5286 replies to this topic

[agb1]

subtledoctor, on 13 Jan 2016 - 04:54, said:

FYI, NPC_EE has been updated to v2.0.  I've PM'd the .ini and select.txt info for BWS to agb1.  Please note that, while v1.2 worked on the old engine, v2.0 is EE-only.  Sorry, couldn't be avoided.  It relies on a feature of kitlist.2da in the EE engine that isn't present in the old engine.  On the bright side, if you're playing TOB or BGT you can use the ever-excellent "Level 1 NPCs."  And also on the bright side, NPC_EE v2 is an order of magnitude more flexible and fun than v1 was.  You can do really wild and fun stuff, like make Montaron a berserker/thief, or make Neera a Wild Sorcerer.  And the kit-changing part of it now happens in-game, instead of in Weidu, so you can have NPCs use different kits in different playthroughs, without reinstalling anything.  It's cool.

* NPC_EE updates for version 2 -- dependencies/conflicts changes, component changes, removed from BGT selection as no longer supported for original engine

 

Thanks subtledoctor for providing updated BWS ini file and selection lines for the new version!

[Niewiem]

Will the old version be avaiable for BGT games or it will be completly removed?

[agb1]

The old version has been removed from BWS because subtledoctor isn't supporting it any more.  If you want to use it anyway, you can download the old version from GitHub and run it manually at the end of your BGT install if you wish.  Per subtledoctor's recommendation, we were installing it at the very end so you could easily re-configure the NPCs.

[Creepin]

agb1 said:

The old version has been removed from BWS because subtledoctor isn't supporting it any more.  If you want to use it anyway, you can download the old version from GitHub and run it manually at the end of your BGT install if you wish.  Per subtledoctor's recommendation, we were installing it at the very end so you could easily re-configure the NPCs.

agb1, please clarify: you have removed a mod from BWS solely because it is not supported by its creator anymore? But it makes no sense, you could remove half of BWS on this premise. Or was there any subtle reasoning behind doing so that is not obvious, like v.1.2 absolutely and totally not working?

Edited by Creepin, 13 January 2016 - 06:01 AM.

[subtledoctor]

They're removing it because it was updated. You can't reasonably expect the BWS guys to offer every version of every mod. E.g. presumably, once SRv4 and IRv4 are officially released, the v3 versions will no longer be available in BWS.

On the other hand I don't mind if BWS offers v1.2 - but only for BGT. And just throw a disclaimer on it that any bugs or issues will *not* be addressed, by the mod author or anyone else. Use at your own risk, etc.

@Creepin while I'm flattered that there is any demand for the mod, I confess I'm surprised by it. I only made it because Level1NPCs doesn't work on the EE games. If you're playing BGT I honestly think you're much better off using Level1NPCs.

[Creepin]

Thanks for your reply subtledoctor!

subtledoctor said:

They're removing it because it was updated. You can't reasonably expect the BWS guys to offer every version of every mod.

I disagree. Firstly, I am sure it is totally reasonable to expect latest version available for certain game setup to be included in options of said game setup. Secondly, even if we're to judge all mods present in BWS on the basis of their applicability to one single setup out of all supported by BWS, then this main setup should be BGT based one, not EE based.

subtledoctor said:

@Creepin while I'm flattered that there is any demand for the mod, I confess I'm surprised by it. I only made it because Level1NPCs doesn't work on the EE games. If you're playing BGT I honestly think you're much better off using Level1NPCs.

Yes, I understant that much, it's not yours (very nice) mod removal but general principle I am objecting to. What if tomorrow there will be, I don't know, Tashia for EE released, and they'll throw out normal one because it is "not supported"?

Edited by Creepin, 13 January 2016 - 06:25 AM.

[agb1]

Creepin, technical reasons - to have two different versions of the same mod both available in BWS at the same time is tricky because BWS keeps track of mods based on their "setup-name" (setup-npc_ee.exe in this case).  Since in this case the mod is under active development and the author isn't supporting BGT and there are viable alternatives (like L1NPC) it was simpler to remove the old while updating to support the new.  We can bring back the old for BGT if you really want it.

