154 replies to this topic

[Insomniator]

OK, but

1) It can't be usable until there's engine support for correct acm headers.

Existed 1pp HQ music mod already add 44Khz acm support (by bad way), if engine gets dynamic 22/44 acm support, it lost compatibility with this mod. Currently no other 44khz music mods(?), so compatibilty with existed mod is high priority.

 

2) 1pp music package does not install content. It has to be copied manually, and there's no uninstaller for that. Do you consider it not a real mod, then?

For me, it is not real mod, we don't live in 1999, we have weidu "standarts", players used to have install/uninstall option, mix MODs combination etc.

[Magus]

Existed 1pp HQ music mod...

 

...compatibilty with existed mod is high priority.

For me, it is not real mod

Contradictory statements see I .

 

 

Anyway, here's a packaged mod. Now is it real?

[Insomniator]

Anyway, here's a packaged mod. Now is it real?

Same name as existed public mod, same version, same author, different content.

Non-playable hack, is there better try ?

[Magus]

Same name as existed public mod, same version, same author, different content.

We already established that the other mod is not a real mod. This is a real mod. With installer, uninstaller, all the stuff.

 

Non-playable hack

Really? You decided to finish a No True Scotsman combo with a catch-22?

 

Let's recap:

- first you asked to see real 44 kHz acms with correct headers

- then to see a mod for BG2 with such acms (which unheard of, by the way - I dare you to name one mod that was released with a dependency on possible future features)

- then to see a "real" mod with such acms

- and finally, when presented with such a mod, you dismissed it as "non-playable".
 

 

Duh, if it was playable, it wouldn't need the feature.

 

Seriously, if you don't want add a feature for some reason, you can just state the reason. For example, you can say "it's a bad feature because of this and that, and will not be added". Or "I would accept a pull request, but I don't want to spend my time on this". It's cool. I do that all the time.

Edited by Magus, 06 February 2023 - 07:31 AM.

[Graion Dilach]

Pardon for interrupting your discussions, but just for clarifications: does a BG2 mod NPC which would use the first 4 rare select responses (so Mix mode) need to add itself to BGSNDSET.2DA now?

[Insomniator]

Pardon for interrupting your discussions, but just for clarifications: does a BG2 mod NPC which would use the first 4 rare select responses (so Mix mode) need to add itself to BGSNDSET.2DA now?

Yes, if BG2 .CRE was reconfigured to have additional 4 rare selection sounds at offsets 0x1d0-0x1dc, it is enough to add new line at BGSNDSET.2DA with type Mix
 

- and finally, when presented with such a mod, you dismissed it as "non-playable".

Presented mod has wrong documentation, if do what it tells, player gets broken custom music if installed any mods with music
 

Duh, if it was playable, it wouldn't need the feature.
 
Seriously, if you don't want add a feature for some reason, you can just state the reason. For example, you can say "it's a bad feature because of this and that, and will not be added". Or "I would accept a pull request, but I don't want to spend my time on this". It's cool. I do that all the time.

I already wrote about reason, there is no new mods with 44kHz acms, existed 1pp mod has own 44khz implementation. As i see this broken mod prepared for proof-of-concept only, nice, but useless for players, give me reason to add features for broken mods.

Edited by skellytz, 06 February 2023 - 11:48 PM.
double posting

[Magus]

Presented mod has wrong documentation, if do what it tells, player gets broken custom music if installed any mods with music

Player gets broken music no matter what. The mod cannot work without the feature. That's why it needs the feature.

There, doesn't tell to do anything special. But it doesn't matter. Because the mod cannot work without the feature.

 

existed 1pp mod has own 44khz implementation.

We. Already. Established. That. Is. Not. A. Real. Mod.

 

useless for players

The only way for it to be useful for players is when there's support for the corresponding feature in the engine. That's why it needs the feature.

 

I dare you to name one mod that was released with a dependency on possible future features

I still dare you.

[MikeX]

Hi MikeX

Saving Throw Improved Invisible Bonus [Compatibility]

Enable +4 Saving Throw Bonus at engine level, doesn't apply bonus against creatures with ability to see invisible. Component not compatible with BG2 Fixpack! (BG2 Fixpack has own, but worse fix)

 

The version history says it is removed now.

