5286 replies to this topic

[Roxanne]

Hi, I've been away from SHS for a while, and BWS seems to have been moved on to EE? And I only own GOG versions of non-EE. Should I buy the new EE and try again?

Many mods still work for the classic non-EE game, so you can always install mods to those games or even BGT.
 
Nobody around here has any commercial interest or will encourage you to spend money for bean dog's products. It may just be a little more cumbersome to mod the old game but there is no need to upgrade unless you are specifically interested in mods or other advantages that the EEs provide.

Okay, but why are the mod setting for non-EEs labelled outdated? Are they not worked on anymore?

BWS needs to be maintained manually. If mods are updated or components change or are added., somebody needs to change configuration files. If such an update requires specific changes for the old games, they may be missed, since nobody did such updates for the last year and a half.

Global files, download links and EE-game specific configurations are kept up-to-date by a group of active modders. There is no such activity for classic games.

[Hack'N'Slash]

Some reason, finally got BWS to extract all files and install. 

 

Guest, as for the EE's they're 75% off currently so that's a lot cheaper if you did go upgrade option.

[Roxanne]

Heya, Roxanne

 

Thanks for your help - once more - with Nalia's mod. Now we have EE/EET version here github.com/PaulaMigrate/NaliaEE/

https://github.com/P...igrate/NaliaEE/

Your links never work, I guess it is due to your eternal guest status?

 

Anyway, BWS is updated. EET compatibility list as well.

[Roxanne]

Hi and a good evening.

I've got a problem with my latest install attempt.

The Debuglog always ends up like this(i provide the files, extract them, put them in the bg1 folder, they are in the BWS download folder too):

 

Some files were not extracted. Do you want the BWS to run an integrity test on

those files first, provide the files yourself (see remarks) or just continue?

Enter [t]est, [p]rovide or [c]ontinue.

[t]

All files seem to be intact.

Enter [p]rovide or [c]ontinue.

[p]

Enter [d]ownload, [e]xtract, skip [o]ne or [a]ll missing files.

[e]

Enter [d]ownload, [e]xtract, skip [o]ne or [a]ll missing files.

[e]

Please press [c]ontinue after the extractions are finished.

[c]

The extraction of the following mod(s) failed:

EE Keeper: The Mod itself (EEKeeper 1.0.4.0.zip)

WeiDU-FileChangelog: The Mod itself (WeiDU-FileChangelog-master.zip) ¹

Cannot proceed installation without this essential mod.

 

Please extract the files that are marked as essential first.

Aborting the installation.

The same error has been reported already a few days back but the user later succeeded with the install. The error itself is very strange because the file changelog is only downloaded by BWS and not even extracted? It is surely not essential, it is just a support tool like EE-keeper and in no way needed for the installation.

I cannot find any reason why the tool should choke on either of them.

 

Just a hint - The WeiDU-FileChangelog comes as a master.zip >>> extract it to somewhere else but the game directoty, then open the WeiDU-FileChangelog-master folder and just move the setup.exe, the bat-file and theWeiDU-FileChangelog-folder to the game,

Edited by Roxanne, 25 March 2018 - 10:29 AM.

[Roxanne]

Having problems with WeiDuFileChagelog extracting on an EET install. It constantly fails, tried downloading a new one when offered the prompt, tried extracting myself but no luck......After I extract it says it failed and exits the install. 

bws.jpg

 

 

Hi and a good evening.

I've got a problem with my latest install attempt.

The Debuglog always ends up like this(i provide the files, extract them, put them in the bg1 folder, they are in the BWS download folder too):

 

Some files were not extracted. Do you want the BWS to run an integrity test on

those files first, provide the files yourself (see remarks) or just continue?

Enter [t]est, [p]rovide or [c]ontinue.

[t]

All files seem to be intact.

Enter [p]rovide or [c]ontinue.

[p]

Enter [d]ownload, [e]xtract, skip [o]ne or [a]ll missing files.

[e]

Enter [d]ownload, [e]xtract, skip [o]ne or [a]ll missing files.

[e]

Please press [c]ontinue after the extractions are finished.

[c]

The extraction of the following mod(s) failed:

EE Keeper: The Mod itself (EEKeeper 1.0.4.0.zip)

WeiDU-FileChangelog: The Mod itself (WeiDU-FileChangelog-master.zip) ¹

Cannot proceed installation without this essential mod.

 

Please extract the files that are marked as essential first.

Aborting the installation.

The same error has been reported already a few days back but the user later succeeded with the install. The error itself is very strange because the file changelog is only downloaded by BWS and not even extracted? It is surely not essential, it is just a support tool like EE-keeper and in no way needed for the installation.

I cannot find any reason why the tool should choke on either of them.

 

Just a hint - The WeiDU-FileChangelog comes as a master.zip >>> extract it to somewhere else but the game directoty, then open the WeiDU-FileChangelog-master folder and just move the setup.exe, the bat-file and theWeiDU-FileChangelog-folder to the game,

I hope I found the issue,

For some unknown reason, the EE-keeper and file changelog appeared hard-coded for EET and were considered essential mods. I cannot see any reasons why that was done. Those are analysis tools and very helpfuk to find issues later while playing the game but they are not used in game nor needed for installation.