 

Further updates to BWS (thanks to liz for reports above):

 

* BWS:  Select-Helper.au3 - Default click-mode (which components get selected automatically or without warning pop-up when you click on mod headline or individual components) changed from Tactical to Recommended for 'custom selections' (including the custom compilations submitted by users, manually saved user selections loaded from ini files and the automatic saved selection created by BWS when you leave the selection-tree after making any changes) ... note that this click mode will reset when you restart BWS or switch game types

 

Rules changes:

 

1. Added conflict rule for Refinements #10 (HLAs) and Arcane Archer kit

2. Added Edwin Romance #0 and BG2 Tweaks #1180 to female Edwina portrait conflict rule

3. Split conflict rule for XP rewards for lockpicking/traps/spells into two separate rules:  BP-Balancer and Ding0's Experience Fixer do not conflict with baseline XP table replacements, but further patch them

4. Removed BG1NPC "give BG2 NPC its BG1 portrait" components from "choose one portrait for NPC X" conflict rules -- technically the BG1NPC components are patchers that change the creatures to use BG1 portrait files; no actual portrait images are included (this is different from BG1UB "original portrait" components, which do replace the portrait images themselves)

5. Changed all "Choose one portrait for NPC X" rules from must-resolve conflicts to conflict warnings (user can right-click to ignore) pending validation that they actually modify the same files

6. Disabled Kivan #300 vs. PaintBG #36 conflict (Kivan mod for BG2 uses different portrait filenames than PaintBG)

7. Replaced 'Consistent NPC appearance' conflict rule with 'Choose one baseline portrait pack' conflict rule and removed UB #13, 14 and BG1NPC portrait components from the rule

 

Selection changes:

 

* BG1EE/BG2EE:  SCS #4030 (improved shapeshifting fix) removed from selection as unnecessary for EE (per http://gibberlings3....=27681&p=240795)

* BG2EE:  aTweaks #190 (PnP Elementals) marked Expert in selection (per http://gibberlings3....e=2#entry240803)

* BG2/BGT:  removed UB #13, 14 (original portraits for Yoshimo and Anomen) from default pre-selections (users can still enable them manually)

* BG2EE:  Moved Djinni Companion from Smaller NPCs to NPCs (also changed install order)

* BG2/BGT:  Moved Djinni Companion from Mini-Mods to NPCs (no change to install order)

Edited by agb1, 13 January 2016 - 06:27 AM.

[Creepin]

agb1 said:

Creepin, technical reasons - to have two different versions of the same mod both available in BWS at the same time is tricky when the component numbers have changed, because BWS keeps track of mods based on their "setup-name" (setup-npc_ee.exe in this case).  Since in this case the mod is under active development and the author isn't supporting BGT and there are viable alternatives (like L1NPC) it was simpler to remove the old while updating to support the new.  We can bring back the old for BGT if you really want it.

Thanks agb1, I was not worried about NPC_EE per se, but rather about this becoming general rule. That hypothetic example with Tashia in my previous post, how do you plan to rule out cases like this?

Edited by Creepin, 13 January 2016 - 06:33 AM.

[agb1]

liz, on 13 Jan 2016 - 08:39, said:

1. BP balancer "reduce xp for lockpick etc" conflicts with BG2 tweak pack "restore xp bonus from lockpick etc". Why? This wasn't the case before and I was always under the impression that they would complement eachother. Maybe something has changed since then.

You are correct.  They are additive.  I've updated the rule.

 

liz, on 13 Jan 2016 - 08:39, said:

2. PaintBG conflicts with BG1npc project "give npc x his bg2 portrait". Something seems wrong here. I use only some PaintBG components, and none of them changes the same npc as the BG1npc components. Also the BWS simply tells me PaintBG component "-" conflicts with all "give bg2 portrait" components. Typo somewhere?

It was meant to be a warning about different art styles.  You can right-click to ignore it.  Also, I removed some components from the rule so you won't see this now unless you select multiple portrait packs.

 

liz, on 13 Jan 2016 - 08:39, said:

3.Kivan and deheriana mod component "install herds alternative portrait" conflicts with BG1npc component of the same name. I think BG1npc has this component to complement the mod (bg1npc changes bg1 kivan, the kivan mod changes the added npc in bg2 only) hence there should be no conflict unless I'm missing something.

You are correct.  I've updated the rule.

 

liz, on 13 Jan 2016 - 08:39, said:

4. If I choose selection "recommended" and I select the top square for a mod, also standard and tactics components will be selected. Earlier, it would stick to what you had chosen as base (for example just select the green components)

Please check again with the latest update.

 

liz, on 13 Jan 2016 - 08:39, said:

5. Some mods are grey (they look "mandatory") however they are subject to disabling anyway. Lolfixer components for example. (I'm not saying lolfixer shold be mandatory, I'm just pointing out that it looks odd)

This is intentional for some of the Lolfixer components (those components are tweaks, therefore not mandatory).

 

liz, on 13 Jan 2016 - 08:39, said:

6. Afaaq the djinni companion should probably be moved from "mini mods" to "bg2 npc mods" as it has more content than most npc mods and is by no means "mini".

Reasonable suggestion.  Done.  Note Afaaq is unlike other NPC mods because it does not use a party slot.  We might want to consider adding a new BWS category for this type of mod (Hiass also qualifies)...

