Jump to content

EET v13.4 released


Recommended Posts

 

This may already be fixed in the new version - anyway

Jonavi.cre in BG1200.are appears with BG1 contents during ToB when revisiting the area.

dialogue filtering is not implemented for Baldur Gate city anymore because there is no way to enter the city after BG1 anyway (due to SoD plotline). So I'm afraid you will need to clean dialogues/NPCs yourself if your mod gives access to BG city areas in later parts of the story (although if you send me such changes than they can be implemented by default).

 

What? You can't access Baldur's Gate city during BG2?

Link to comment

 

 

This may already be fixed in the new version - anyway

Jonavi.cre in BG1200.are appears with BG1 contents during ToB when revisiting the area.

dialogue filtering is not implemented for Baldur Gate city anymore because there is no way to enter the city after BG1 anyway (due to SoD plotline). So I'm afraid you will need to clean dialogues/NPCs yourself if your mod gives access to BG city areas in later parts of the story (although if you send me such changes than they can be implemented by default).

 

What? You can't access Baldur's Gate city during BG2?

 

play Siege of Dragonspear to find out why. Or if you don't care about spoilers check out these topics:

http://gibberlings3.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=27996

http://gibberlings3.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=28549

Link to comment

You never could in any version of the game before, you could not visit ANY BG1 area at all. Why would you want to?

 

http://gibberlings3.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=27996&do=findComment&comment=243849

http://gibberlings3.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=28549&hl=

 

Just to know I can if I wish :)

No problem, it's enough to know it before, so I can finish any business there before the point of non return.

Is there any other area that gets closed forever after SoD?

Link to comment

 

You never could in any version of the game before, you could not visit ANY BG1 area at all. Why would you want to?

 

http://gibberlings3.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=27996&do=findComment&comment=243849

http://gibberlings3.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=28549&hl=

 

Just to know I can if I wish :)

No problem, it's enough to know it before, so I can finish any business there before the point of non return.

Is there any other area that gets closed forever after SoD?

 

nope, I don't think so. You can even return to Dragonspear castle interior. Although not into (SoD ending spoiler)

 

Baator plane

 

but that is obvious.

Edited by K4thos
Link to comment

Areas you cannot reach in later parts of the game include

>> BG City after SoD :queen:

>> Balduran's Island after you did the journey

>> the Ice Island off Ulguth's Beard

>> some SoD areas (the one mentioned by k4thos) but also the town areas during the SoD campaign. Plus, the escape and transition maps from SoD into SoA

>> Irenicus dungeon after you left :queen:

>> Underdark, Asylum, Brynlaw after you left :queen:

>> Planar Prison

>> Part of Hell in Planar Sphere

>> ToB Stone Heads

>> Saradush after the fall

>> Bhaal plane after you leave for final ToB battle

>> Hell after you defeated Irenicus :queen:

 

Special cases:

- during some chapters of SoD you cannot visit other areas from BG1 (or even SoD itself) due to the plot.

- Candlekeep you leave with Gorion is a different area from the one you later revisit,

 

These areas :queen: can be revisited in later parts of the Sandrah mods with new content added to them.

 

Not listed are mod areas where access is depending on the respective mod's contents. Most mod added areas that are on the worldmap can be revisited (e.g. all TDD, NTotSC, DSotSC, Askavar areas).

Edited by Roxanne
Link to comment

 

>> some SoD areas (the one mentioned by k4thos) but also the town areas during the SoD campaign. Plus, the escape and transition maps from SoD into SoA

 

which town areas? This may be a bug.

 

I meant the revised areas used during SoD (Chapter 7 second part) cannot be revisited, even when you re-open BG City those would be the original (full) maps - just as a hint that you cannot go back and meet e.g. Sharteel for SoD (new mod) at a later stage.

Edited by Roxanne
Link to comment

 

Out of curiosity, why doesn't IWDEE 1.4 work for IWD-in-EET? The 2.x patch, generally speaking, only affects the engine and UI. Since we'll be running in the 2.x engine anyway, those will already be up-to-date. The game resources - the .ARE, .BCS, .CRE, .ITM, .SPL etc. files should work just fine when dumped into the 2.x game engine.

