Jump to content


Photo

Comments on IWDEE News


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#21 Yovaneth

Yovaneth

    The newly-appointed Master Builder of Baldur's Gate

  • Modder
  • 3058 posts

Posted 03 September 2014 - 02:38 AM

In addition, Almateria has absolutely no idea what she's talking about. I tend to regard her comments as akin to those of a spoilt child; if, however, she can satisfactorily prove that she has inside knowledge of the games development industry and has taken part in the development of a game and therefore knows the problems involved, I will revise my opinion. Do I know what's involved? Yes. A significant proportion of my income has derived from sub-contracting on games development for a number of years now.  Sometimes I have to meet deadlines (not always nice) but at other times I'm given the absolute luxury of 'when the code is delivered' (as in my current project). No, I'm not working on IWD:EE because I don't have the time.

 

Can I satisfactorily prove any of this? No - I have to hide behind the NDA. Almateria, you may have the last word.

 

-Y-



#22 Almateria

Almateria

    most garbage person

  • Modder
  • 947 posts

Posted 03 September 2014 - 04:07 AM

Just like you don't need to be a producer to call a movie bad, or a michelin starred cook to say something tastes terrible, I don't need to be a ~*!~bideo james insider~!*~ to say that Beamdog is garbage who couldn't code Tetris without the game crashing every time you drop an S block.



#23 Erg

Erg
  • Member
  • 23 posts

Posted 03 September 2014 - 05:26 AM

- spawns were managed by a bewildering array of invisible creatures

 

Those spawns managed by a bewildering array of invisible creatures work much better than the current spawning system in BG(n):EE as people going through dungeons like the Firewine Ruins can easily experience for themselves. It's one of the main reasons why I still prefer Tutu over BG:EE.

 

See also this: http://forum.baldurs...on-respawn-rate


Edited by Erg, 03 September 2014 - 05:33 AM.


#24 The Imp

The Imp

    Not good, see EVIL is better. You'll LIVE.

  • Member
  • 5042 posts

Posted 03 September 2014 - 07:34 AM

- spawns were managed by a bewildering array of invisible creatures

Those spawns managed by a bewildering array of invisible creatures work much better than the current spawning system in BG(n):EE as people going through dungeons like the Firewine Ruins can easily experience for themselves.

Well, technically that can be fixed with a mod, but to do it other way around is kinda hard, and it adds lag to the old engine. Also the BGTutu Tweaks has a component that allows you to set the respawn times... it's not set to a default by a lot of players. Meaning that you are mod spoiled.. this is of course; unless you can go and make the creature summons in the IwDinBG2 work as you would like to see them(and the timers).


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.


#25 CamDawg

CamDawg

    ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD

  • Member
  • 1503 posts

Posted 03 September 2014 - 07:54 AM

- spawns were managed by a bewildering array of invisible creatures

 

Those spawns managed by a bewildering array of invisible creatures work much better than the current spawning system in BG(n):EE as people going through dungeons like the Firewine Ruins can easily experience for themselves. It's one of the main reasons why I still prefer Tutu over BG:EE.

 

See also this: http://forum.baldurs...on-respawn-rate

David was referring to the IWD-in-BG2 emulation of IWD's ini spawn system, which is accomplished by a small horde of invisible creatures. IWDEE just supports the ini files natively.


Why is this Hypnotoad video so popu... ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD.
____
The Gibberlings Three - Home of IE Mods

The BG2 Fixpack - All the fixes of Baldurdash, plus a few hundred more. Now available, with more fixes being added in every release.


#26 Eleima

Eleima

    Geek Goddess

  • Staff
  • 1861 posts

Posted 03 September 2014 - 07:57 AM

Gee wiz, you call this a news thread?  Nope!  *fixes*

And how about we all try to stay civil?  Yup, that'd be swell.


Edited by Eleima, 03 September 2014 - 08:04 AM.

Check out my DeviantArt account, as well as my scribbling on FanFiction.net
Posted Image

sig.gif


#27 Erg

Erg
  • Member
  • 23 posts

Posted 03 September 2014 - 08:48 AM

- spawns were managed by a bewildering array of invisible creatures

 

Those spawns managed by a bewildering array of invisible creatures work much better than the current spawning system in BG(n):EE as people going through dungeons like the Firewine Ruins can easily experience for themselves. It's one of the main reasons why I still prefer Tutu over BG:EE.

