Jump to content

Does anyone know the current status of the BWS?


Ser Elryk

Recommended Posts

Creepin: I think bgqe fixes were already included into the mod itself for a former version, so there is no longer any fixes for bgqe in the BWPFixpack so you won't get a warning about the mod version.

And apologies for my tone above I shouldn't post when in a snappy mood.

Link to comment

Hi all, couple of things:

 

- while I won't actively support BWS and BWFixpack, I don't know what will agb1 do but he was not reply to my PM since long time. So as Roxanne says: DO NOT PANIC

- BWFixpacl can be maintained very easily, I've always wanted to create guides but never find the time to do it. It should be the first thing which must be created in order to have any chances for attracting new contributors.

- BWS mod links and component lists can be updated easily, more trouble will come when dealing with mod/component conflicts, please read BWS Docs: https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://bitbucket.org/BigWorldSetup/bigworldsetup/raw/master/BiG%20World%20Setup/Docs/faq.htm

 

subtledoctor, as a person who doesn't ever used BWS, you really have balls to saying such bullshit. Can you please stop?

Link to comment

I'm not sure what "bullshit" you're talking about, but I didn't mean to offend.

Let me quote you to show you an exact answer:

BWS... It's a great tool but letting it become so central to mod installation was a mistake. Having it so closely tied to the BWFixPack was also a mistake. Keeping things distinct and modular ensures that people can keep going even if one link in the chain breaks.

Now, if you could have actually given a better solution for the fixpack that's essential to fix the mod compatibility issues, then we could talk. But you didn't. THAT*S the whole BS. Yes, there's a point in the trying to keep modularity in the tools, but not in the way they are used, as the fixpack itself has build in modularity, aka it can have 10 different fixes to a 10 different versions of the same mod that are completely compatible with each others as the fixpack finds which version it's actually used into. Yes, there's also other kinds of fixes, but those are tried to be used less commonly.

Now yes, you also talked about the Wisps upcoming updates to the weidu install process, but that's still in the alpha stage ... so you can't be reliant on it, yet.

 

And you are on Mac... and the BWS is only for PCs, so for people taking you seriously, they are bound to get a wrong view on a lot of things if they actually use the PCs. As you can't know the PC situation intimately.

Link to comment

I maintain, there's no reason the BWFixPack should be integrated into BWS... it can be something installed by BWS to get the benefit from it.

 

I've said that for a long time, and indeed, that is exactly what happens now. The Fixpack is distinct, and cross-platform, and open on Github for inspection/improvement by anyone with the means to do so... this is good! I think BWS and non-BWS users are better off this way. What's not to like?

Link to comment

I maintain, there's no reason the BWFixPack should be integrated into BWS... What's not to like?

The insanity.

The notion that you think that it can actually work without it. Particularly in mega moding... say for example in BGT+TDD+SoS and others ... it doesn't.

Yeah, it works after the alterations have been imported to the EE's editions of the mods, but as it stands today, not with the vanilla mods. As they have not been updated. And because the mods were done with old weidu code that has better ways to be done todays for compatibility, and uninstall, like the biffing that the BWS removes from the mods and forces the install of Generalized Biffing.

 

The force here is only that you need to OK additional option to not install the recommended Generalized Biffing. It's claimed that the EE games don't need the biffing, but it's essential in the nonEE games.

Link to comment

@subtledoctor Yep, that's the bullshit. The BWFixpack was created before BWS even exist so it was always a standalone product! BWS is not tied to BWFixpack, the mods are. BWS without mods is an empty shell, mods without BWFixpack won't work/won't install properly on EE/EET. It's really that simple.

 

Besides, you call people a 'mindless BWS drones', because they don't have time to study 300 pages BWP + gather various tiny details from forum posts posted at 5 different sites. Then you propose to create FOM/LOOT-style utility so every new player would have to setup install order, apply patches, eliminating conflicted components on his own, every single time? I'm sorry but that's exactly the thing which BWS try to eliminate for those people. In my honest opinion, the world of IE modding is much more complicated than Skyrim/Fallout, setting own install order is only for experts. If it would be so simple as 'QNISKTS' nobody would need BWP/BWS in the first place.