What needs to be done to get BG2 fixpack and TobEx working alongside/together regarding this matter?

bg2fixpack adds Saving Throw Bonus versus all enemies if impr. invisible enabled.

To switch for TobEx AL implemenation need restore back some spells:

 

ACTION_DEFINE_ASSOCIATIVE_ARRAY cd_imp_invis BEGIN  // bg2fixpack
  spdr401 => spdr401a // Invisible Stalker Improved Invisibility
  spin687 => spin687a // Create Shadows
  spin698 => spin698a // Cerebus Improved Invisibility
  spwi405 => spwi405a // improved invis (mage)
  spwi505 => spwi505a // shadow door (mage)
  spwi607 => spwi607a // Mislead
  spwi721 => spwi721a // mass invisibility
  balth10 => balth10a // Shadow Stance!
  spin544 => spin544a // PSIONIC_SUPERIOR_INVISIBILITY
END

Original TobEx v26 always enable own bonus and with bg2fixpack bonuses are doubled(not really tested)

in AL added new option Effect Opcodes:Saving Throw Improved Invisible Bonus to enable own bonus if bg2fixpack not installed or spell was restored manually.

 

TobEx own bonus can be enabled only if main Saving Throw Fix option is also enabled
 

Hi Insomniator,

 

I'm about to setup a new BGT game and I'm still not quite sure about how to proper deal with this issue.

 

That's what I did so far:

-Installed TobEx, TobExCore.ini has line 'Saving Throw Fix=1'

-Commented out the section that deals with improved invisibility an its saves inside setup-bg2fixpack.tp2

-Installed bg2fixpack

 

After installing TobEx AL should I change this line 'Effect Opcodes:Saving Throw Improved Invisible Bonus=0' inside TobExTweak.ini to '...=1', to get proper saves dealing with improved invisibility?

 

 

[Insomniator]

Hi MikeX

That's what I did so far:

-Installed TobEx, TobExCore.ini has line 'Saving Throw Fix=1'

-Commented out the section that deals with improved invisibility an its saves inside setup-bg2fixpack.tp2

-Installed bg2fixpack

 

After installing TobEx AL should I change this line 'Effect Opcodes:Saving Throw Improved Invisible Bonus=0' inside TobExTweak.ini to '...=1', to get proper saves dealing with improved invisibility?

Yes, you did right:

Saving Throw Fix=1 - global switch from original to TobEx Saving Throw calculation

Commented out the section that deals with improved invisibility an its saves inside setup-bg2fixpack.tp2 - spells(include subspells) with Improved Invisibility effects must don't have Save vs XXX bonus effect

Effect Opcodes:Saving Throw Improved Invisible Bonus=1 - enable TobEx Saving Throw +4 bonus on condition if enemy doesn't have innate ability to see invisible forms

[MikeX]

Hi MikeX

That's what I did so far:

-Installed TobEx, TobExCore.ini has line 'Saving Throw Fix=1'

-Commented out the section that deals with improved invisibility an its saves inside setup-bg2fixpack.tp2

-Installed bg2fixpack

 

After installing TobEx AL should I change this line 'Effect Opcodes:Saving Throw Improved Invisible Bonus=0' inside TobExTweak.ini to '...=1', to get proper saves dealing with improved invisibility?

Yes, you did right:

Saving Throw Fix=1 - global switch from original to TobEx Saving Throw calculation

Commented out the section that deals with improved invisibility an its saves inside setup-bg2fixpack.tp2 - spells(include subspells) with Improved Invisibility effects must don't have Save vs XXX bonus effect

Effect Opcodes:Saving Throw Improved Invisible Bonus=1 - enable TobEx Saving Throw +4 bonus on condition if enemy doesn't have innate ability to see invisible forms

Thank you.

[MikeX]

Hi Insomniator,

 

is it possible for you to decipher this message (and similar ones, that I get from time to time):

 

ASSERTION FAILED! Return Address: 0x9892C8 File: ChDataTypes.cpp Line: 1591 Expression: !(x >= pBitmapInfoHeader->biWidth || x < 0 || y > pBitmapInfoHeader->biHeight || y < 0) Message: (null)

 

Thanks.

