Jump to content


Photo

The BiG World Project


  • Please log in to reply
951 replies to this topic

#541 aVENGER

aVENGER
  • Modder
  • 1680 posts

Posted 21 April 2008 - 10:36 AM

Yes, but as Leomar said, it needs to have a modified tp2 for it to work properly with all and every file in the rest of the BWP files.


In my opinion, it doesn't make much sense to include "fixed files" for mods that are being actively supported and regularly updated (as is the case with SCSII).

Why not simply report any bugs/compatibility issues at the mod's forum and wait for the author to resolve them instead? As I've pointed out a while ago releasing unsupported stand-alone fixes can be counterproductive in such cases.

#542 Azazello

Azazello

    The Anti-Spammer

  • Staff
  • 1912 posts

Posted 21 April 2008 - 11:30 AM

Yes, but as Leomar said, it needs to have a modified tp2 for it to work properly with all and every file in the rest of the BWP files.

In my opinion, it doesn't make much sense to include "fixed files" for mods that are being actively supported and regularly updated (as is the case with SCSII).

Why not simply report any bugs/compatibility issues at the mod's forum and wait for the author to resolve them instead? As I've pointed out a while ago releasing unsupported stand-alone fixes can be counterproductive in such cases.

History repeats itself: The Big Picture was originally created to do just the same--provide inter-mod fixes that ensured all the other mods worked well together.

aVENGER, I have to disagree. Even for actively supported mods, there are creators (to be mean, we could list one or two) who won't provide updates for such megamodding efforts. The "fixed files" provide at least some archival record of what needs to be fixed in a mod's next update.

I would ask that the BiG fixes have more formalized descriptions, so that we all know exactly what they do, why they do it, and exactly which mods they're doing it for.

#543 aVENGER

aVENGER
  • Modder
  • 1680 posts

Posted 21 April 2008 - 08:04 PM

The main point was that the mod author may not know that a bug or a compatibility issue exists unless someone notifies him.

So, if someone releases an unauthorized stand-alone "fixed tp2" without telling the mod author about the bugs they fixed, then the author might not be aware of them when he releases the next version of his mod. Furthermore, he might add a couple of new features (i.e. a new translation) in the updated mod version and using the outdated "fixed" tp2 would now disable those features. To prevent this from happening, the unauthorized fixer would have to constantly update his version of the tp2 which would just create unnecessary hassle for both parties as well as the players. Also, if an unauthorized fix accidentally introduces a new bug in the mod then the mod author will have no way of reproducing it and likely be quite puzzled why only some players are experiencing it. IMO, it's much simpler to just notify the mod author of the bugs/compatibility issues and have him deal with them properly. There's a reason why most mod forums have a "Bug report" thread. ;)

#544 Leomar

Leomar
  • Member
  • 1720 posts

Posted 21 April 2008 - 10:25 PM

I would ask that the BiG fixes have more formalized descriptions, so that we all know exactly what they do, why they do it, and exactly which mods they're doing it for.

All fixes are described in our textfiles. You can find "BiG World Patches Read me" and "BiG World Patches documentation" in the "BiG World Fixpack"-directory.

Greetings Leomar
A Megamod does not mean that you can play all of the mods or all of their content,
but you have more choices or paths through the game.
- Chevalier

BiG World Project - Big Baldur's Gate World

#545 Kulyok

Kulyok
  • Modder
  • 2450 posts

Posted 22 April 2008 - 12:00 AM

Another point to keep in mind is that Big World Project cannot distribute or mirror mods, completely or partly. If "fixing" means distributing modified .tp2 files, or dialogue files, or script files, you're in trouble with these mods where the "cannot be compiled or redistributed without the permission of its author(s)" note stands. Bluntly, you can't include .tp2 files or other files for most, if not all, PPG/G3 mods. See the unauthorized distribution topic.

#546 Chevalier

Chevalier

    Knight of the Realms

  • Modder
  • 2405 posts

Posted 22 April 2008 - 01:06 AM

My Friend Kulyok,

I do think of you as a friend. :hug:

Bluntly, you can't include .tp2 files or other files for most, if not all, PPG/G3 mods.


'Can't' or shouldn't? They can include the files, but you wish they wouldn't without permission. Should they send bug fixes or patches to the mod authors? Yes, they should. I know you would work to fix the bugs, but not all mod authors are still around (like flysoup) or willing to fix their mods to work with others.

Would you prefer that they were privately shared only among friends?

Player/moder A: This mod is incompatible with my Mega Mod!

Chev: Hey PM me and I will let you know how to fix it.

Player B:Hey can I get fix too?

Player C: Me too?

OR

Player/moder A: This mod is incompatible with my Mega Mod!

