What's needed for SCS v31?

[AL|EN]

@Mad Mate I notice that you pushed this commit after I accepted PR#3. So this part of the fixes are missing as you can see here: https://github.com/Gibberlings3/SwordCoastStratagems/network

 

Please create new PR so this fix can be added.

[Mad Mate]

Sorry, I'm new to this. I created new PR.

Is now better?

I see that fix made it to RC3 anyway.

[AL|EN]

Yes, fix/commit was included for master but not for RevisedSCS. Also, I wanted to avoid confusion when somebody will look at the Network graph and see 'this tiny lite commit' outside of the main branch. Keep up good work!

[CamDawg]

 

 

Instantaneous 206/318/321/324 need altering to new filename on the new spell.

Durational 206/318/321/324 need cloning to new filename on the new and old spell.

Entries in 7eyes.2da need to be cloned for the new filename.

 

This. I couldn't have said it any better.

 

 

One nitpick--321 should be updated to reference both resources, e.g. a cloned Armor of Faith still shouldn't stack with its original.

 

 

And while I'm not going to try and address the spell cloning issue for SCS v31 (especially since David is revamping the system anyway), there is a shiny new function for anyone interested that will clone spells in accordance with the above directives.

[Luke]

@DavidW

 

Do you plan to add support for IWD:EE in version 32? That would be great ...........

Edited September 4, 2018 by Luke

[DavidW]

@DavidW

 

Do you plan to add support for IWD:EE in version 32? That would be great ...........

No.

[Luke]

 

@DavidW

 

Do you plan to add support for IWD:EE in version 32? That would be great ...........

No.

 

Is that something you'll address in future versions?

 

Alternatively, do you plan to add support for the mod IWDification in version 32? If I'm not mistaken, you're one of the authors of this mod, right?

[DavidW]

I have a pretty general policy of not giving advance warning of things I plan to add, sorry!

[subtledoctor]

Sorry to go off-topic, btu everyone who seems to know anything about Detectable Spells has been in this thread. Can anyone take a look at the version in SR v4b15 and let me know whether/how it needs updating? That SR version looks very very different from the DS.tph on Github, and I don't want to mess with it because I think I might break something. But I'm making an update to SR and I'd like to be sure it works well with EE v2.5.

 

If anyone can take a look, please feel free to post about it in the linked thread.

 

Thanks! I'll go now.

[Mad Mate]

Sorry to go off-topic, btu everyone who seems to know anything about Detectable Spells has been in this thread. Can anyone take a look at the version in SR v4b15 and let me know whether/how it needs updating? That SR version looks very very different from the DS.tph on Github, and I don't want to mess with it because I think I might break something. But I'm making an update to SR and I'd like to be sure it works well with EE v2.5.

 

If anyone can take a look, please feel free to post about it in the linked thread.

 

Thanks! I'll go now.

It is same DS, if you mean SCS one. SR4 was source of new DS and only changes are few compatibility lines in start that are useful for old mods (like SCS) that use old names for functions and macros. SR4 uses only new names, so those few lines wouldn't do anything. Of course, adding those lines wouldn't hurt.

[subtledoctor]

It is same DS, if you mean SCS one.

Operative question is, does SR need to be fixed for the 2.5 patch? I.e. (I think) does it need this:

SORT_ARRAY_INDICES auxil NUMERICALLY

?

[Ardanis]

 

It is same DS, if you mean SCS one.

Operative question is, does SR need to be fixed for the 2.5 patch? I.e. (I think) does it need this:

SORT_ARRAY_INDICES auxil NUMERICALLY

?

 

It's identical to

  SPRINT sort_array auxil
  LPM sort_array

present in v3.95

 

If you're concerned whether it's better to just use internal WeiDU function, then technically that's what I would've wanted back then. However, if memory serves me well, my macro had a bit of edge over Wisp's implementation either in being able to sort both numerically and lexically in one sweep or somehow else, so I'd rather preserve my macro somewhere in case anybody would ever need its functionality. For the purpose of fixing the v2.5 bug it makes no difference which one is used.

Edited September 9, 2018 by Ardanis