5286 replies to this topic

[The Imp]

Roxanne, on 16 Jan 2016 - 18:37, said:

... incompatibility ...

There's two different things, there's thematic incompatibility, and non-thematic incompatibility.

The BWS doesn't care about thematics, only the thermodynamic( ) incompatibility aka software bugs, so Bodhi could grow a lizard wings and breath ice so long as she also sells candy to the x NPC and her dialogs check all the variables that are needed, it's ok in the BWS'es eyes, even if it is a little bit childish in everyone else's eyes. 

[agb1]

Further to the observation about Tashia, I believe that if a change by a new mod or new version of a mod reveals a previously unknown problem in another mod, the new or updated mod is not necessarily responsible for resolving the problem. We should also consider patching the older mod, particularly if the discovered problem is independent of of the new/updated mod, but also simply to make the older mod more compatible, say if it overwrites files instead of patching just the offsets necessary to achieve the equivalent change.

[agb1]

We don't want a million notice/warning rules for minor or obvious things (if you install two tweaks you will get a combination of those tweaks - this is obvious and does not need a notice to explain it). But for more subtle / less obvious thematic inconsistency (as opposed to technical incompatibility), it's helpful for users if we document them in BWS using warning/notice rules. So I disagree with Imp in a strict sense while agreeing on a case by case basis...

[agb1]

Further to Imp's point, there is a category of mods that we isn't strictly isolated / classified in BWS -- non-lore-friendly mods. For example, The Bigg made a few mods to add kits / voice sets from other game universes (eg Mass Effect) to BG. Usually mods like this are not selected by default in any of the pre-selections.

[Roxanne]

Lollorian, on 16 Jan 2016 - 18:47, said:

I just updated the BWS to the latest master and the Add -> All option doesn't seem to check all mods - am I missing something? (my click properties is Expert )

 

Untitled.jpg

 

@Roxanne:

Would it be possible to make sure that if you are handling issues in other mods through Sandrah, please implement them in such a way that in case the issue is fixed in the base mod (either via updates or BWPFixpack) Sandrah doesn't do anything?

I do not understand this? Sandrah is not fixing other mods - until now I have reported those issue to the forum or to the modmaker if still around. I have sometimes put extra code into Sandrah to get past a stuck situation if she is in party - that does not change other people's mods.

[Lollorian]

Suggestion: (and I know people will not like this one )

Only keep content mods selected in any BWS preselection (Minimal, Maximized & Expert)

- Minimal : Only vanilla content (BG1 + BG2) with just fixes and engine tweaks (yes 1PP & IA included - EE includes them so it's canon )

- Maximized : All content mods that are not buggy selected

- Expert : Everything selected

 

The amount of new content can be objectively measured while quality & difficulty cannot - so separate the Recommended & Tactical selections from the others (rename them to Team BWS' recommendations & Team BWS' tactical selection or something )

 

@Roxanne:

Consider the Tashia example:

- suppose you patch Tashia's dialogue when Sandrah is installed to match the fix you posted

- if the fix gets included in the BWPFixpack (because someone confirms it is fixed thanks to your patch), Tashia will already have the fix when Sandrah is installed if using the latest BWPFixpack. It might be nice if Sandrah doesn't patch the dialogue in this case

[agb1]

Lollorian, I think functionally the only changes in your suggestions are adding 1pp and IA to Minimal (meaning users can't NOT install them) and adding non-lore-friendly mods to Expert. I don't see much point in the latter because Expert is already for debugging only and you really shouldn't install EVERYTHING on the same install. I question the former because it limits player choice unnecessarily (the game is still playable without 1pp and IA and some players prefer this). Non-functionally, I think "Team BWS'" prefix is implied in all of the BWS pre-selections already and we don't have enough room in the drop-down menu to fit the extra text.

[Lollorian]

agb1, on 16 Jan 2016 - 19:37, said:

... adding 1pp and IA to Minimal (meaning users can't NOT install them)

Oh shit I forgot about this... Yeah bad idea

[agb1]

Lollorian, I don't think Roxanne has done what you are suggesting, but if I can generalize your request, you are asking that if authors of content mods discover problems in other mods that limit compatibility, those authors submit any necessary patches for the other mods to those mods' authors and to BWFixpack instead of putting them in the content mod itself. Which is good practice and I think Roxanne already does this.

[Quiet]

dady977 said:

Hey guys, I just got this error in my current fresh BWS install, can someone help me solve it? Or atleast tell me what to do? Because in my previous BWS installation I didn't get this error at all.
 
Installing [Revised Critical Hit Aversion] [V4 8 Beta]
Copying and patching 4283 files ...
ERROR: [M#PIRBAN.ITM] -> [override/M#PIRBAN.ITM] Patching Failed (COPY) (Invalid_argument("Str.search_forward"))
Stopping installation because of error.