Chev: Here is how to change the .tp2 file
Code changes

Player A: I fixed like you said, but it still wont work! :wall:

Player B: That fix worked for me!

Player C:I tried it and It wont work!

Chev: Did you change it as shown here
Fully changed code

Player A: that Worked. :woot:

Player C: It still won't work for me!

OR
Player/moder A: This mod is incompatible with my Mega Mod!

Chev: Here is a Link to a working .tp2 file for that mod with a Mega Mod.

Which do you really think is best for the community?

I know that I can mod 'my' games any way I want and can share info with who I want. Do you really wish me/others only to give info out privately, that might cause more bugs than the ones it fixes or have it out in the open where it can be veted by the community.

I Ride for the King!


a.k.a. Chev


#547 Jarno Mikkola

Jarno Mikkola

    The Imp in his pink raincoat.

  • Member
  • 10911 posts

Posted 22 April 2008 - 04:01 AM

...

Well, the only problem in your approach is that the original moder can get false positives from tBWP mod users. With should not be big problem if only people would attach their WeiDU.log on their error reports, but as most don't... <_<

Deactivated account. The user today is known as The Imp.


#548 Marvin

Marvin

    Sirius

  • Member
  • 197 posts

Posted 22 April 2008 - 04:21 AM

I think Chev is right, but aVENGER is right , too :blink:

A distinction has to be made between the mods themselves and the mods IN the BWP.
Mods that are bugfree on there own, could cause bugs when playing it with another mod.
Now, in both the cases, I think you should report the bug in the mod's forum. But if the bug occurs within a BWP install, I think, also the BWP authors should be informed about it.

So, what's the BWP team doing? They try to make mods work together. Sometimes this is solved by simply finding the right order to install them.
But it isn't always that easy. Sometimes they have to change some bits. But without doing that, the BWP wouldn't be possible. We would still deal with v0.009 BETA rather than with 5.1 or 5.2. These fixes are very important also for the mod authors themselves. Players would probably leave certain mods out their BWP in order to reduce bugs. Many mods wouldn't be played that much any longer. I'm talking especially about some smaller mods. Simply reporting those bugs can cause further problems:
The mod author might not be around anymore or simply doesn't support that specific mod anymore. Or probably he/she just doesn't feel like fixing a bug that occurs ONLY with one or two mods <_<

So, now we got the fixes. They are downloadable and as Leomar pointed out, there is a patch log or "two" kind of patch logs.
And here it comes. I think the mod authors have to be informed, too.

We have 2 possibilities now:
1. The BWP team informs each mod author about the bugs of their mods in the BWP
--> This would help 'em much, because it probably contains information abou bugs that occur in the mod itself and not only within the BWP.
It takes also very less time to fix it, because it has already been fixed by the BWP-team.
The disadvantage is that this would be a lot of work for the BWP-authors.
2. The Mod authors could take a look at the patch log of BWP and fix it theirselves. But I don't think, that every mod author would to so.


So conculding, I think it is pretty important that the BWP-teams makes their own fixes, but it is as well important to inform the mod authors.

@Kulyok
I don't think it is a problem to actually make these fixes. Chev's got a pont there. I think it helps the community as well as the mod authors.
It has of course some disadvatages, but the possitive part seems to be much bigger.

Marvin :cheers:

Edited by Marvin, 22 April 2008 - 04:27 AM.


#549 Chevalier

Chevalier

    Knight of the Realms

  • Modder
  • 2405 posts

Posted 22 April 2008 - 04:31 AM

...

Well, the only problem in your approach is that the original moder can get false positives from tBWP mod users. With should not be big problem if only people would attach their WeiDU.log on their error reports, but as most don't... <_<

Very true! But would it be better if they used a secret patch and then reported a bug that would only be with it? Or would it be better that the mod authors know of a patch for the BWP and ask for a WeiDU.log for each bug report? That way they can see which version/install they are using and if necessary send them over to the BWP page?

I Ride for the King!


a.k.a. Chev


#550 erebusant

erebusant

    It takes a village...

  • Modder
  • 2109 posts

Posted 22 April 2008 - 05:13 AM

...

Well, the only problem in your approach is that the original moder can get false positives from tBWP mod users. With should not be big problem if only people would attach their WeiDU.log on their error reports, but as most don't... <_<

Very true! But would it be better if they used a secret patch and then reported a bug that would only be with it? Or would it be better that the mod authors know of a patch for the BWP and ask for a WeiDU.log for each bug report? That way they can see which version/install they are using and if necessary send them over to the BWP page?

I think they would be better off not changing the source file at all, but creating a patch or fix to make the source mods compatible with what they are trying to do.