I have ventured to delete them from the code and I can only hope I did not break anything. Otherwise I need to revert this change if users report errors with the new code,

[Ulb]

The Imp will not be happy with you if you removed the changelog mod..

(I totally agree with you though!)

[The Imp]

The Imp will not be happy with you if you removed the changelog mod..

This comes from the preconceived notion that the mod is supposed by the Imp, it's not. Actually, most of the time, the mod is wrongly made for the purpose it's for, and thus it's better to read the instriuctions for the mmfaq thread, than anything else.

It's lack of communication that's the real problem in this, rather than other things.

Edited by The Imp, 26 March 2018 - 12:18 AM.

[Roxanne]

The Imp will not be happy with you if you removed the changelog mod..

(I totally agree with you though!)

Changelog is a great tool for analysis etc, as is NI.

However there is no justification to make its presence in BWS downloads a mandatory pre-requisite to install mods. One has nothing to do with the other.

BWS still has the download links and users are free to select it.

[subtledoctor]

A player just wrote this:

"I'm setting up an EET installation through BWS, planning on adding Might and Guile. However, its Bard overhaul component (210) clashes with the BG1 NPC Project "Banters, Quests and Interjections" component (0001), favoring the later."

Giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming this is not just a further attempt by someone with a silly and baseless grudge (*cough*) to use a neutral 3rd-party tool to disparage and disadvantage my mods... so, assuming there is some kind of "clash..." Could someone maybe mention that to me??

I can't eliminate "clashes" if I don't know about them. And I'm sure players would like all clashes between mods to be eliminated. So unless someone thinks her silly, baseless grudge is more important than all the players who want to eliminate clashes, then please post details somewhere.

kthxbye

[Roxanne]

A player just wrote this:

"I'm setting up an EET installation through BWS, planning on adding Might and Guile. However, its Bard overhaul component (210) clashes with the BG1 NPC Project "Banters, Quests and Interjections" component (0001), favoring the later."

Giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming this is not just a further attempt by someone with a silly and baseless grudge (*cough*) to use a neutral 3rd-party tool to disparage and disadvantage my mods... so, assuming there is some kind of "clash..." Could someone maybe mention that to me??

I can't eliminate "clashes" if I don't know about them. And I'm sure players would like all clashes between mods to be eliminated. So unless someone thinks her silly, baseless grudge is more important than all the players who want to eliminate clashes, then please post details somewhere.

kthxbye

As always, let us stick to facts.

 

BWS has this conflict

 

BG1NPC Garrick quest vs Might and Guile's Bard Class Overhaul=C:BG1NPC(1):might_and_guile(210)

 

This issue is already in the BGT and classic BG1 configuration and EET inherits it from there, i.e. the conflict was already defined even before EET was implemented in BWS.

 

This is obviously a very old issue - so question is whether this is still valid for the current versions of both mods? They surely have been updated both since this was implememted (years ago). One needs to seek forum's history to find out why it was defined in the first place and by whom.

 

PS - I checked the BWP manual for further information but it says that current version skips might_and_guile(210) because it is only for EE? Even stranger...

Edited by Roxanne, 27 March 2018 - 04:01 AM.

[subtledoctor]

Doubtful. The MnG bard overhaul was only created about 9 months ago. That component is completely non-functional on non-EE games (it uses EE-only opcodes and will cause CTDs in BGT).

So, this seems like just some kind if error. Unless there's something I'm missing. (I'm playing BGEE with a bard Charname and Garrick right now, and haven't seen any conflicts... but I haven't completed a "Garrick quest." Is that the thing that happens at Ulcaster? I'm heading that direction soon.)

[Roxanne]

Doubtful. The MnG bard overhaul was only created about 9 months ago. That component is completely non-functional on non-EE games (it uses EE-only opcodes and will cause CTDs in BGT).

So, this seems like just some kind if error. Unless there's something I'm missing. (I'm playing BGEE with a bard Charname and Garrick right now, and haven't seen any conflicts... but I haven't completed a "Garrick quest." Is that the thing that happens at Ulcaster? I'm heading that direction soon.)

It must be the Ulcaster episode, it is the only Garrick quest I know of and it IS part of BG1NPCs. Garrick receives some special bard item(s?) after the quest. Check if he can use those with the mod installed.

I have played that part a couple on months ago without having had issues, but since I used BWS I do not have that m+g210 installed. So I cannot confirm anything here.

 

There are mistakes in the BGT setup - it says that m+g 210 is only for EE, but a couple of lines later it installs it for BGT Expert selections. And the conflict is in BGT as well but not defined for EET (it just spills over). The whole thing is quite weird???

Edited by Roxanne, 27 March 2018 - 04:52 AM.

[subtledoctor]

IMHO getting an item that can't be equipped is hardly reason to prevent an entire mod being installed. Especially if there is no actual confirmation that there is actually an item that can't be equipped. And if there is such an item, better to report and fix it than to stop people from using mods.

As for the BGT stuff: I have no idea what's going on, but anything relating to BGT can only be an error, for reasons I already explained. So that rule or whatever should be removed from BWS. MnG #210 should be unavailable on BGT, full stop. That's the only installation rule needed.