[Insomniator]

Hi MikeX

is it possible for you to decipher this message (and similar ones, that I get from time to time):

 

ASSERTION FAILED! Return Address: 0x9892C8 File: ChDataTypes.cpp Line: 1591 Expression: !(x >= pBitmapInfoHeader->biWidth || x < 0 || y > pBitmapInfoHeader->biHeight || y < 0) Message: (null)

This is assertion check in original engine, CResBitmap::GetPixelColor(), i think problem with some .BMP or .BAM, unfortunately filename not saved in structure, there is no simple way to fix it

Edited by Insomniator, 15 February 2023 - 05:15 AM.

[Magus]

So that's it, ran out of requirements?

[Salk]

Hi Insomniator!

 

Only recently I learned that the classic BG draining spells do not really work at all the way they are supposed to be. EE uses a series of flags for damage opcode 12 to make spells like Larloch's Minor Drain and Vampiric Touch work properly.

 

I was wondering if ToBEx AfterLife could add those flags too? I realize that probably I am asking for too much here but I thought it wouldn't hurt.

 

Thanks!

Edited by Salk, 14 March 2023 - 10:11 PM.

[Insomniator]

Only recently I learned that the classic BG draining spells do not really work at all the way they are supposed to be. EE uses a series of flags for damage opcode 12 to make spells like Larloch's Minor Drain and Vampiric Touch work properly.

Hi Salk!

 

1) How Maximum HP bonus (18) effect wlll be removed from spwi314b.spl and all other spell files before or after TobEx Afterlife installation? I afraid i cannot track all spell-childs and block this effect if damage effect with new flag detected at other spell, anyway it is possible to block HP effect by spell filename, will works only with original known BG2/bg2fixpack spell filenames (Larloch's Minor Drain, Vampiric Touch,..)

2) EE has Flags field after "Save Bonus", classic bg2 has at same offset Identifier&Prefix fields, what if some existed/modded bg2 *.SPL have garbage at these offsets at Damage effect?

[Salk]

Hello, Insomniator!

 

From what I understand, you are telling me that we would need to remove the Maximum HP Bonus effect from spells if we use the new flags? And that this would only be possible for the original spells and not the one added by mods? 

 

And there are other compatibility problems as well regarding the offset for the flags?

 

Well, I wish I could give you good answers and help but I would have no idea about what to do, really.

 

Sorry for wasting your time and thanks for your investigation. 

Edited by Salk, 15 March 2023 - 12:13 PM.

[Insomniator]

Hi Salk

From what I understand, you are telling me that we would need to remove the Maximum HP Bonus effect from spells if we use the new flags? And that this would only be possible for the original spells and not the one added by mods? 

Yes, if damage effect itself will transfer HP to caster, need to remove/block Maximum HP Bonus effect.

Problem is spell tracking, damage is spwi314a.spl, HP bonus is spwi314b.spl. I never discovered how "parent-child" spell synchronized, In worst case i can only block HP effect if spellname is spwi314b.spl. It's ok for vanilla installation, but MODs can copy spwi314b.spl to different name, patch it to custom/etc, so blocking by spellname is not 100% guarantee

 

And there are other compatibility problems as well regarding the offset for the flags?

Another probably compatibility problem is Identifier&Prefix fields in damage effect, they must be zero(i dont know how they works). Who can guarantee zero values in custom spells ? Solution is check in weidu installer all installed spells and zeroing fields if necessary, but it require installing tobex after other mods, i dont like this behaviour.
 

[Salk]

I understand why what I asked present too many difficulties, but I want to thank you for considering it.

[WanderingScholar]

It might be beyond the scope of TobEx, but I always thought it be nice if we could get a time stop spell that actually stops time. It's really a mass paralysis that still allows frequency based effects to persist and "tick" throughout it's duration. I've no idea what it would take to correct this behavior or if it's even possible. I reckon some sort of edit to opcode #231 is needed. 

 

Any thoughts on this?

[Insomniator]

Hi WanderingScholar

It might be beyond the scope of TobEx, but I always thought it be nice if we could get a time stop spell that actually stops time. It's really a mass paralysis that still allows frequency based effects to persist and "tick" throughout it's duration. I've no idea what it would take to correct this behavior or if it's even possible.

Can you give examples of these things ?