V13 issues

[ScuD]

I have fixed the first post. If you want, I can remove it completely.

[Guest Michayel]

Thanks for the quick reply sir.

 

Actually, the install I had planned included most of Spell Revisions anyway. Reading the descriptions and details of these two mods makes me so excited to play BG2 again, but it seems I will have to wait until this issue is resolved. One question: if I 'comment out' the problem spells during installation of SR, will that solve the issue for my install, albeit at the expense of which ever spells those are?

[Demivrgvs]

Thanks for the quick reply sir.

 

Actually, the install I had planned included most of Spell Revisions anyway. Reading the descriptions and details of these two mods makes me so excited to play BG2 again, but it seems I will have to wait until this issue is resolved. One question: if I 'comment out' the problem spells during installation of SR, will that solve the issue for my install, albeit at the expense of which ever spells those are?

Well, if you also install the Remove Disabled Spells from Spell Selection Screens component then commenting out spwi319 and spwi320 won't cause any "serious issue" because they won't be available to player characters anyway. Be sure to not comment out the respective scrolls though, but do something like this:

 

/* COPY ~spell_rev\spwi3##\spwi319.spl~	 ~override~  // Protection from Fire
  SAY NAME1 @535	SAY UNIDENTIFIED_DESC @536 */
COPY ~spell_rev\spwi3##\scrl6h.itm~	 ~override~
  SAY NAME2 @535	SAY IDENTIFIED_DESC   @536

/* COPY ~spell_rev\spwi3##\spwi320.spl~	 ~override~  // Protection from Cold
  SAY NAME1 @537	SAY UNIDENTIFIED_DESC @538 */
COPY ~spell_rev\spwi3##\scrl6i.itm~	 ~override~
  SAY NAME2 @537	SAY IDENTIFIED_DESC   @538

The drawback is that spwi319 and spwi320 will still be used by the AI and it would be better if I and David can fix the compatibility issue (which wasn't there with SCSII v12 and I wasn't prepared to face) to make them match their 5th lvl versions.

[DavidW]

The drawback is that spwi319 and spwi320 will still be used by the AI and it would be better if I and David can fix the compatibility issue (which wasn't there with SCSII v12 and I wasn't prepared to face) to make them match their 5th lvl versions.

 

I think it was; it just might not have been breaking install. Since v1 I've been producing new, silent versions of certain spells for prebuff purposes. (I suspect this may be the origin of reports of pro-fire spells failing on SR+SCS installs, back a few months ago.)

[Demivrgvs]

The drawback is that spwi319 and spwi320 will still be used by the AI and it would be better if I and David can fix the compatibility issue (which wasn't there with SCSII v12 and I wasn't prepared to face) to make them match their 5th lvl versions.

 

I think it was; it just might not have been breaking install. Since v1 I've been producing new, silent versions of certain spells for prebuff purposes. (I suspect this may be the origin of reports of pro-fire spells failing on SR+SCS installs, back a few months ago.)

Well, then let's fix this. Could you tell me why the current hotfix still doesn't work even if I restored the spells as you said? Do you need a particular opcode or value to be present in the spells in order for the patch to do its work?

[DavidW]

The drawback is that spwi319 and spwi320 will still be used by the AI and it would be better if I and David can fix the compatibility issue (which wasn't there with SCSII v12 and I wasn't prepared to face) to make them match their 5th lvl versions.

 

I think it was; it just might not have been breaking install. Since v1 I've been producing new, silent versions of certain spells for prebuff purposes. (I suspect this may be the origin of reports of pro-fire spells failing on SR+SCS installs, back a few months ago.)

Well, then let's fix this. Could you tell me why the current hotfix still doesn't work even if I restored the spells as you said? Do you need a particular opcode or value to be present in the spells in order for the patch to do its work?

 

The current version of SR v3 replaces SPWI319 with a spell that just says "cast spell SPWI524". This confuses SCS, which is expecting to find a spell which looks basically like a protection-from-fire. I'm not clear exactly why SR doesn't just copy SPWI524 over SPWI319.

 

(And similarly mutatis mutandis for SPWI320)

[Demivrgvs]

The current version of SR v3 replaces SPWI319 with a spell that just says "cast spell SPWI524". This confuses SCS, which is expecting to find a spell which looks basically like a protection-from-fire. I'm not clear exactly why SR doesn't just copy SPWI524 over SPWI319.

 

(And similarly mutatis mutandis for SPWI320)

As I said in my previous posts I did what you're suggesting and put it in the latest hotfix, but a player still encountered the problem. That's why I'm asking if "you need a particular opcode or value to be present in the spells in order for the patch to do its work".

 

Can you take a look at it please? When it comes to bugfixes or compatibility issues I try to intervene as fast as possible but I'm stuck because I don't know what to do.

[Guest deducter]

I just installed the newest hotfix of SR, and I had no problem installing the SCSII smarter mages opt 2 components. Thanks!!

[DavidW]

The current version of SR v3 replaces SPWI319 with a spell that just says "cast spell SPWI524". This confuses SCS, which is expecting to find a spell which looks basically like a protection-from-fire. I'm not clear exactly why SR doesn't just copy SPWI524 over SPWI319.

 

(And similarly mutatis mutandis for SPWI320)

As I said in my previous posts I did what you're suggesting and put it in the latest hotfix, but a player still encountered the problem. That's why I'm asking if "you need a particular opcode or value to be present in the spells in order for the patch to do its work".

 

Can you take a look at it please? When it comes to bugfixes or compatibility issues I try to intervene as fast as possible but I'm stuck because I don't know what to do.