 

Is there a technical reason I'm not aware of? Or is it just, "we know a change is coming, so why put in the effort now and then have to change it later" ?

patch 1.4 still uses BGEE.SQL. Code for parsing new format that replaced it is ready, so I don't see a point in wasting time adjusting the old code when current EET code will work as it is when IWD:EE will be updated to patch 2.x. Some other things will likely have to be changed too (see differences in files that caused SCS to not be installable on patch 2.x games or even EET_Tweaks which in current state is partially broken due to changes since patch 1.3) and will need to be tested. Overall whole IWD-in-EET code has to be updated with the current improved EET codebase (tp2 files are similar) so we're waiting for latest patch before doing it.

 

I would maybe consider revising this. From what I'm hearing from Beamdog (admittedly, one post) IWDEE will not be updated with the 2.4 patch when BGEE and BG2EE are, and the process for updating IWDEE is not even at the planning stages. Given that a lot of the good stuff from patch 2.x is already in IWDEE v1.4, and they're probably not making any money from it, I think there's a real possibility that IWDEE doesn't *ever* get updated. Even if it does, it may not happen until 2018.

 

If it has to wait for 2.4, there's a real possibility IWD-in-EET ends up being vaporware. Which would be a real shame, considering how close it already is to working.

Link to comment

 

 

Out of curiosity, why doesn't IWDEE 1.4 work for IWD-in-EET? The 2.x patch, generally speaking, only affects the engine and UI. Since we'll be running in the 2.x engine anyway, those will already be up-to-date. The game resources - the .ARE, .BCS, .CRE, .ITM, .SPL etc. files should work just fine when dumped into the 2.x game engine.

 

Is there a technical reason I'm not aware of? Or is it just, "we know a change is coming, so why put in the effort now and then have to change it later" ?

patch 1.4 still uses BGEE.SQL. Code for parsing new format that replaced it is ready, so I don't see a point in wasting time adjusting the old code when current EET code will work as it is when IWD:EE will be updated to patch 2.x. Some other things will likely have to be changed too (see differences in files that caused SCS to not be installable on patch 2.x games or even EET_Tweaks which in current state is partially broken due to changes since patch 1.3) and will need to be tested. Overall whole IWD-in-EET code has to be updated with the current improved EET codebase (tp2 files are similar) so we're waiting for latest patch before doing it.

 

I would maybe consider revising this. From what I'm hearing from Beamdog (admittedly, one post) IWDEE will not be updated with the 2.4 patch when BGEE and BG2EE are, and the process for updating IWDEE is not even at the planning stages. Given that a lot of the good stuff from patch 2.x is already in IWDEE v1.4, and they're probably not making any money from it, I think there's a real possibility that IWDEE doesn't *ever* get updated. Even if it does, it may not happen until 2018.

 

If it has to wait for 2.4, there's a real possibility IWD-in-EET ends up being vaporware. Which would be a real shame, considering how close it already is to working.

 

I cannot argue with this on a technical level but I can contribute my experience from developping IWD contents for my EET mod which leads me to a similar assessment that IWD/HoW 1.4 may be sufficient for IWD-in-EET.

 

From the workbench:

 

 

For my work, I made a mini-version of my NPCmod (generic, no specific EET references) , I imported the NPC, her animal companion, my then-PC, and a number of BG characters (Koveras, Scar, Brage + his cousin) + some spells, additional monsters and scripts into IWD. I made a mini script for the first area to set globals in the way they would be on such a party coming from the Sword Coast. With this I played through all of IWD and HoW (and the initial TotLM until I started to remember what that part was about and bailed out.)

 

The only real issues I could find were some Actions/Triggers/Opcodes that I used but were not present in IWD - this should not be any issue if the import is done the other way round, right?

There were the missing GUI options - should not matter because the EET-GUI will be used, right?

Some spells did not work or worked differently - no issue because the EET versions will be continuous.

Some oddities caused by chapter progression - there will be no IWD chapter progression in EET, right?

 

I developped dialogues with IWD characters, interjections, additional plot, a number of smaller quests about the Iron Throne preventing ore from Lonelywood going south etc using exactly the same techniques I would use for any EET compatible mod.

 

And it all worked.

 

I created a version of this crossmod addon to my mod in which the IWD references are replaced by their (planned) IWD-in-EET resources - and now I am eagerly waiting to test if what worked in one direction works as well the other way round. In my simplistic idiot opinion it just might.

 

 

But there are probably things I do not see.

Edited by Roxanne
Link to comment

 

 

Out of curiosity, why doesn't IWDEE 1.4 work for IWD-in-EET? The 2.x patch, generally speaking, only affects the engine and UI. Since we'll be running in the 2.x engine anyway, those will already be up-to-date. The game resources - the .ARE, .BCS, .CRE, .ITM, .SPL etc. files should work just fine when dumped into the 2.x game engine.

