plainab

I retired and left it in the hands of Miloch and other community members who have access to the workroom here at G3. As far as I know it has not been abandoned.

The GTU is a separate component. Everything else should (as far as I know) work on other languages. As far as still being maintained... I've decided to step down. It is no longer enjoyable and when that happens it's time to move on. I do not know yet if any of the co-conspirators wants to take charge as I've only just posted my intentions in the Fixpack Workroom.

yeah I didn't notice that when I tested as Reevor is off screen and I apparently quit too soon. It was brought to my attention in the workroom as well (just saw it today in fact). I've already whipped up a solution that doesn't make Reevor go hostile in the proper situation.... Try this when you get a chance Just copy/paste and replace the jondalar tph file as instructed in the other post, then reinstall the fixpack Are you talking about during installation? I've heard of that on other mods but have never ever experienced it. Widescreen mod only works with selected versions of selected patches. Basically whatever version the mod author has and those versions that others who were capable of finding the necessary offsets had in their possession. Re-patching an already patched game to make WSM work may not be the best thing to do. Its possible to cause issues since other things have been noticed as being different between the various language patches as well.

I just tested this out and it is indeed screwed up. Totally our fault. The original scenario with Jondalar isn't broken however if the player attacked Jondalar first instead of talking it wouldn't play out properly. Jondalar would talk to the PC as if the PC hadn't hit him and subsequently not recognize any further hits. Rather than adding new text etc as the Jondalar Fix for BGT does, we opted to have him turn hostile and shout for help whenever he is attacked outside of the practice session. Therein lies the problem. We gave him the generic shout script, this had no specific checks for Jondalar's status in regards to the practice session. The solution is to duplicate relevant portions of the shout script, apply specific checks for Jondalar's practice session and add those blocks to Jondalar's personal script. Not going to repack the fixpack just for one file So if you are going to start over, you may do the following.... Before reinstalling the BG Fixpack, Open the file labeled ISSUES-JondalarBehavesProperly.tph located in BGFixPack\Modules\ with Notepad or other text editor (not that MS stuff tho ). Delete everything Copy/Paste below spoiler Then save. If you try that out tell me how it works for you. My tests indicate it should work properly when you talk to him and he and those around him go hostile if you attack before talking to him.

I don't know about that container thing you mentioned... sounds weird tho Shouldn't happen like that, but there was some patch work done... could be something messed up with that. it's a new edition in the last release... Tho it was tested and reported that everything happened as normal... Perhaps the tester(s) didn't have every patch installed or up to date. Can you list out the exact steps you took in regards to Jondalar and I'll see if I can repeat it? If I can repeat it, then I can look at seeing what went wrong.

If there is, not sure what it is. Bioware didn't state it in the original... I'll be honest and say that spells are not my strong point. I'm not too sure how to interpret the spell file as to indicate what the proper save would be, if any.... Gonna have to ask in the workroom and see if anyone else knows....

i did not see that cause i was reading the TEXT description not the statistics. To quote Miloch "You gotta spell it out for me"

You actually have the last publicly announced release... There is a more recent internal release available at the same link. (actually replaced the other) However nothing was touched between the two in this regard. potn28.itm Potion of Fortitude modified description potn19.itm Potion of Agility modified description They are correct after installation. Their inventory graphics are similar with one being grey and the other being white. perhaps you are misremembering the colors? potion of fortitude is grey potion of agility is white Feel free to check for yourself with DLTCEP or Near Infinity. If you've not completed the game I don't recommend doing this as we have added additional stuff, but you can always try the internal release available on my website and see if that behaves differently. Then again, who knows perhaps my English install has a different dialog.tlk than yours.... If that's the case... then that would be a BIG problem. http://sasha-altherin.webs.com/baldursgatefixpack.htm

version # should be listed in the wiedu.log... That should be the most recent tho. your picture shows that it is the Potion of Fortitude yet you said That description is the proper Salk adjusted description for Potion of Fortitude as the unmodified description says and the potn28.itm file for potion of fortitude isn't touched in the fixpack either. Are you saying that you drink a potion of fortitude and it acts like a potion of agility or what?

