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.
The IWD:EE engine is still backward compatible with CRE v1 and STO v1 formats, right?