 

Oh, I didn't notice it before:

zonx said:

note: in the attached logs is the error referring to M#PIRBAN.ITM again, this is because BWS didn't download the recently committed item_rev update and i forgot to check that fact before installing. will check tomorrow.

But until now BWS used a link to version of IRv4, where is still not resolved this problem. Now fixed.

[agb1]

* Selection changes:

1. BG1EE:  BG1NPC portrait component install order reverted (these components now install with the rest of BG1NPC instead of after generalized biffing)

2. BG2EE:  EET Tweaks #30 (Ironman Mode) was marked Expert, now just not enabled by default (no known problems)

3. IWDEE:  Added more subcomponent options for EET Tweaks #6, #7, #8 and enabled #11 (FPS tweak) for all pre-selections and enabled #9 (proportional quest XP) for Tactical

 

* Rule changes:

1. Removed a dozen mods from the "BG1EE Mods not yet compatible with EET" rule (more mods are EET compatible now)

 

* Item Revisions download link for BG1EE and BG2EE switched to GitHub master branch (v4 latest) instead of v4 beta 8 because master branch has fix for Amber / IRv4 install error

 

* BWS:  Depend.au3 - added more validity checks for Game.ini rules and corrected purging of rules with component numbers for BWP Install.bat-only game-type ('&' rules weren't being purged correctly)

* BWS:  Select-Helper.au3 - improved the expert/warning mods message box formatting (blank space between expert mods and warnings, ** denotes warnings)

* BWS:  Select-Tree.au3 - added another validity check for Select.txt

[Roxanne]

agb1, on 16 Jan 2016 - 19:44, said:

Lollorian, I don't think Roxanne has done what you are suggesting, but if I can generalize your request, you are asking that if authors of content mods discover problems in other mods that limit compatibility, those authors submit any necessary patches for the other mods to those mods' authors and to BWFixpack instead of putting them in the content mod itself. Which is good practice and I think Roxanne already does this.

 

The Imp, on 16 Jan 2016 - 18:58, said:

Roxanne, on 16 Jan 2016 - 18:37, said:

... incompatibility ...

There's two different things, there's thematic incompatibility, and non-thematic incompatibility.

The BWS doesn't care about thematics, only the thermodynamic( ) incompatibility aka software bugs, so Bodhi could grow a lizard wings and breath ice so long as she also sells candy to the x NPC and her dialogs check all the variables that are needed, it's ok in the BWS'es eyes, even if it is a little bit childish in everyone else's eyes. 

I have done another careful analysis of the incompatibilities listed in BWS for the Sandrah mods.

They should ALL be removed from BWS - they are all *thematic incompatibility", they would only affect the mod itself but not the general gameplay, none of them causes CtD or prevents the user from completing the game successfully (It may not be possible to play Sandrah mod contents, but this is another issue).

Possible issues in playing the mod itself in combination with other mods should not be subject to BWS but can simply be mentioned in the readme without using the phrase *incompatibility*,

I have re-phrased the readme for Sandrah respectively to just call those contradicting mods *Not recommended*. in the same way other mods are classified as *recommended* when Sandrah has crossmod contents with them. Makes the whole approach more consistent and avoids misunderstandings.

Attached Files

•  Sandrah NPC for the BGT_Readme.doc   233K   137 downloads
•  Sandrah NPC for the BGT_Readme.pdf   212.91K   164 downloads

Edited by Roxanne, 16 January 2016 - 11:39 PM.

[Creepin]

Roxanne said:

Possible issues in playing the mod itself in combination with other mods should not be subject to BWS but can simply be mentioned in the readme without using the phrase *incompatibility*

I believe it is great feature that logical incompatibilities (as opposed to coding ones) are also mentioned in BWS - I can't be bothered to scour some 200+ readmes in fear of there may be, or may be not, some logical incompatibility mentioned there somewhere, and then to remember it for 3 years when I will set up BWS next time, and the help of BWS in that matter is extremely handy.

[Mike1072]

agb1, on 16 Jan 2016 - 20:55, said:

* Item Revisions download link for BG1EE and BG2EE switched to GitHub master branch (v4 latest) instead of v4 beta 8 because master branch has fix for Amber / IRv4 install error

 

Please only link to releases (not branches) for G3 mods unless otherwise the mod author indicates otherwise.  The master branch is not guaranteed to be stable and I don't want to debug frankenversions.

 

This particular bugfix is planned to be included in a later release.  If you want, you can include it in the BW Fixpack for now.  I don't really want to create new releases for every code change in the IRv4 beta, because it is still a beta.  It will have bugs and other parts of it will be changing as well.  I don't think betas are a very good fit for BWS in general, because many BWS users want a a vetted installation that just works, and that's not what beta mods promise.  The IRv4 beta is a little unique since it's basically years ahead of the official version and it's the only way to use the mod on the enhanced editions.  I'm not against it being included in BWS, so long as it's understood that until it makes it out of beta, it will have issues.