I've not yet played ToTSC, any changes that affect ToTSC content were contributed. I have since gotten a copy of ToTSC and need to slowly go thru everything and make sure it all does what is advertised. However I have no documentation concerning any changes made with regard to these topics. And while the description gets revamped in Salk's GTU. It doesn't say anything about constitution. Nor is the potion of agility file being adjusted in any other way. I am not sure what you are experiencing. Have you installed other mods? Which version of the fixpack were you using?

I believe I have successfully streamlined the ICT workaround and in the process removed the need for a 'stupid passback' line to quote Kulyok "watch my hands closely" Example will be in regards to using an ICT from Tutu Finch in BG:ToTSC First we need to establish whether or not Finch can talk. Best thing to do is let Finch tell us this, so we add a few blocks to her override script file IF StateCheck("sufinch",CD_STATE_NOTVALID) InParty("sufinch") Global("abFinchCanTalk","GLOBAL",1) THEN RESPONSE #100 SetGlobal("abFinchCanTalk","GLOBAL",0) Continue() END IF !InParty("sufinch") Global("abFinchCanTalk","GLOBAL",1) THEN RESPONSE #100 SetGlobal("abFinchCanTalk","GLOBAL",0) Continue() END IF InParty("sufinch") Detect("sufinch") !StateCheck("sufinch",CD_STATE_NOTVALID) Global("abFinchCanTalk","GLOBAL",0) THEN RESPONSE #100 SetGlobal("abFinchCanTalk","GLOBAL",1) Continue() END Since variables are value 0 if never set what this does is if Finch never joined the party the variable "abFinchCanTalk" will automatically be = 0 and so when Finch joins we change that value to = 1. So after she has joined, if she leaves the party it gets reset to 0 and if she becomes unable to talk it also gets set to 0. If you think about it, whenever this value is 0 there is no need to check and see if she is actually present via Detect(), See() or Exists(). She only needs to be there for her interjection to work. She can be there outside of the party, or in an unable to talk state, her interjection will still not be triggered. Enter the workhorse. This is a function which will insert one triple file workaround ICT at a time. You can launch the function & define the variables directly in the TP2 or use an external TPH, your call DEFINE_ACTION_FUNCTION ~ab_BG_Interject~ BEGIN ACTION_IF (FILE_EXISTS_IN_GAME ~%ab_dialog%.dlg~) THEN BEGIN <<<<<<<< dump.d BEGIN ab_dump IF ~~ 0 SAY ~%ab_tempDialogText%~ IF ~~ THEN EXIT END >>>>>>>> <<<<<<<< replace.d REPLACE ab_dump IF ~~ THEN 0 SAY ~%ab_tempDialogText%~ COPY_TRANS %ab_dialog% %ab_statenum% END END ADD_TRANS_TRIGGER %ab_dialog% %ab_statenum% ~%ab_canTalkVarAt0%~ >>>>>>>> <<<<<<<< interjections.d EXTEND_BOTTOM %ab_dialog% %ab_statenum% IF ~%ab_pos_trigger% %ab_interjectVarAt0%~ EXTERN %ab_npc_dialog% ab_newstate END CHAIN %ab_npc_dialog% ab_newstate %ab_interject% END COPY_TRANS ab_dump 0 >>>>>>>> COMPILE dump.d EVALUATE_BUFFER COMPILE replace.d EVALUATE_BUFFER COMPILE interjections.d EVALUATE_BUFFER END END Here is an example of launching the function & defining the variable INCLUDE ~finch/lib/ab_BG_Interject.tph~ //since weidu doesn't like multiple sets of ~ & " together need to assign certain global variables outside of the LAF definitions OUTER_SPRINT ab_interjectVarAt1 ~Global("abFinchTalkedAlatos","GLOBAL",1)~ LAUNCH_ACTION_FUNCTION ~ab_BG_Interject~ INT_VAR ab_statenum = 0 //---------------------------------------------------- state number of the state that is being interjected into STR_VAR ab_tempDialogText = Finch //------------------------------------------ use npc's name so don't make another strref for crap ab_dialog = ALATOS //------------------------------------------------- file name of dialog to be interjected into ab_interjectVarAt0 = ~Global("abFinchTalkedAlatos","GLOBAL",0)~ //---- global variable to indicate the interjection has not happened ab_canTalkVarAt0 = ~Global("abFinchCanTalk","GLOBAL",0)~ //---------- npc cannot interject set via npc's script ab_pos_trigger = ~InParty("sufinch") Detect("sufinch") !StateCheck("sufinch",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~ //--------- positive checks by npc being spoken to to make sure that joined npc is present ab_npc_dialog = SUFINCHJ //------------------------------------------- file name of dialog file used by joined npc ab_interject = EVALUATE_BUFFER "@813 DO ~Set%ab_interjectVarAt1%~" //- list of text & actions that make up the chain part of the interjection END You only need to INCLUDE the definition once. It could be in the ALWAYS section of the TP2 or as I did it via an external tph The resultant output of the state in question from the decompiled alatos.dlg after installation: IF WEIGHT #0 ~NumTimesTalkedTo(0) ~ THEN BEGIN 0 // from: SAY #2783 /* ~Welcome my little friends! Please relax, and keep your weapons at your sides. No need for hostility.~ */ IF ~ Global("abFinchCanTalk","GLOBAL",0) ~ THEN DO ~SetGlobal("TalkedToThief","GLOBAL",1) SetGlobal("TalkedToAlatos","GLOBAL",1) ~ GOTO 1 IF ~ InParty("sufinch") Detect("sufinch") !StateCheck("sufinch",CD_STATE_NOTVALID) Global("abFinchTalkedAlatos","GLOBAL",0) ~ THEN EXTERN ~SUFINCHJ~ 68 END As you can see, If Finch said she couldn't talk OR she never joined the party then the original transition occurs. IF she is in the party she will do her bit. Note I could have used the can talk variable at value 1 along with the Detect() check. However, I wanted the talking NPC to check for themselves since due to needing to use Continue() on the blocks in Finch's override script there could be a possible delay in the proper variable being set. Therefore the NPC checks for themselves at the moment of need. Feel free to nitpick it apart. I even checked it out by adding in a fake interjection for a fake npc name Fred. Everything looked good in that, if both Fred & Finch had their talk variable at 0 the original state would fire. If Fred's state was at 0 and Finch was present and able to talk Finch would do hers. If Fred was present & able to talk he would do his. Only concern I see (and would be true even outside of the function) if both Fred & Finch are there. Only first one installed gets to say their banter.... Perhaps it is a good thing... idk.

