Jump to content

Team BG armor and weapons pack Support


Recommended Posts

TeamBG's Armor Pack patch: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/35433122/TeamBG's%20Armor%20Pack%20patch.zip

TeamBG's Weapon Pack patch: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/35433122/TeamBG's%20Weapon%20Pack%20patch.zip

 

These are native native compatibility patches so should be extracted on top of original mods and installed after EET.

If someone has account on http://www.baldursgatemods.com please send the author link to this post. Maybe he will be interested in incorporating them officially.

Edited by K4thos
Link to comment
setup-bgeear.tp2] LEXER ERROR at line 219 column 1-0

Near Text: ~

invalid character [~]

HINT: Don't use MS Word to edit your .tp2 files - use ConTEXT (http://www.context.cx instead).


[setup-bgeear.tp2] ERROR at line 219 column 1-0

Near Text: ~

Parsing.Parse_error

ERROR: parsing [setup-bgeear.tp2]: Parsing.Parse_error

ERROR: problem parsing TP file [setup-bgeear.tp2]: Parsing.Parse_error


FATAL ERROR: Parsing.Parse_error


Press ENTER to exit.


[setup-bgeew.tp2] LEXER ERROR at line 328 column 1-0

Near Text: ~

invalid character [~]

HINT: Don't use MS Word to edit your .tp2 files - use ConTEXT (http://www.context.cx instead).


[setup-bgeew.tp2] ERROR at line 328 column 1-0

Near Text: ~

Parsing.Parse_error

ERROR: parsing [setup-bgeew.tp2]: Parsing.Parse_error

ERROR: problem parsing TP file [setup-bgeew.tp2]: Parsing.Parse_error


FATAL ERROR: Parsing.Parse_error


Press ENTER to exit.


Link to comment

can't reproduce it on windows on either BG:EE or EET. Line 219 is the last line in file. The only thing that comes to mind is back slashes used in tp2 file weidu INCLUDE command. Try opening tp2 files and change \ into / (ALWAYS section) to see if it will help.

Edited by K4thos
Link to comment

Anyone has the patches? I would like to submit them to the author.

IIRC you K4thos made the patches, could you attach them here please?

 

 

Edit:

 

I was reading here:

 

http://gibberlings3.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=27741&page=33&do=findComment&comment=248962

 

Roxanne, as I read in the post I provided above, "standard procedure" would be incorporating patches that provide EET compatibility into Big World Fixpack.

In this way, no intervention would be needed by the mod author, who doesn't seem to be very active at the moment.

 

As long as we get those patches, would you do that? :)

Edited by Blash2
Link to comment

This topic needs some love too :p

Since you adressed me directly in the post above, it seems necessary to answer.

 

TeamBG or Kerzenburg mods are absolute no-trespassing zones. You do not touch their mods.

 

If they want their mods to be EET compatible they will do it.

 

I have no 10000 GP tome that will give me access to their sacred domains nor will they talk to pariahs like me..

Edited by Roxanne
Link to comment

Roxanne: Why do you include Kerzenburg in your phrase? Kerzenburg forum has the "problem" that I am the only active modder currently who is updating mods. Which can lead to situations where I am knee-deep into one mod and do not have time to work myself into the code of another in case of a bugreport and therefore ask for patience. It's an understandable request I am sure?

 

Concerning fixes: In principle "standard procedure" should always be to contact the mod author first. There are enough mods that aren't maintained any more, we do not have to pass out on the few that are still actively maintained. (Most fixes are good but I also found "fixes" that were done in a haste or not with the full picture in consideration. Finding one of these when updating mods usually doesn't make me very happy.)

Link to comment

Roxanne: Why do you include Kerzenburg in your phrase? Kerzenburg forum has the "problem" that I am the only active modder currently who is updating mods. Which can lead to situations where I am knee-deep into one mod and do not have time to work myself into the code of another in case of a bugreport and therefore ask for patience. It's an understandable request I am sure?

 

Concerning fixes: In principle "standard procedure" should always be to contact the mod author first. There are enough mods that aren't maintained any more, we do not have to pass out on the few that are still actively maintained. (Most fixes are good but I also found "fixes" that were done in a haste or not with the full picture in consideration. Finding one of these when updating mods usually doesn't make me very happy.)