[Roxanne]

Creepin, on 17 Jan 2016 - 07:58, said:

Roxanne said:

Possible issues in playing the mod itself in combination with other mods should not be subject to BWS but can simply be mentioned in the readme without using the phrase *incompatibility*

I believe it is great feature that logical incompatibilities (as opposed to coding ones) are also mentioned in BWS - I can't be bothered to scour some 200+ readmes in fear of there may be, or may be not, some logical incompatibility mentioned there somewhere, and then to remember it for 3 years when I will set up BWS next time, and the help of BWS in that matter is extremely handy.

This has lead to big misunderstanding as some modders may feel *attacked* and *discriminated* by having their mods designated as incompatible. The user should really know that e.g instaliing another mod putting Shar-Teel No,4 into the game may have logical issues with another 3 mods doing the same - but it may be the user's intention to play the game with a party of Shar-Teels.

The well-tested and approved BWS selections are provided and a safe way to end  with an installation that is free of issues - with any other selection it is anticipated that you know what you do.

And - I just asked for the BWS guys to apply this to my own mod (which is a beta mod), it is up to them to do differently for other mods.

Edited by Roxanne, 17 January 2016 - 01:07 AM.

[agb1]

Mike, understood, will revert IRv4 link.

Roxanne, I think the best way to address this in BWS is to change the current Sandrah mod conflict rules into conflict warnings. This will mean that the other mods will not be disabled automatically by BWS in favor of Sandrah but the BWS user still will be prompted to review each "not recommended" combination and choose what to do about it, rather than unwittingly combining these. I would like to particularly highlight combinations that result in inaccessible content from Sandrah, such as Jarl's (blocks quest triggers for Sandrah) and Turnabout (blocks access to RtF sequel).

For Jarl's we have the same problem with other mods too, so the mod is marked Expert in BWS pending someone going through and revising it. Can you explain how Turnabout and Sandrah interact to block access to the sequel?

Edited by agb1, 17 January 2016 - 06:48 AM.

[Roxanne]

agb1, on 17 Jan 2016 - 14:26, said:

Mike, understood, will revert IRv4 link.

Roxanne, I think the best way to address this in BWS is to change the current Sandrah mod conflict rules into conflict warnings. This will mean that the other mods will not be disabled automatically by BWS in favor of Sandrah but the BWS user still will be prompted to review each "not recommended" combination and choose what to do about it, rather than unwittingly combining these. I would like to particularly highlight combinations that result in inaccessible content from Sandrah, such as Jarl's (blocks quest triggers for Sandrah) and Turnabout (blocks access to RtF sequel).

I think with the solution described below, even warnings are not necessary. It should be apparent from the choice of mods that some things do not fit together. And do not forget, Sandrah is beta mod only and should NEVER block anything else that the user choses.

agb1, on 17 Jan 2016 - 14:26, said:

For Jarl's we have the same problem with other mods too, so the mod is marked Expert in BWS pending someone going through and revising it. Can you explain how Turnabout and Sandrah interact to block access to the sequel?

Originally by having none present creatures interfer with Finsol01.dlg (like Tashia). However I have now included a function in Sandrah by which Sandrah blocks Turnabout creatures to be summoned if the NPC is present. Means, you can safely install both, you will either lose contents of one or the other depending on your party constellation. If Sandrah is not in ToB party, Turnabout works normal - you cannot go into RtF anyway without her.

[agb1]

The consequences of combining mods are not necessarily apparent to users (I include myself in this group as I started on BWS maintenance for my own benefit too). Therefore I want to keep information about these consequences in BWS to help users understand (edit: and remember) the implications of their chosen constellation of mods.

Edited by agb1, 17 January 2016 - 07:25 AM.

[Roxanne]

agb1, on 17 Jan 2016 - 15:15, said:

The consequences of combining mods are not necessarily apparent to users (I include myself in this group as I started on BWS maintenance for my own benefit too). Therefore I want to keep information about these consequences in BWS to help users understand (edit: and remember) the implications of their chosen constellation of mods.

This is correct for mods for which it is not apparent. However Sandrah is beta and expert, i.e. it is for those that want to try it on their own risk - such a mod may have hidden traps that are not yet discovered, Warnings and errors should only be provided for stable mods for which such a situation is well known and enduring and has not yet been solved by the modmakers or fixpackers. Triggering warnings out of a beta mod is not applicable and bad behaviour towards the makers of quality stuff,

[agb1]

To be clear, these warnings are only presented if both of the respective mods are enabled. I think it may be a good idea to revive the concept of a "testing" pre-selection as was discussed in this thread. Expert for known problems; Testing for increased risk of unknown problems. We could even move some currently Expert mods to the Testing category (such as NEJ).