 

liz, on 13 Jan 2016 - 08:39, said:

7. Refinements conflicts with kit mod "Arcane Archer" (the kit creates arrows but the arrows themselves are not equippable). I think it's the same problem as with Nathaniel mod (which is already marked as incompatible with refinements)

Thanks for reporting this.  I've added a new conflict rule for it.

 

liz, on 13 Jan 2016 - 08:39, said:

8. Edwin romance conflicts with "Female edwina" from BG2 tweak pack. Edwin romance mod already includes another portrait.

Thanks for reporting this.  I've added it to the existing Edwina portrait conflict rule.

 

liz, on 13 Jan 2016 - 08:39, said:

Overall I think the BWS has improved a lot since I used it. The component conflicts seems more researched now and It seems very active now. Thanks to everyone involved.

Very much a work in progress.  Your feedback is greatly appreciated.

[agb1]

Creepin, on 13 Jan 2016 - 14:32, said:

agb1 said:

Creepin, technical reasons - to have two different versions of the same mod both available in BWS at the same time is tricky when the component numbers have changed, because BWS keeps track of mods based on their "setup-name" (setup-npc_ee.exe in this case).  Since in this case the mod is under active development and the author isn't supporting BGT and there are viable alternatives (like L1NPC) it was simpler to remove the old while updating to support the new.  We can bring back the old for BGT if you really want it.

Thanks agb1, I was not worried about NPC_EE per se, but rather about this becoming general rule. That hypothetic example with Tashia in my previous post, how do you plan to rule out cases like this?

For a mod like Tashia, where removal from BGT would mean a significant loss of content, I would do the extra work to keep the old version available.

[Creepin]

agb1 said:

For a mod like Tashia, where removal from BGT would mean a significant loss of content, I would do the extra work to keep the old version available.

Fantastic, I'm going to stop worrying once again then!   For a time being, heheh

[agb1]

Quiet, on 13 Jan 2016 - 07:57, said:

agb1 said:

* BWS:  Extract.au3 - Special treatment for Git master branch archives: for mods that have a 'Save=' filename in MODNAME.ini ending in '-master.zip', move sub-folders up a level after extracting and delete original folder (e.g., move BG2\generalized_biffing-master\generalized_biffing to BG2\generalized_biffing, then delete BG2\generalized_biffing-master)

Uh... This function has long been included in BWS and works fine.

I did some experiments with the _Extract_MoveMod function and it was creating .dlt files (?) instead of moving the subfolder out as intended.  From further experiments, it seems that using AutoIt's FileMove on a directory causes problems, so I modified the function to check the file attributes and then use either DirMove or FileMove as appropriate, and then it started working for me.  But I also was doing these experiments after adding a new call to _Extract_MoveMod so maybe that had something to do with it.

 

Quiet, on 13 Jan 2016 - 07:57, said:

Dragon32 said:

Version of BWS was b692bec (~17:08 on 27/11/2015).

No one but me didn't bother that it was a version of almost two months ago? And since no one reported about such errors (despite the fact that mod has been fixed)? And that link to mod since then has not changed? And it's not the only mod that BWS downloads from github, but neither about one of them there were no such reports? So maybe the problem in something else? Because I tested without the latest commit and mod installed fine for me.

Good catch.  I overlooked this.

 

Quiet, on 13 Jan 2016 - 07:57, said:

Dragon32 said:

The ony issue was that the installation of Generalized Biffing failed for me (and the download of WeiDU was corrupted somehow, I needed to manually re-download).

And would like to clarify what failed: installation or extraction of mod? Because if failed installation, it is very strange that there were no reports from BWS about failed extraction.

 

@agb1

I'm not saying that your corrections bad, just don't see any reason hasty correct something that already works well.

True.  I mixed it up with the recent changes I made to the -latest mods and thought I'd broken something.  Then when I started tinkering I found a different issue, possibly of my own making, fixed that, and claimed success.  Oops.

 

So -- back to the original issue -- please try with latest BWS and let us know if it recurs.

[subtledoctor]

I think it will be exceedingly rare that a single mod eliminates partial engine compatibility in a point update. What I mostly se are three categories of mods:

1) Mods for the old engine that were made before the EEs existed, and which may or may not be compatible with EE; and for those that are not compatible, which may or may not ever *be* compatible. Example, Song & Silence. It's a pre-EE mod in concept and execution, and there have been some (incomplete) efforts to update it to work with the EEs.

2) Mods that are under active development and that serve both engines. Your BG2Tweaks, SCS, etc.

3) Mods that have been made since the EEs came out, designed by EE players, and using EE features. Tome & Blood for example.