 

See also this: http://forum.baldurs...on-respawn-rate

David was referring to the IWD-in-BG2 emulation of IWD's ini spawn system, which is accomplished by a small horde of invisible creatures. IWDEE just supports the ini files natively.

 

Yes, and that's what worries me. If the "natively" supported spawns in IWD:EE are anything like the ones in BG:EE (and considering they share the same engine it could be), than I would prefer to have the old system instead, to avoid situations like this: http://forum.baldurs...lcaster-spiders or this: http://forum.baldurs...on-respawn-rate



#28 DavidWallace

DavidWallace
  • Member
  • 337 posts

Posted 03 September 2014 - 10:33 AM

Take it from its author. You don't want the spawn system in IWD-in-BG2. It's hideous.

More seriously, there's some significant technical background here that's relevant. vIWD and vBG2 use radically different spawning systems. The vBG2 engine (and, last time I looked, the BG2EE engine) can't handle the IWD spawning system. IWD-in-BG2 hacks around it (and that hack is nothing like anything you'll see in TUTU or BGT). IWDEE implements it natively (and that implementation is again completely different to anything you'll see in BG2EE).

#29 K4thos

K4thos
  • Member
  • 315 posts

Posted 03 September 2014 - 01:28 PM

What is the difference between spawn implementation in BG2 and IWD? I'd like to know the technical details if someone has time to explain it Based on IESDP it looks exactly the same with a little change in calculation (party level instead of player level): http://gemrb.org/ies...mAREAV9_1_Spawn



#30 The Imp

The Imp

    Not good, see EVIL is better. You'll LIVE.

  • Member
  • 5042 posts

Posted 03 September 2014 - 02:34 PM

What is the difference between spawn implementation in BG2 and IWD? I'd like to know the technical details if someone has time to explain it Based on IESDP it looks exactly the same with a little change in calculation (party level instead of player level):

Erhm you did realize that the link you just posed is of the GemRP project, an Infinity Engine Emulator, not from the actual game... and the GemRP code the games(BG1, BG2 & IwD 1) use the very same spawning point coding, which is not the linked Icewind Dale2's code.


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.


#31 CamDawg

CamDawg

    ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD

  • Member
  • 1503 posts

Posted 03 September 2014 - 03:39 PM

What is the difference between spawn implementation in BG2 and IWD? I'd like to know the technical details if someone has time to explain it Based on IESDP it looks exactly the same with a little change in calculation (party level instead of player level): http://gemrb.org/ies...mAREAV9_1_Spawn

The spawn points between BG and BG2 are identical, yes. The bug for BG2 (and in particular why worked terribly for BGT/Tutu) is that one of the constants used in the internal calculation was way out of whack when they updated it for BG2.

 

I remember coding the original invisible-creature-as-spawn-point solution for Tutu. God, what a horrible hack--my originals took into account your party size, levels, etc. to try and exactly simulate the original BG behavior. Somewhere along the way someone with a lot more sense than I swapped them for straight difficulty level checks, which is what's in the current Tutu.

 

IWD went another way entirely, using ini files attached to an area for their spawns (though i'm pretty sure PsT had them first). It's a lot more sophisticated as it allows for a lot of customization to the spawned creatures beyond what the BG/BG2 system could do, e.g. you can set specifics for each creature individually. In practice, though, those advanced capabilities were rearely utilized.


Why is this Hypnotoad video so popu... ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD.
____
The Gibberlings Three - Home of IE Mods

The BG2 Fixpack - All the fixes of Baldurdash, plus a few hundred more. Now available, with more fixes being added in every release.


#32 CamDawg

CamDawg

    ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD

  • Member
  • 1503 posts

Posted 03 September 2014 - 03:41 PM

What is the difference between spawn implementation in BG2 and IWD? I'd like to know the technical details if someone has time to explain it Based on IESDP it looks exactly the same with a little change in calculation (party level instead of player level):

Erhm you did realize that the link you just posed is of the GemRP project, an Infinity Engine Emulator, not from the actual game... and the GemRP code the games(BG1, BG2 & IwD 1) use the very same spawning point coding, which is not the linked Icewind Dale2's code.

That's just GemRB's local copy of the IESDP, so that information is correct--though, as you point out, only relevant to IWD2.


Why is this Hypnotoad video so popu... ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD.
____
The Gibberlings Three - Home of IE Mods

The BG2 Fixpack - All the fixes of Baldurdash, plus a few hundred more. Now available, with more fixes being added in every release.


