 AM
I think that a new BGT-EE might be an opportunity to work on a better transition. Just that would justify making a specific EE version.
Posted 13 December 2013 - 01:47 PM
Based on my limited modding knowledge: since the engines are the same, you'd have to bring over the area files.
They'd have to be renamed as they are already in BGT so they don't overwrite the same area names in BG2. Actors with the same names would need different creature files (eg Sendai is two different NPCs in BG1 and BG2).
and
The transition between games includes the cutscene and some save game variable scrubbing / inventory cleaning out etc would have to take place.
Posted 10 October 2014 - 07:50 AM
And it would be glorious. Starting a new game = bad. Seamlessly transitioning from part 1 to part 2 = good.
Not good, see EVIL is better. You'll LIVE.
Posted 10 October 2014 - 08:06 AM
Update, I believe that K4thos has made deep strides into making BGEET/BGTEE a reality.
Yep, Jarno Mikkola. my Mega Mod FAQ. Use of the BWS, and how to use it(scroll down that post a bit).
OK, desert dweller, welcome to the sanity, you are free to search for the limit, it's out there, we drew it in the sand. Ouh, actually it was still snow then.. but anyways.
Not good, see EVIL is better. You'll LIVE.
Posted 10 October 2014 - 08:33 AM
Cool! Any linky to a forum or post?
No, not really, but if you look at what people like Wisp is doing with his free time, and read the Weidu's upcoming version update -log, you'll notice EET as a game_is flag, and that the BG2EE is to be the preferred the engine_is check over BG1EE. If this wouldn't be a problem in BGEET, then what would the change be there for ? 
Or am I insane ? Perhaps, but that doesn't make me crazy ...or was it the other way around ? Darn, this paranoia makes things so much more interesting.
Edited by The Imp, 10 October 2014 - 08:36 AM.
Yep, Jarno Mikkola. my Mega Mod FAQ. Use of the BWS, and how to use it(scroll down that post a bit).
OK, desert dweller, welcome to the sanity, you are free to search for the limit, it's out there, we drew it in the sand. Ouh, actually it was still snow then.. but anyways.
Modder
Posted 20 December 2015 - 12:56 PM
Technical question
Quote from Developer's Documentation for Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition Trilogy (EET):
*Character continuity is handled by K#TELBGT.BCS (local script attached to invisible creature (currently spawned after killing Sarevok, but in future transition will start after finishing SoD expansion).*
Where after killing Sarevok does the transition exactly take place (forgetting SoD for the moment?)
Background for the question is my existing NPC transition for continuos NPC Sandrah - her transition would need to be handled by K#TELBGT.BCS instead of ARAM000.bcs (in BGT) >> not a big issue BUT she has a number of major events in her mod between the killing of Sarevok and the talk to Belt in BGT (those would be lost if the transition happens right at Sarevoks corpse. therefore my question)
Posted 20 December 2015 - 02:11 PM
Where after killing Sarevok does the transition exactly take place (forgetting SoD for the moment?)
currently right after he is killed in the temple. Doesn't really matter where it takes place. Any script could spawn an invisible creature with that script attached to it (K#TELBGT.CRE) and after 2 script loops the transition is over.
Background for the question is my existing NPC transition for continuos NPC Sandrah - her transition would need to be handled by K#TELBGT.BCS instead of ARAM000.bcs (in BGT) >> not a big issue BUT she has a number of major events in her mod between the killing of Sarevok and the talk to Belt in BGT (those would be lost if the transition happens right at Sarevoks corpse. therefore my question)
well, the bhaal temple transition is just a temporary solution for testers. In v1.0 release it will start at the end of SoD, so you will be able to go back into Baldur's Gate areas too (in fact EET aims to never block access to old areas if possible - that is why continuous chapters system is needed and will be implemented once the BG2:EE 1.4 patch is released.
Edited by K4thos, 20 December 2015 - 02:12 PM.
Modder
Posted 20 December 2015 - 02:24 PM
Where after killing Sarevok does the transition exactly take place (forgetting SoD for the moment?)currently right after he is killed in the temple. Doesn't really matter where it takes place. Any script could spawn an invisible creature with that script attached to it (K#TELBGT.CRE) and after 2 script loops the transition is over.