out of curiosity how do the the bioware originals in BG/BG:ToTSC perform their banters? I've not seen any scripted method to get them to talk with each other, they just do. Is there some sort of internal banter engine that is hard wired for only the bioware originals? I've only ever gotten the fight between Jaheria/Khalid & Xzar/Montaron once and I interrupted it cause I didn't know what it was. LOL been trying to get it to repeat and there is no noticeable way to get them to do so. anywho... off to figure out how to convert tutu style banters into BG:ToTSC style... i think i have a nightmare ahead of me *************************** on interjections... after the compiling does the 'dump' file actually get used or does it end up being left over cruft? If it's left over cruft then my little idea to try and make a function for a more streamlined process has merit. If it's actually used in game, then I can't do what I'm thinking of doing....

actually I was going to report similar however I found it to be no more than 7 characters if you include the level #. also there must be a base character without a level # otherwise there will be a crash. (at least this has been my experience....) I've also had difficulties with one version in one area intended to be non-joinable with one dialog and another set of creature files intended to be joinable in a different area (similar to what Imoen does). Even tho the proper character file was indicated in the GAM file, I would continue to get initial dialog from the non-joinable version. Easiest solution was to combine the dialog files and adjust states and use variables so the proper states would trigger at the proper time. (Should note that it is a Tutu mod NPC that I'm converting and there wasn't an NPCLEVEL.2da adjustment done. Wasn't till I'd already merged the dialog files that I learned about the NPCLEVEL.2da file. Perhaps that would have solved the problem for me instead. However, what I have works... so far.) I also took the code snip-it to add an npc to the game and put it into a tph as a function. Perhaps it could be added to weidu and the older ADD_GAME_NPC removed? Perhaps with a better name LOL One thing that bothers me about the code from Zed is that it doesn't have the typical read the offset and count and jump to the right spot etc that we normally do for items, creatures, areas etc... however since it adds only 1 npc and at the front of the list, the locations will always be the same even tho they are in relation to the beginning of the file. Guess I'm used to having to be aware that what I want to do could have been previously adjusted by another mod.

I so understand... I've been meaning to take a look at Finch and fix her up and make a "Finch Redux" mod that's got all the reported bugs fixed and is friendly to install on BGT as well as Tutu. But there is this half-orc who keeps brandishing a shiny weapon and redirecting my attentions to the BG Fixpack and lately something to do with Xvarts.....

I don't remember this happening when I used Gavin a couple years ago on EasyTutu. Running BGT have both BG1 Gavin and BG2 SoA Gavin installed. Selected the recommended 1 hr timer between talks. My party is around level 3 & 4. Finished up the Nashkel mines and due to being too nice, Xzar and Monty left the party. So back to Beregost I trudge to resolve UB's addition to the liquid used on the ore and while there I pick up a joinable NPC from some other mod and Gavin. The other npc is decidedly silent so far. But Gavin as soon as I picked him up he's been non-stop talking. In fact it was so bad, I had to pause the game to actually level him up and sort out gear. I think I've had three talks with PC and 1 talk with Jaheira inside of 10 minutes if you count the time it took for me to read and decide which option to go with. Is he just trying to 'catch up' since I picked him up way later after having spoken to him the first time I passed thru the area? Should I do a change-log on any particular files to see if anything else has adversely affected him. A glance at his script doesn't seem to reveal anything amiss... EDIT: he's slowed down a bit on the talking. Compared to the Bioware NPCs modified by BG1 NPC mod, Gavin is still quite the talker. Maybe that's cause he likes to preach He does constantly apologize for that to my PC ^^

Its a sad day to see a mod, any mod, lose compatibility with the original game. Never played it tho. Keep a BG version available in the archives? Someday we'll decide the fixpack is done and then I can play with mods ^^

eww avoid dudley at all costs plz his mod is an overwriting mod which means if you install AFTER the fixpack you'll lose many of the changes. if you install BEFORE, you'll have unintended consequences. I do not agree with much of what Dudley did and considered a 'fix'. Therefore, Dudleyfix as a whole will never be compatible with the fixpack nor will a game using Dudleyfix be supported for squashing bugs. That said, I may incoporate and have incorporated some fixes from Dudley but have done so in a patch method rather than an overwrite. @Jastey 9 times out of 10 where a change is made that UB also affects I've typically gone the same route as UB. (have in fact pilfered code at times) there is 1 minor exception that I can remember: UB gives a reward for returning Ruffie to Albert since the action was totally missing. I used the same reward as the vanilla game where everything worked. UB's reward is different and as a side note Dudley's reward is also different too. in any case if UB is different it should simply adjust the dffering data as necessary. there is an issue with WSM tho at least i noticed it on one of my game versions. It would crap out on a particular file (on unmodded game) and so the fixpack has a component that corrects the issue. it is early in the required component so that if the fixpack isn't wanted (but WSM is) then the required component alone can be run and the fixes avoided...

just stepping in for a moment.... there is one possibility that is causing some if not all of the mix up.... each joinable character has 1 or 2 backup portraits (other character joinable npc portraits) assigned in case the player chooses one of the portraits for themselves. If the mod is overriding the default image file rather than changing the portrait assigned on the creature file, then when the player chooses one of the portraits from the mod for their PC it will affect some if not all the other joinable npcs. also the link to the preview page of the portraits is returning a 404 error.