Almost every single mod falls into one of those categories, and mods in category 1 and 3 tend to shift, if anything, into category 2. It is *exceedingly* rare that a mod will move from category 2 to category 3. NPC_EE only did so because first, its stated purpose was originally to be an EE mod, and BGT compatibility was always just an afterthought (I included "EE" in the mod name for a reason!); and second, the new functionality is a complete break from v1 - it's practically a totally new mod, that just happens to have the same name and concept as the old one.

I highly highly doubt you'll see many mods shifting to EE-only in point updates.

...

On the other hand, people should realize that the EEs really are the future of this game. They are WAY more stable, and have a lot of bugs fixed, and many more .ini options, and a bunch of new engine features that enable modders to do cooler things in more robust ways.

Safe to say, anyone playing BGT in 2015 has gotten WAY more value out of this game than most people buying a computer game in 2001 or whenever. The EEs periodically go on sale for about 10 bucks... when you see them for sale it's worth picking them up. Doing so ensures you can continue to enjoy these games with newer category 3 mods (like mine!) and increases the chances that more games like this continue to be released.

Okay, back to BWS business.

Edited by subtledoctor, 13 January 2016 - 08:30 AM.

[agb1]

subtledoctor, did you mean NPC Kit Pack? I thought Song & Silence works on EE.

[Ser Elryk]

Here and there I've noticed a lot of dislike, or outright hatred for the EE's and I still don't understand why. Maybe it's because I didn't try out the EE's until post-Patch 1.3. I saw some pre-1.3 playthroughs on YouTube and it did look pretty shoddy imo. But the EE-features like zoom-in/out, quick-loot, the extremely helpful feature of NPC names being displayed when Tab is held (SO nifty when in a crowd of people!), and the oh-so-much-better (imo) interface, have spoiled me.

 

With the upcoming Siege of Dragonspear expansion, Patch 1.4 features, the EET mod, the IWD-in-EET mod, etc. I hope I see more and more players and modders at least give the EEs a chance if they were either on the fence before or just didn't enjoy their initial experience. Another reason is I really hope to see several of the bigger mod expansions made compatible with the EET (and thus in the BWS EET selection) in the future. One day I'd really like to play/try out:

 

Northern Tales of the Sword Coast

Secret of Bone Hill

Check the Bodies

Region of Terror

The Darkest Day

Shadows over Soubar

Fishing for Trouble

and most of all The Sandrah Saga

 

assuming none of them conflict with Siege of Dragonspear that is..

 

Okay, I'm done with my sorta-off-topic rant.

[agb1]

I've seen forum threads indicating porting activity for most of those mods, so I expect there will be compatible versions soon after EET release (after SoD release).

[Ser Elryk]

agb1, on 13 Jan 2016 - 17:13, said:

I've seen forum threads indicating porting activity for most of those mods, so I expect there will be compatible versions soon after EET release (after SoD release).

 

OMG you just made my day! I'm so excited! I love you all!!

[Roxanne]

Ser Elryk, on 13 Jan 2016 - 17:08, said:

Here and there I've noticed a lot of dislike, or outright hatred for the EE's and I still don't understand why. Maybe it's because I didn't try out the EE's until post-Patch 1.3. I saw some pre-1.3 playthroughs on YouTube and it did look pretty shoddy imo. But the EE-features like zoom-in/out, quick-loot, the extremely helpful feature of NPC names being displayed when Tab is held (SO nifty when in a crowd of people!), and the oh-so-much-better (imo) interface, have spoiled me.

 

With the upcoming Siege of Dragonspear expansion, Patch 1.4 features, the EET mod, the IWD-in-EET mod, etc. I hope I see more and more players and modders at least give the EEs a chance if they were either on the fence before or just didn't enjoy their initial experience. Another reason is I really hope to see several of the bigger mod expansions made compatible with the EET (and thus in the BWS EET selection) in the future. One day I'd really like to play/try out:

 

Northern Tales of the Sword Coast

Secret of Bone Hill

Check the Bodies

Region of Terror

The Darkest Day

Shadows over Soubar

Fishing for Trouble

and most of all The Sandrah Saga

 

assuming none of them conflict with Siege of Dragonspear that is..

 

Okay, I'm done with my sorta-off-topic rant.

Are you not forgetting the more essential mods in your list

the item replacers,

spell shredders,

creature tweakers,

AI trashers,

rule benders,

and the 15000 kits nobody wants to miss?

[agb1]

Note EE compatibility is currently hindered by this bug noted by Roxanne and posted on Beamdog forums by K4thos:

 

https://forums.beamd...uring-cutscenes

 

I'm hoping this gets fixed in 1.4 or soon after.

[Lollorian]

liz, on 12 Jan 2016 - 20:16, said:

Please, allow lolorians request.

Just a clarification, the request was created by thebigg not me