It takes a village...


#551 Marvin

Marvin

    Sirius

  • Member
  • 197 posts

Posted 22 April 2008 - 06:34 AM

...

Well, the only problem in your approach is that the original moder can get false positives from tBWP mod users. With should not be big problem if only people would attach their WeiDU.log on their error reports, but as most don't... <_<

Very true! But would it be better if they used a secret patch and then reported a bug that would only be with it? Or would it be better that the mod authors know of a patch for the BWP and ask for a WeiDU.log for each bug report? That way they can see which version/install they are using and if necessary send them over to the BWP page?

I think they would be better off not changing the source file at all, but creating a patch or fix to make the source mods compatible with what they are trying to do.



Yeah, but that's what the BWP-team's already doing. :blink:
They offer fixes separately for the BWP. So this is also the solution if a mod author doesn't want to change his/her mod, but players still want to be able to include it in BWP.
The important this is only that the mod author get informed about bugs, so he has the choice to actually fix it himself or not.

Marvin :cheers:

#552 -Guest-

-Guest-
  • Guest

Posted 22 April 2008 - 06:58 AM

So, if someone releases an unauthorized stand-alone "fixed tp2" without telling the mod author about the bugs they fixed, then the author might not be aware of them when he releases the next version of his mod. Furthermore, he might add a couple of new features (i.e. a new translation) in the updated mod version and using the outdated "fixed" tp2 would now disable those features. To prevent this from happening, the unauthorized fixer would have to constantly update his version of the tp2 which would just create unnecessary hassle for both parties as well as the players. Also, if an unauthorized fix accidentally introduces a new bug in the mod then the mod author will have no way of reproducing it and likely be quite puzzled why only some players are experiencing it.

I think this whole scenario is quite unlikely. Any modder who's active is going to find out if someone's posted a fix to his or her mod, either by browsing the forums, or when someone comes along and mentions it. And if someone posts a fix to your mod, you're going to take a look at it and get a picture of what it actually does. It then gets incorporated in the next release if it's a proper fix, and the standalone patch can be buried with no harm done. This circumvents the sort of problem where, say, you have to wait for some wanker to take two years to fix his quest mod. And if a modder isn't active, then it's a moot point anyway.

#553 -Guest-

-Guest-
  • Guest

Posted 22 April 2008 - 07:00 AM

The wanker joke is less funny when I'm not logged in.

#554 enderandrew

enderandrew
  • Member
  • 166 posts

Posted 22 April 2008 - 07:21 AM

You could use diff and patch to make patches for the tp2 files. You wouldn't distribute the original, nor the modified version. You'd only distribute a patch.

http://unxutils.sourceforge.net/
Nihilism makes me smile.

#555 aVENGER

aVENGER
  • Modder
  • 1680 posts

Posted 22 April 2008 - 08:42 AM

Any modder who's active is going to find out if someone's posted a fix to his or her mod, either by browsing the forums, or when someone comes along and mentions it.


Perhaps, but is it really that much harder for people to report a bug/compatibility issue on the mod's official forum and wait for the author's response before making an unauthorized fix? As you know, SHS, PPG and G3 all allow guest posting so it's not even necessary to register there in order to make a report.

IMO, no active modder would ignore a comprehensive bug report on their forum, especially if it came with working code for an insta-fix. On the other hand, some modders simply don't browse megamod-related forums on a regular bases, so they might be left out of the loop if bugs aren't properly reported at their main forum, which could in term lead to counterproductive situations akin to the one that I've described earlier.

#556 Leomar

Leomar
  • Member
  • 1720 posts

Posted 22 April 2008 - 10:05 AM

At first we agree with you all. It is important that the modauthors get the infos about bugs in their mods. In addition to get the infos about patches to make their mods compatible in a MegaMod. With these infos, the author can decide to make a new mod-version or not.

There are two situations for us:
1.) Active modauthers, you can work with
2.) Not active modauthers, you can't contact anymore
For point 2 we think it is important that the fixes/patches will be listed in the forums, too. So other can use the info and know about the bugs/compatibility issues.

For point 1 we have two additional situations:
1.) Modauthors they are very active and workes everytime for updates and ongoing projects
2.) Modauthors they still there, but have not the interest to make new updates anymore
For point 2 we see not really a new updated mod-version to fix the problems, so we must do the patch.

For point 1 we have in additon two situations:
1.) Modauthors who support MegaMods
2.) Modauthors who don't support MegaMods
For point 2 the authors have no interest for compatability issues and don't want to talk about it or have not the time to support it.