 

I'm right in thinking it now seems fine? (suggesting that the player originally had the wrong files or something)

[Demivrgvs]

The current version of SR v3 replaces SPWI319 with a spell that just says "cast spell SPWI524". This confuses SCS, which is expecting to find a spell which looks basically like a protection-from-fire. I'm not clear exactly why SR doesn't just copy SPWI524 over SPWI319.

 

(And similarly mutatis mutandis for SPWI320)

As I said in my previous posts I did what you're suggesting and put it in the latest hotfix, but a player still encountered the problem. That's why I'm asking if "you need a particular opcode or value to be present in the spells in order for the patch to do its work".

 

Can you take a look at it please? When it comes to bugfixes or compatibility issues I try to intervene as fast as possible but I'm stuck because I don't know what to do.

 

I'm right in thinking it now seems fine? (suggesting that the player originally had the wrong files or something)

Yes, there's no compatibility issue anymore.

 

Speaking of which, are you going to handle the incompatibility issue with SR's Simulacrum? I've changed it so that you can avoid overwriting it when SR is installed, and I also provide a way to fix it over a SCS install here. I'd be glad if you could prevent the issue in your next update. Thanks.

[DavidW]

The current version of SR v3 replaces SPWI319 with a spell that just says "cast spell SPWI524". This confuses SCS, which is expecting to find a spell which looks basically like a protection-from-fire. I'm not clear exactly why SR doesn't just copy SPWI524 over SPWI319.

 

(And similarly mutatis mutandis for SPWI320)

As I said in my previous posts I did what you're suggesting and put it in the latest hotfix, but a player still encountered the problem. That's why I'm asking if "you need a particular opcode or value to be present in the spells in order for the patch to do its work".

 

Can you take a look at it please? When it comes to bugfixes or compatibility issues I try to intervene as fast as possible but I'm stuck because I don't know what to do.

 

I'm right in thinking it now seems fine? (suggesting that the player originally had the wrong files or something)

Yes, there's no compatibility issue anymore.

 

Speaking of which, are you going to handle the incompatibility issue with SR's Simulacrum? I've changed it so that you can avoid overwriting it when SR is installed, and I also provide a way to fix it over a SCS install here. I'd be glad if you could prevent the issue in your next update. Thanks.

 

I'll need to confirm that it works; if so, sure.

[Guest temujin.]

a script that's supposed to be dynamically generated during install (dw#2fmgl.bcs) if the enemy's class is fighter-mage and race is lich doesn't get created.

 

 

(mage.tph)

 

	PATCH_IF ~%kit2%~ STRING_EQUAL_CASE ~fighter-mage~ THEN BEGIN
  SPRINT ~scriptbase~ ~dw#2fmg~
  ADD_CRE_ITEM ~dw#fgmag~ #0 #0 #0 ~NONE~ ~INV3~
END

<snip>

PATCH_IF ~islich~=1 THEN BEGIN
  SPRINT ~maxlevel~ ~L~
END

<snip>

SPRINT ~scriptfull~ ~%scriptbase%~^~%maxlevel%~

WRITE_EVALUATED_ASCII ~%whereisscript%~ ~%scriptfull%~ #8

[ScuD]

After the installation NI reports DW#ABBL2.DLG as corrupted:

File: DW#ABBL2.DLG  Offset: c4h  Error message: Text(c4h) overlaps Text(c4h) by 34 bytes

It should not be a game-breaking issue, but maybe there's smth with a way the dialog is created? I'm not very good with dialogs in IE, so I cannot figure out the reason.

[DavidW]

@Temujin: it's not exactly a bug, since there are no lich fighter-mages and so I don't have a script for them. I agree there's a theoretical compatibility problem that I ought to fix.

 

EDIT: actually, checking the code, I don't think it's possible for a creature to be flagged both as a fighter-mage and as a lich.

 

@ScuD: I'm aware of this, but since it's harmless and I don't immediately know what causes it, I'm not inclined to "fix" it.

[Guest temujin.]

@Temujin: it's not exactly a bug, since there are no lich fighter-mages and so I don't have a script for them.

 

true, there are no lich fighter-mages in the unmodded game, but there are a couple added in by mods. you'll be surprised at the number of strange things you'll see should you ever do a mega mod install.

 

 

EDIT: actually, checking the code, I don't think it's possible for a creature to be flagged both as a fighter-mage and as a lich.

 

 

not sure i understood you here, but trust me, it's most definitely possible (i wouldn't be wasting your time with theoretical problems).

 

to see this yourself, suppose the following "new" creature was introduced earlier by a mod pre-SCS:

 

COPY_EXISTING ~ppguy01.cre~ ~override/a_test.cre~
WRITE_BYTE   0x272   150		 // race	(150 = lich)
WRITE_BYTE   0x273	 7		 // class   (7 = fighter-mage)
WRITE_ASCIIT 0x250   "mage11"	// class script

 

now, once SCS' Smarter mages gets installed, check the new class script of a_test.cre

 

this isn't a serious issue, except for the fact that the previous existing class script of such creatures get replaced with a nonexistent dw#2fmgL...

 

 

 

@ScuD: I'm aware of this, but since it's harmless and I don't immediately know what causes it, I'm not inclined to "fix" it.

 

 

i thought we already had this discussion some time back, and concluded it was an empty action that's causing the dialog to be shown as corrupted.

 

anyway, to "fix" it, all you have to do is change line 4 and line 9 in scsII/abazigal/multidragon.d from

 

IF ~~ THEN DO ~~ EXIT END

 

to

 

IF ~~ THEN EXIT END

 

we're just removing the empty (& unnecessary) DO statement that's making it "corrupted".