Is this not exactly what I said?

You do updates for Kerzenburg and just because they are not done the next day, does not mean they are not done at all. Therefore nobody should step up and do hasty fixes.

Someone came to ask me whether I could do it, and while technically I could, I would never do it. I only ever try to touch mods that are clearly abandoned.

Means we are in complete agreement about this, right?

Link to comment

Wait wait wait everybody, let's make some clarity.

 

Since:

1) This mod is already EE compatible, but not EET compatible;

2) EET compatibility patches already exist, according to what K4thos wrote in the second post here, but the Dropbox links no longer work;

3) EET compatibility patches are included in BWP fixpack (source: http://gibberlings3.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=27741&page=33#entry248962) ;

4) Roxanne is at the moment the most active mantainer of BWP Fixpack (source: https://github.com/BiGWorldProject/BiG-World-Fixpack/commits/master ).

 

I asked:

1) K4thos, would you provide again those patches?

2) Roxanne, as soon as K4thos releases the patches again, would you include them in BWP Fixpack?

 

Unless there is something I completely misunderstood, what I proposed is completely possible, no intervention would be required from the mod author, and the mod would't be modified (so, no 10000 GP tome required).

Edited by Blash2
Link to comment

Wait wait wait everybody, let's make some clarity.

 

Since:

1) This mod is already EE compatible, but not EET compatible;

2) EET compatibility patches already exist, according to what K4thos wrote in the second post here, but the Dropbox links no longer work;

3) EET compatibility patches are included in BWP fixpack (source: http://gibberlings3.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=27741&page=33#entry248962) ;

4) Roxanne is at the moment the most active mantainer of BWP Fixpack (source: https://github.com/BiGWorldProject/BiG-World-Fixpack/commits/master ).

 

I asked:

1) K4thos, would you provide again those patches?

2) Roxanne, as soon as K4thos releases the patches again, would you include them in BWP Fixpack?

 

Unless there is something I completely misunderstood, what I proposed is completely possible, no intervention would be required from the mod author, and the mod would't be modified (so, no 10000 GP tome required).

You are right and wrong at the same time.

 

1. My activities at fixpack are currently to take things out, i.e. I remove those EET compatibility *fixes* for mods that are meanwhile compatible in themself - otherwise you get those version errors during EET install.

2. The idea to add interim EET compatibility via fixpack was a practical decision made a while back, mostly to show modders what had to be done. The problem is, that this was a one man's effort and not widely coordinated. Many modders/maintainers are maybe not even aware of those fixes. Only very few ever made a report when their mods became compatible and the fix could be removed.

3. Synchronisation between fixpack and updated mods is *achieved* via users reporting errors. That is surely not a very good procedure.

4. What you describe as "standard procedure", was in fact a workaround to promote the EET idea. It was done for a couple of mods that appeared to be dormant but no such fixes have been added afterwards. Now they are removed whenever a mod is updated. When it comes to Kerzenburg or Team BG mods, we know those are not abandoned and that an update is done or not done depending on author or maintainer's decision. Nothing to interfer with.

5. Some modders have meanwhile clearly declared that their mods are not supporting EE or EET. In such a case, a fixpack treatment even if it can be done in some minutes, is out of scope.

6. Any user can easily upgrade the local copy in his game for EET. Nobody can stop you from doing that. It is explained in your EET download which also provides the tools for it. You need no outside superbrain to do that.

 

Mistakes made in the past do not need to be repeated. We all learn daily.

Edited by Roxanne
Link to comment

Ok Roxanne, now it is 100% clear :)

Anyway, just for the record, the mod seems to not be getting updates since a while (last is from 2014), and the mod topic on www.baldursgatemods.com is abandoned. The topics on Beamdog forums are not getting any answer either.

I wouldn't count on future updates, so *MAYBE* the patches could be integrated in the Fixpack and BWS should point to the present version of the mod, to prevent a new hypothetical version including compatibility to be downloaded together with the patch.

 

But these are just ideas and pieces of information, I know that things will be done in the best way as always ;)

As for myself, I'll try to stir the waters in the Beamdog forums topic :)

Edited by Blash2
Link to comment
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...