Like you see, there are many differrent situations in the modding-scene. In addition we have another problem.
BG is popular and it gives many many mods for BG, all splits in different forums and subforums. Somebody who fixed some bugs has it not easy to find the right place to post it, especially by smaller mods. That is the unlikely situation we have. Most fixes and patches are splits over the net and make it hard to find them.

We collect these fixes to upgrade our "BiG World Fixpack", so you can use it. And this work is not easy. We make less own fixpatches. We use only the infos we get through the forums and often we must combine several posts in much subforums to solve the problems and create a patch for the issue. That you understand, our "BiG World Fixpack" is a collection of fixes/patches you can find throughout the net. If the problem is solved by a new mod-version we deleted the fix from our Fixpack to have it up to date.
For your info, there are so much fixes/patches throughout the net we have noticed but have not found the time to include it in our Fixpack. You see, there are many infos about that and mostly not in the corresponded forums of the corresponded mods.

Otherwise we include own fixpatches to make all mods compatible in a MegaMod, either of our own or from informations of the net.

Now we come to your responses:

In my opinion, it doesn't make much sense to include "fixed files" for mods that are being actively supported and regularly updated (as is the case with SCSII).

Right, that's why we contact the authors about the problems in the forums.

Why not simply report any bugs/compatibility issues at the mod's forum and wait for the author to resolve them instead? As I've pointed out a while ago releasing unsupported stand-alone fixes can be counterproductive in such cases.

That is only possible by active modauthors who supports MegaMods. Otherwise you want to wait a long time to get an update or get none. In this case it is important to see what the update does. If it is fixed the problem and you have a fix, then you must delete it. That is what we do. We know your descripted problems and don't want to have these.

History repeats itself: The Big Picture was originally created to do just the same--provide inter-mod fixes that ensured all the other mods worked well together.

But that is not our goal. We don't want to make an own "BP". We want to work with the authors together, honor their work and find solutions for the bugs. If we can reduce our fixpatches, we will do it.

For all other comments, thanks for your opinion.

Like you see in the last months, we are going to more and more actively throughout the forums. We search the contact with the modauthors to work together. We don't want to create BWP as a own hidden project. We want that all gamers, modders and all the others get all infos, what happend with their mod in a MegaMod. In addition BWP is not only a MegaMod. It is an installation order for all mods who can best work together. You don't need to install all the listed mods. You can decide to pick some of them and install them in the recommend order. If someone searches for a modlist, he can find it in our guide. And is it not a great advertise for all the included mods? Through our guide the gamer get mentioned of one of your mods and comes to your website. Without the guide we think that all infos are splitted throughout the net like the fixpatches are. You must collect them...

So concluding, we will do more public relations with the fixes we have found in the net and uses in our fixpack. We think it is the best, that we start with this. We will try to list the bugs in the corresponded forums for the modauthors next time. So they know, which fixes we have found in the net. We will do this for active and none active supported mods. So all infos are there, where they should be.

Greetings Leomar

Edited by Leomar, 22 April 2008 - 12:10 PM.

A Megamod does not mean that you can play all of the mods or all of their content,
but you have more choices or paths through the game.
- Chevalier

BiG World Project - Big Baldur's Gate World

#557 Azazello

Azazello

    The Anti-Spammer

  • Staff
  • 1912 posts

Posted 22 April 2008 - 12:14 PM

Bored now.

We've already done this already, catfighting about where and how and not to do fixes and (compatibility) patch. Can't we all just get along?

For the record, I said this already but 'e' said it clearer, and I stand with him:

I think they would be better off not changing the source file at all, but creating a patch or fix to make the source mods compatible with what they are trying to do.



#558 -FCA066-

-FCA066-
  • Guest

Posted 22 April 2008 - 03:33 PM

Perhaps, but is it really that much harder for people to report a bug/compatibility issue on the mod's official forum and wait for the author's response before making an unauthorized fix? As you know, SHS, PPG and G3 all allow guest posting so it's not even necessary to register there in order to make a report.

Well sure, somebody at some point needs to tell the modder--I'm just saying that I don't think the concept of an UNAUTHORISED FIX! is as criminal as it sounds, and I think it's more the courtesy of "hey, I did this to make your mod work" than "excuse me, but may I have permission to fix your bugs?" Shrug.

IMO, no active modder would ignore a comprehensive bug report on their forum, especially if it came with working code for an insta-fix.

Actually I've been successfully doing this for quite some time now. :)

#559 -Guest-

-Guest-
  • Guest

Posted 22 April 2008 - 03:35 PM

Guess who wrote the CAPTCHA in the name box. Sigh.

#560 enderandrew

enderandrew
  • Member
  • 166 posts

Posted 22 April 2008 - 07:37 PM

Again, I ask, what about distributing patches as opposed to modified files?
Nihilism makes me smile.