AL|EN

@Luke Blind shot: Assuming that you don't do anything than simple commit, check if .gitconfig user.name and user.email match the GitHub username and email.

I cannot create topic in https://www.gibberlings3.net/forums/forum/71-infinity-engine-modding-news/ EDIT: Post was created, still worth the report about this strange error. EDIT2: when I try to edit this post directly, I get this:

Hello, The Longer Road has been updated to version 2.0.0. It's major release which comes with restored compatibility with vanilla version of the game and several bugfixes. I would like to thanks Austin87 for the updated code and comprehensive tests. Download: Zip package - https://lynxlynx.info/ie/modhub.php?InfinityMods/LongerRoadEE&pkg=zip IEMod package - https://lynxlynx.info/ie/modhub.php?InfinityMods/LongerRoadEE&pkg=iemod Read the changelog Visit the Forum

@Alonso When you have bad mood and decide to go for a rant, don't expect to be threaten lightly. I have plenty of time exposing you crap. 1. You accusing me of 'deceive the community' which is a really disgusting move from your side. All I did is created a mod manager to the best of my effort and put it available to use for everybody. 2. You claim that only 'super-advanced power gamers with some programming knowledge' can use PI When casual users oppose, you said that they have lied. It's clear that your own opinion on this matter is more important than the opinion of people who use PI directly! It's no matter how many people will tell you that you are wrong, you won't change your mind. You need to ignore their opinions for justification of your rant. 3. You accusing me of I 'ignored the player's feedback' There are plenty of examples when I include feedback either inside FAQ or even changed the way how PI works. Och, you don't see it, right? How can you since all you do is you mumble about 'docs being confusing' instead of actually creating the program itself? 4. You accusing me of 'ignoring my feedback' The examples of 'questions' which you posted were not answered directly to you because of already included INSIDE FAQ! Looks like you require some special treatment like "Answer my questions or else..." I don't feel obligated to you with special care which apparently you expected! And after all of this, you are quoting my own replies when apparently I INCLUDED YOUR FEEDBACK! What the hell is wrong with you? So now you claim that all PI docs were a copy of yours?!?] Tell me, which comes first: my first post with instructions or your post with doc file? Yes, there are some sentences that were used, but to claim that my entire docs are based on your guide is a joke! Alonso, you are the best example of a troll, who claims that is trying to be helpful by 'telling people how shitty things are'. All you did is posted you 'harmful and non-constructive opinions' about PI which will damage its reputation forever. Now, it doesn't matter if the PI will be redesigned, docs would be improved because people will remember only the nasty things which you have spread and won't check the new version. I hope that you are proud of yourself.

Magma: Exactly because of that. People did crazy things with mod archives. The moment when the 'extraction' feature won't successfully extract every mod on this planet people will complain. And I would have to write special code to handle that one specific mod, like BWS did for 40+ mods = 24/7 support. You can avoid manual extraction via two ways: - mods hosted at GitHub are already extracted so when you download them via PI, you will get files and folders right away (and mod updates) - if the mod is distributed via .iemod package, PI supports extracting it via double-click because I know exactly what is .iemod package and I can react to it EDIT: Include this inside PI FAQ

@Alonso So you posted some general 'make documentation better' request, right? And when I didn't do what you wanted me to do, you felt justified to go for a rant across the forums? Because I didn't immediately throw my plans and dedicated my life to improving the documentation? Apparently, those were 'questions' which I should answer immediately. Right now I'm certain that ANY kind of docs improvements would still not satisfy you at the end. The 'guide' which you posted has outdated information and was worthless. I didn't ignore your feedback, it was just worthless. Kapish? Why stops here anyway? There is SHS, BWL, sorcerers.net, baldursgate.fandom.com and reddit.com/r/baldursgate - you could post you valuable feedback all around! Just like Roxanne did. Now, you are claiming that I 'ignored the player's feedback' and accusing me of 'deceive the community'. I have nothing more to say to you.

Thanks everyone for showing common sense and words of support. I really appreciate that. @Alonso Most of my reply is at Beamdog forums. Here, let me reply to you regarding your 'feedback': - you didn't specify which parts of the PI are 'difficult to use' and how to improve them - you didn't specify which parts of the GUI causing confusion and how to improve them - you claim that only 'super advanced power gamers with some programming knowledge' can use PI but when casual users oppose, you said that they have lied - you didn't even provide an alternative way of how EET could suggest the usage of other installation tools whit the fair warring that 'it might be harder than launching setup-eet.exe' If you were honestly concerned about 'players being frustrated by PI', you would create your own guide/faq/thread ! Why you didn't do it? So much for your 'honest concern'. You can say what you want about PI but if you do it like that, don't expect that you will be treated seriously.

@jastey Alright, there is nothing to worry about for now. BTW: I've made mistake when I wrote "Yes, that will do" - until the 'mod types' will be implemented, you can keep 'NPC', 'tweaks_early' etc but you have to add all NPC explicitly. The 'mod types' will require some more brainstorming and changes to PI.