#33 K4thos

K4thos
  • Member
  • 315 posts

Posted 03 September 2014 - 04:31 PM

Thank you for the explanation.

The spawn points between BG and BG2 are identical, yes. The bug for BG2 (and in particular why worked terribly for BGT/Tutu) is that one of the constants used in the internal calculation was way out of whack when they updated it for BG2.

It has been fixed in BG:EE release, right?

 

IWD went another way entirely, using ini files attached to an area for their spawns (though i'm pretty sure PsT had them first). It's a lot more sophisticated as it allows for a lot of customization to the spawned creatures beyond what the BG/BG2 system could do, e.g. you can set specifics for each creature individually. In practice, though, those advanced capabilities were rearely utilized.

interesting, and sounds awesome. Since you are part of the Beamdog team, please try to convince devs to port as much features like this back into BG(n):EE engine. I'd love to design a proper spawning system for Baldur's Gate games with expanded features that ini coding has to offer. Same for random treasure 2da implementation broken in BG engine (limited to 9 rows) that must be fixed for IWD:EE to accept 99 rows. BitGlobal trigger is also a neat addition. It would be a shame to not have such features available for BG modders, when the IWD:EE use the BG2:EE engine as a base.


Edited by K4thos, 03 September 2014 - 04:59 PM.


#34 Erg

Erg
  • Member
  • 23 posts

Posted 04 September 2014 - 01:37 AM

I remember coding the original invisible-creature-as-spawn-point solution for Tutu. God, what a horrible hack--my originals took into account your party size, levels, etc. to try and exactly simulate the original BG behavior. Somewhere along the way someone with a lot more sense than I swapped them for straight difficulty level checks, which is what's in the current Tutu.

 

CamDawg, as usual you are being modest :)

 

Your solution for Tutu was really great, though I agree that the current implementation based on difficulty level is even better. It is the most engaging and rewarding system I've experienced, despite its limitations of which, I assure you, I'm well aware. I find the current system in BG(n):EE instead really depressing and it looks like I'm not the only one that thinks so: http://www.shsforums...97-bgspawn-mod/

 

I may even consider making a mod myself to bring the Tutu system in the Enhanced games. Should I decide to proceed with this crazy idea, can I have your permission to use and modify the Tutu code? Other than you, who else should I contact to ask for permission?

 

Thanks in advance



#35 DavidWallace

DavidWallace
  • Member
  • 337 posts

Posted 04 September 2014 - 02:26 AM

David was referring to the IWD-in-BG2 emulation of IWD's ini spawn system, which is accomplished by a small horde of invisible creatures. IWDEE just supports the ini files natively.
 

Small correction made.

#36 CamDawg

CamDawg

    ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD

  • Member
  • 1503 posts

Posted 04 September 2014 - 04:51 AM

Thank you for the explanation.

The spawn points between BG and BG2 are identical, yes. The bug for BG2 (and in particular why worked terribly for BGT/Tutu) is that one of the constants used in the internal calculation was way out of whack when they updated it for BG2.

It has been fixed in BG:EE release, right?
 
 


Yes, though as Erg has noted in the thread, 1.3 may have turned down the rate a little too much in a few areas.

IWD went another way entirely, using ini files attached to an area for their spawns (though i'm pretty sure PsT had them first). It's a lot more sophisticated as it allows for a lot of customization to the spawned creatures beyond what the BG/BG2 system could do, e.g. you can set specifics for each creature individually. In practice, though, those advanced capabilities were rearely utilized.

interesting, and sounds awesome. Since you are part of the Beamdog team, please try to convince devs to port as much features like this back into BG(n):EE engine. I'd love to design a proper spawning system for Baldur's Gate games with expanded features that ini coding has to offer. Same for random treasure 2da implementation broken in BG engine (limited to 9 rows) that must be fixed for IWD:EE to accept 99 rows. BitGlobal trigger is also a neat addition. It would be a shame to not have such features available for BG modders, when the IWD:EE use the BG2:EE engine as a base.
 
 


Right now, IWDEE is the most advanced engine we have, thanks in large part to the work of Avenger in porting code to support all of IWD's unique features and file formats. I'm not going to get too much into the internal processes but usually these are ported back to BGEE/BGIIEE as needed, and usually involve quite a bit of QA to make sure they don't break other stuff. My personal opinion is that they'll get there eventually, but unfortunately the realities of development mean that including groovy (but currently unnecessary) features is pretty low priority.
 