rofl BGT is a different animal and a64 coded things to work with the BG2 engine. the fixpack stuff has to work inside the bg1 engine, while it could be ported forward into BGT with just filename changes. BGT would get better results with code revamp to use BG2 scripting language. something I don't want to do.

updated nuff said

you used GateKeeper? Anything that edits the save game can cause corruption. I recommend you use the descendant if you will of GateKeeper. It's called Sword Coast Keeper. The guy who made GateKeeper went on to make similar programs for BG2 and IWD. However, he made them differently, made them to read game resources rather than pre-built lists and therefore incorporate mod added stuff. Sword Coast Keeper was designed by another to follow this newer method. Also SCK has a nifty feature that defaults to adding a number to the end of your save game name and thus preventing irreversible destruction of the original save game.

try running a disk check and defrag, could be something as simple as a bog down in accessing the necessary data and/or game data residing on a portion of the disk that may have gone bad....

i've never actually played the ToTSC content so I have no clue if any of what you are describing has ever happened to anyone before. I'm gonna have to play the ToTSC content at some point tho... got a completely unmodded game going right now so I'll get there eventually. I'm at the friendly arm inn and encountered the bug where the explored area resets itself when switching between sub maps and the main map. Once I figure out what is going on with that, I'll work my way onwards. if you leave the tower, does your spell casting ability get restored? or is it that your whole game seems to have gotten broken somehow?

I'm not so sure... there are NO ranged abilities on any dual use weapon with the strength bonus applied. if it was something they forgot, it wouldn't be missing from all of them. maybe they were taking distance into account... a thrown object going a distance can have it's speed reduced a bit and thus some strength lost. idk i'm stretching here If they had applied the strength bonus to other ranged weapons, then I'd see that as making sense to fall in line... however there are three arrows (all version of arrow of biting) which have the strength bonus applied but have it removed in the fix pack because it makes sense that the bow would require the strength and not the arrow. Yet I'm wondering if they put the strength bonus on the arrows of biting because they should pack a bit more of a punch on impact since they 'bite'. might be a bit over powered tho since they do add an over time poison damage as well. Oh and I can confirm that killing a charmed hostile only nets 10% of the character's exp. So there must be some hard coded behavior to penalize the player for being evil and whacking people before they can become a real enemy there is a character called jamie who also has the helmet of opposite alignment but he's not used in the unmoddified game. I believe it is UB that brings him back to life.

i've never really understood how the saving throw stuff worked so i did a little testing turned on the hit rolls option so i could see that hacked my character via sword coast keeper she's a FMT so she could use wands and spells etc took her to obe's little practice session and charmed away xvarts with algernon's cloak they have a save vs breath of 17 and they were being successful at 17, 18 and up So the LOWER the save # the better because you just need to roll that number or higher to save anywho with that now slightly understood... the demon knight has 2 cre files and idk which one you were fighting. one has a save vs wand of 0 and the other 7. with the -4 bonus the one with save 0 would have to roll a 4 or higher. the one with save 7 would have to roll 11 or higher. so I'd guess that you took on the one with the save of 0 which does happen to be the correct one with the helmet you were trying to get. but it would only get stunned with that wand on 3 rolls of a 20 sided die. i think you'd get the helmet just by killing it, or maybe pickpocketing it idk but i confirmed that you can charm, pickpocket & they go hostile and with algernon's cloak you can repeat that for a very long time... while charming creatures in obe's practice session can be fun it is not very productive as they are somehow designed to not hurt (tho occasionally it does mess up in TuTu) to be honest I really don't know. There is enough evidence to suggest they made base files and copied and made adjustments as they saw fit. so it is possible that some do and some don't. I'd think it would be an interesting mod if someone went thru each creature by race/level and adjusted everything to be correct via 2e rules. But we do have to keep in account that they couldn't follow all the rules cause of engine limitations etc...