Background for the question is my existing NPC transition for continuos NPC Sandrah - her transition would need to be handled by K#TELBGT.BCS instead of ARAM000.bcs (in BGT) >> not a big issue BUT she has a number of major events in her mod between the killing of Sarevok and the talk to Belt in BGT (those would be lost if the transition happens right at Sarevoks corpse. therefore my question)well, the bhaal temple transition is just a temporary solution for testers. In v1.0 release it will start at the end of SoD, so you will be able to go back into Baldur's Gate areas too (in fact EET aims to never block access to old areas if possible - that is why continuous chapters system is needed and will be implemented once the BG2:EE 1.4 patch is released.
Thank you for the answer - sounds like the right way to do it - so I hope that BG1 to SoD *transition* is done with some care (ideally using old BGT idea of reporting back to Baldur Gate Dukes and getting the new quest for Drangonspear).
Modder
Posted 20 December 2015 - 02:28 PM
Moved from BWS thread
Quote
TDD (especially the revised BG2 > ToB transition)
EET already has full BG2 -> ToB transition (unlike BGT). No idea how it works in TDD but check the "character continuity between BG2 and ToB" in EET developer's documentation for more details.
Modder
Posted 20 December 2015 - 02:34 PM
Moved from BWS threadQuote
TDD (especially the revised BG2 > ToB transition)EET already has full BG2 -> ToB transition (unlike BGT). No idea how it works in TDD but check the "character continuity between BG2 and ToB" in EET developer's documentation for more details.
Maybe use of the term *transition* was misleading here. What I meant was the additional content between BG2 defeat of Irenicus and start of ToB because in BGT your party actually continues into ToB.
The revised Fate Spirit for NPC continuity is great, the current one is just a dialogue to which every mod has added its bit over time (some NPC you never had in the party can be summoned two or three times, etc), the new one tries to give the feature some sense.
Modder
Posted 21 December 2015 - 04:01 AM
This error is in EET.tp2
Removing the CHR block from TP2 solves the issue (no idea which issue is created by it in return)
Edited by Roxanne, 21 December 2015 - 04:01 AM.
Posted 21 December 2015 - 04:49 AM
This error is in EET.tp2
Removing the CHR block from TP2 solves the issue (no idea which issue is created by it in return)
This is just to make sure the %USER_DIRECTORY%/characters folder exists. If it does (probably does), then this line is redundant.
BiG World Fixpack (community collection of mod fixes and compatibility patches, with user-friendly cross-platform script)
BiG World Setup (tool to automate best-practice installation of Infinity Engine mods on Windows, with conflict analysis)
Latest version: https://bitbucket.or.../get/master.zip
Posted 21 December 2015 - 04:56 AM
not an error. Beta EET is dependent on beta version of latest weidu (v238.01) and the file is included in the package (although BWS may had replaced it). The reason why we're using latest beta is related to this new feature: "WeiDU is able to resolve the IDS symbol ANYONE.". Some mods (for example BG1 NPC Project) had problems when you tried to re-compile thier scripts/dialogues with older weidu.
That DIRECTORY_EXISTS (also new feature of the latest weidu) is not really needed, but I've added it to get rid of the unharmful "UNIX error" message during installation.
Edited by K4thos, 21 December 2015 - 04:56 AM.
Modder
Posted 21 December 2015 - 05:02 AM
not an error. Beta EET is dependent on beta version of latest weidu (v238.01) and the file is included in the package (although BWS may had replaced it). The reason why we're using latest beta is related to this new feature: "WeiDU is able to resolve the IDS symbol ANYONE.". Some mods (for example BG1 NPC Project) had problems when you tried to re-compile thier scripts/dialogues with older weidu.
That DIRECTORY_EXISTS (also new feature of the latest weidu) is not really needed, but I've added it to get rid of the unharmful "UNIX error" message during installation.
I have manually replaced weidu with the beta v238.01 - This is what I use
Version 239:
* Remove DESCRIBE_ITEM and --list-eff.
* Fix a problem with CREATEd spells of format version V1.
* COPY_KIT fails better if oldKit does not exist.
* --transitive does not get caught in infinite loops.
* WeiDU uses native-looking separator characters (mostly cosmetic) in a few
places it did not use to.
* WeiDU is able to resolve the IDS symbol ANYONE.
Edited by Roxanne, 21 December 2015 - 05:07 AM.
Modder
Posted 21 December 2015 - 12:08 PM
I finally managed to install EET with the currently supported mods for both parts.
Also converted SandrahNPC for chapter 1 + 2 to EET to give it a try.
Question - it the movement speed (everybody seems to wear boots of speed) a feature of EE or EET or a bug?
Edited by Roxanne, 22 December 2015 - 09:39 AM.