 

Is there a technical reason I'm not aware of? Or is it just, "we know a change is coming, so why put in the effort now and then have to change it later" ?

patch 1.4 still uses BGEE.SQL. Code for parsing new format that replaced it is ready, so I don't see a point in wasting time adjusting the old code when current EET code will work as it is when IWD:EE will be updated to patch 2.x. Some other things will likely have to be changed too (see differences in files that caused SCS to not be installable on patch 2.x games or even EET_Tweaks which in current state is partially broken due to changes since patch 1.3) and will need to be tested. Overall whole IWD-in-EET code has to be updated with the current improved EET codebase (tp2 files are similar) so we're waiting for latest patch before doing it.

 

I would maybe consider revising this. From what I'm hearing from Beamdog (admittedly, one post) IWDEE will not be updated with the 2.4 patch when BGEE and BG2EE are, and the process for updating IWDEE is not even at the planning stages. Given that a lot of the good stuff from patch 2.x is already in IWDEE v1.4, and they're probably not making any money from it, I think there's a real possibility that IWDEE doesn't *ever* get updated. Even if it does, it may not happen until 2018.

 

If it has to wait for 2.4, there's a real possibility IWD-in-EET ends up being vaporware. Which would be a real shame, considering how close it already is to working.

 

 

I completely agree.

Link to comment
Only thing missing is a gameplay timer, so I can know just how many hundreds of hours I'm going to end up sinking into this thing :D

 

I've always wanted that feature as well! I hope someone figures out a way to implement one. I'd love to have an exact hour count after a FULL runthrough with all the big mods, IWDEE, Sandrah, etc. lol

Here is what http://gibberlings3.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=28161&page=58&do=findComment&comment=251024 this tool tells me about my current playthrough:

  • BG1 with all the big mods >>>> 70h (70h)
  • SoD with sidequests >>>> 16h (86h)
  • BG2 with some big mods >>>> 70h (156h)
  • ToB with WK + Wheeks >>>> 20h (176h)
  • Sandrah RtF >>>> 42h (218h)
  • Sandrah ToT >>>> 16h (234h)
  • Pits, Tutorials etc >>>> 0h

Comments

- Those times are from a player who pretty much knows all the quests etc and where to go and what to find etc, so there is almost no wasted time here while still including all the available episodes,

- BG2 does not yet have all the big mods ready for EET, so from my own experience this is not representative, can be easily double (although I had 3 strongholds for my NPCs via a tweak)

- For all original game parts I also did the extra stuff Sandrah NPC adds (hard for me to tell what that adds, after all, I know what to do and where,,,)

- Time spend in RtF was for a regression playthrough (Again, this was played without wasting time exploring or seeking...)

Edited by Roxanne
Link to comment

 

Only thing missing is a gameplay timer, so I can know just how many hundreds of hours I'm going to end up sinking into this thing :D

 

I've always wanted that feature as well! I hope someone figures out a way to implement one. I'd love to have an exact hour count after a FULL runthrough with all the big mods, IWDEE, Sandrah, etc. lol

Here is what http://gibberlings3.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=28161&page=58&do=findComment&comment=251024 this tool tells me about my current playthrough:

  • BG1 with all the big mods >>>> 70h (70h)
  • SoD with sidequests >>>> 16h (86h)
  • BG2 with some big mods >>>> 70h (156h)
  • ToB with WK + Wheeks >>>> 20h (176h)
  • Sandrah RtF >>>> 42h (218h)
  • Sandrah ToT >>>> just started
  • Pits, Tutorials etc >>>> 0h

Comments

- Those times are from a player who pretty much knows all the quests etc and where to go and what to find etc, so there is almost no wasted time here while still including all the available episodes,

- BG2 does not yet have all the big mods ready for EET, so from my own experience this is not representative, can be easily double (although I had 3 strongholds for my NPCs via a tweak)

- For all original game parts I also did the extra stuff Sandrah NPC adds (hard for me to tell what that adds, after all, I know what to do and where,,,)

- Time spend in RtF was for a regression playthrough (Again, this was played without wasting time exploring or seeking...)

 

See now, those kinds of numbers put a big ole smile on my face. Add in other big mods, and IWD-EET... <sigh of contentment>.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...