@jastey I believe that I get the specific mod names from tp2: DSotSC Amber Auren ToBR BGQE ToD AsQ The question still remains: does any of those mods needs to be installed AFTER "ACBre: Component 0 ~Breagar: Contents~" and BEFORE "ACBre: Component 2 ~Breagar: Crossmods and PID~"? So the "Ascalons Breagar" mod would need to be installed using two-phases? Like this: ACBre:0:Breagar: Inhalte amber:0:Amber the NPC MOD ACBre:2:Breagar: Crossmods und PID ?

@jastey I need some more info: Do you know any of NPC mod needs to be installed AFTER "ACBre: Component 0 ~Breagar: Contents~" and BEFORE "ACBre: Component 2 ~Breagar: Crossmods and PID~:" (assuming someone is doing manual install when he quits and re-run installer)

Docs don't mention about it and weidu usage context allows and even encourages (because of the syntax) them to be not globally unique. I believe that we need strong commitment from modders community that LABEL's should be treated as modders prefixes. That's valid concern. Let me ensure you that there are no danger because even if somehow player would shift ACBre components into incorrect order, the rules from weidu's REQUIRE_COMPONENT/FORBBIT_COMPONENT/MOD_IS_INSTALLED won't allow for incorrect installation. I should not be surprised that such system of dynamic install rules could be also use in order to set internal dependences for the components of the same mod. I see potential benefit where incorrect install order for internal mod components can be detected, present to player and avoid facing the 'ModA:2 require ModA:1' during installation. Even if there is double work involved and small chance of possible de-synchronization (but much smaller if rules are set in ini). As of today, WeiDU's REQUIRE_COMPONENT/FORBBIT_COMPONENT/MOD_IS_INSTALLED are used in order to ensure correct order not only for installation but also for re-installation. Ideally, PI would read those and add extra rules for internal components of the mod. But I cannot do this unless 1) I would recreate weidu parser. 2) weidu would introduce tp3 as a replacement for tp2 (this is one of things on weidu roadmap). Right now, let's wait and see how it things go with globally unique LABEL's and if everything will be agreed, I could offer using LABEL's for rules which would handle the case of setting rules for internal mod components.

@jastey I'm working on the way for mods to be able to set rules inside a component using METADATA keyword. But it doesn't mean that those rules can directly target other components (even from the same mod) using DESIGNATED numbers. Note that I could allow for using LABEL as reference but only under the condition that all labels from all mods are globally unique. I don't want to make any promises since this isn't set in stone yet. Yes, that will do.

@jastey Thanks, let me see what I can do. Since you used 'ACBre:0' as reference, I must clarify: You cannot set those rules as DESIGNATED-based for oblivious reasons. Specification doesn't mention about it anywhere.

@jastey Coming back to this, I need you to provide examples of rules for "Ascalons Breagar" but for each component of the mod. It doesn't have to be full list (or even the list which you finally put into the mod itself), I just need valid example for mod which require defining the specific rules for specific components.

@Anton My suggestion for you is to replace "Dungeon Be Gone" mod with better EE-equivalent: Skip Chateau Irenicus

Thanks for quick update. And for switching back to VERSION using actual value instead of translation refference.

Yes, it's not yet compatible with EET directly, but if you install it before EET everything is fine.

@Thanatos-Zero You weidu.log from BG2EE shows that you didn't installed EET_End - the game shouldn't even run so either it's not complete log or something else.

@LukeSolas I'm telling you that you are ready to go: download "EET Install Order.txt" file form first post, remove components/lines which you don't want, paste directly into paste into install sequence window > Start-Installation.

@EndarireYou don't have to do anything except launch PI again, wait for update and then re-launch again.

@LukeSolas Selecting all mod components is not planed (very bad past expierence) but there are other measures which can replace it - you already can do whole install sequence as 'csv-like file' simply by copy > alter >paste into install sequence window > Start-Installation.

@DavidW I'm aware that there might be a reason for this so let me rephrase: if you change MOD_VERSION variable, please also change VERSION keyword number so PI will not confuse players by displaying old version. I've released 2.0.15 with correct VERSION keyword value.

@DavidW The tp2 'VERSION' keyword still has 2.0.13. Even if you override it via MOD_VERSION variable, the weidu.log still has 2.0.13. I suggest to remove it to avoid confusion and future mistakes.

@LukeSolas Indeed the 'import' process needs more explanation from PI side. Added to to-do. @Cahir You remember everything correctly Just one thing, you don't need to change from BG2EE > EET - the 'EET' serve only as 'placeholder for BG2EE game with different path'.

@jastey By the way how you describe it, it's not a 'conflict' - it's just a two install order rules which can't be fulfill at once so the player would have to choose which mod comes first but he is still able to install both mods and get some content from both mods. So regarding 'separate mod C' - sort off, for eg ModC-CrossContentForNPC.tp2 under the assumption that it has "AFTER = A,B" rule (I will skip example with components because of limitation): A.tp2-NPC Alia B.tp2-NPC Bob C.tp2-CrossContentForNPC Then, the install order of A and B doesn't matter so the mod C is installed after A and B with all cross-content for both NPC's and it would be selected and installed only once. This is rather extreme corner case which might never happen actually. Still, nice investigation