I remember coding the original invisible-creature-as-spawn-point solution for Tutu. God, what a horrible hack--my originals took into account your party size, levels, etc. to try and exactly simulate the original BG behavior. Somewhere along the way someone with a lot more sense than I swapped them for straight difficulty level checks, which is what's in the current Tutu.

 
CamDawg, as usual you are being modest :)
 
 


The fact that it worked doesn't change the fact that it's still a horrible hack. :)
 
Your solution for Tutu was really great, though I agree that the current implementation based on difficulty level is even better. It is the most engaging and rewarding system I've experienced, despite its limitations of which, I assure you, I'm well aware. I find the current system in BG(n):EE instead really depressing and it looks like I'm not the only one that thinks so: http://www.shsforums...97-bgspawn-mod/
Classic. It's funny because the EE points work just like BG and now some folks realize they like the BGT/Tutu emulation better.
 
I may even consider making a mod myself to bring the Tutu system in the Enhanced games. Should I decide to proceed with this crazy idea, can I have your permission to use and modify the Tutu code? Other than you, who else should I contact to ask for permission?
Of course. I think Macready was the one who changed them to be difficulty triggers, but I don't think he's around much any more.

Why is this Hypnotoad video so popu... ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD.
____
The Gibberlings Three - Home of IE Mods

The BG2 Fixpack - All the fixes of Baldurdash, plus a few hundred more. Now available, with more fixes being added in every release.


#37 K4thos

K4thos
  • Member
  • 315 posts

Posted 04 September 2014 - 05:15 AM

Right now, IWDEE is the most advanced engine we have, thanks in large part to the work of Avenger in porting code to support all of IWD's unique features and file formats. I'm not going to get too much into the internal processes but usually these are ported back to BGEE/BGIIEE as needed, and usually involve quite a bit of QA to make sure they don't break other stuff. My personal opinion is that they'll get there eventually, but unfortunately the realities of development mean that including groovy (but currently unnecessary) features is pretty low priority.

thanks for explanation. That "as needed" part is worrying because I doubt Beamdog would be interested in implementing things like custom spawns to already released games. At this point I think such features would be only for modders to play with. If for some reason they won't be ported back you can bet that there will be "BGEE in IWD:EE" mod created in the future :lol2: The IWD:EE engine is still backward compatible with CRE v1 and STO v1 formats, right?


Edited by K4thos, 04 September 2014 - 05:21 AM.


#38 CamDawg

CamDawg

    ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD

  • Member
  • 1503 posts

Posted 04 September 2014 - 05:54 AM


Right now, IWDEE is the most advanced engine we have, thanks in large part to the work of Avenger in porting code to support all of IWD's unique features and file formats. I'm not going to get too much into the internal processes but usually these are ported back to BGEE/BGIIEE as needed, and usually involve quite a bit of QA to make sure they don't break other stuff. My personal opinion is that they'll get there eventually, but unfortunately the realities of development mean that including groovy (but currently unnecessary) features is pretty low priority.

thanks for explanation. That "as needed" part is worrying because I doubt Beamdog would be interested in implementing things like custom spawns to already released games. At this point I think such features would be only for modders to play with. If for some reason they won't be ported back you can bet that there will be "BGEE in IWD:EE" mod created in the future :lol2: The IWD:EE engine is still backward compatible with CRE v1 and STO v1 formats, right?


Right, but it's not nearly that dire, and since the team's small there's quite a bit of code already finding its way into BGEE/BGIIEE. I just want to be honest and not promise something I can't--it does take QA time and adding new features for modders is not going to be prioritized over, say, getting the overdue BGIIEE 1.3 patch released. I do (personal opinion) think it'll happen eventually (most of us are modders, too!). Seeing what someone like Galactygon can do with the new projectiles and spell options will be fun to watch.

Why is this Hypnotoad video so popu... ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD.
____
The Gibberlings Three - Home of IE Mods

The BG2 Fixpack - All the fixes of Baldurdash, plus a few hundred more. Now available, with more fixes being added in every release.


#39 Sergio

Sergio
  • Member
  • 942 posts

Posted 04 September 2014 - 08:10 AM

The only thing I do not understand is the following. Why did you announce already IWD:EE, if patch 1.3 is not out yet? :P


Low hung brow, dazed look on your face..... It appears that you are correct, my friend. You are indeed a complete imbecile.


#40 Kaeloree

Kaeloree

    Head Molder

  • Administrator
  • 9198 posts

Posted 04 September 2014 - 01:42 PM

Because those are separate teams. :)