Link to comment

@subtledoctor Yep, that's the bullshit. The BWFixpack was created before BWS even exist so it was always a standalone product! BWS is not tied to BWFixpack, the mods are. BWS without mods is an empty shell, mods without BWFixpack won't work/won't install properly on EE/EET. It's really that simple.

 

Besides, you call people a 'mindless BWS drones', because they don't have time to study 300 pages BWP + gather various tiny details from forum posts posted at 5 different sites. Then you propose to create FOM/LOOT-style utility so every new player would have to setup install order, apply patches, eliminating conflicted components on his own, every single time? I'm sorry but that's exactly the thing which BWS try to eliminate for those people. In my honest opinion, the world of IE modding is much more complicated than Skyrim/Fallout, setting own install order is only for experts. If it would be so simple as 'QNISKTS' nobody would need BWP/BWS in the first place.

BWS is not just a tool that makes life easier and - once set up - runs your cumbersome install while you can do other things (even for people who know how to do it manually) but it has established itself as a major knowledge data-base for the community. It is built from experience that players made and shared, what works and what does not work, where are issues etc

You can find all of that out on your own and once you found it you keep it to yourself - or you can share it so that others can enjoy the game in the same way. This shared knowledge and experience is much more than the lines of code that make up the tool.

It is an incredible job to keep that tool up-to-date and Alien is our hero who did it - but the experience and knowhow of all those who contributed their findings to the process is the basis for BWS and this is why it cannot just be replaced by just some other tool.

 

PS - I have done many mega.mod installations by hand (BWS for EET is not that old yet) and I surely can do that in the future. Still I prefer to be one of the 'mindless BWS drones' to use the tool for the hard work and rather spend time helping to enhance it afterwards.

The majority of people just want to play - because we talk about games here, right? ~ rather than to study how the game works underneath and how mods interact (or not) and why-how-when to patch something.

Link to comment

Dude: the question is not whether it's better to use BWS or not. Of course it's better to use BWS, it's great when it works.

 

*BUT* if BWS stops working for people, and no one is maintaining it, the question is, should people a) freak out, say the sky has fallen, and stop playing BG? Or b) calm down, realize you can install mods without BWS, and carry on? Is it so terrible to suggest people can be well-informed about the thing they are interested in? Compare to the Oblivion/Fallout world: before LOOT you had to do some reading to get load orders right, and Wrye Bash is a difficult program to use. But these things aren't impossible, and spending an afternoon learning them led to countless hours of good modded gameplay.

 

I'm suggesting people can appreciate BWS, without being dependent on it. Honestly don't see how that offends anyone.

Link to comment

Personally BWS has saved me a lot of headache with mod installation, I remember back in the day when it was just that gigantic manual, and I had to look through it for like a few days before I could even install, I hated that because it reminded me of Morrowind Mods, it only takes a few mods to screw everything up when you least expect it. Afterwards I lose the will to play the game again because I simply don't like to fact that I have to trudge through the same scenarios again just to get back where I was if something screws up, BWS helps avoid all that.

 

I hate to see Alien go, but hopefully someone next in line will take over the BWS project.

Link to comment

@lynx It depends what are those PR for but in any case it's still consider maintaining because I have to check if new code contribution is correct/is complete to do the job. Besides, if someone is prominent with git and Github.com to create Pull Request and understand things which needed to be committed in order to for example: add new mod, then his skills and knowledge shows that he is capable of taking the whole project.

 

So it means my answer is no, sorry.

Link to comment

Well, then there's a problem. Contributors need to be eased in, nobody will want to just jump in and take ownership of everything. The project is too big and most people care about mods, not the infrastructure.

And without anyone of the three current maintainers looking at proposed version bumps and similar, nobody can update the repo, meaning the effort would be in vain.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...