K4thos

it does the same thing, although BGEE classic movies may be of better quality (according to author, I have not compared them)

thanks, fixed locally

On 3/26/2021 at 3:07 AM, blatantninja said:

For one thing, I've had some issues with the new map.  There are times the background is black, which isn't too bad, just annoying, but frankly I had trouble sometimes getting to places in the original campaign as well as NTotSC and to a lesser extent SoD.  The locations seemed a bit jumbled so where you might have needed to go to the north exit to open up a new location in the vanilla, the location showed somewhere else on the map and either I had to go from memory or look up online.

do you still have weidu.log and saves made in this installation? If yes please upload them. Mods you've mentioned shouldn't break worldmap. If you mean that there is some inconstancy with in-game dialogue and areas placement on EET wordlmap it's something that can be fixed, but I will need a detailed description what exactly is wrong.

On 3/26/2021 at 3:07 AM, blatantninja said:

Soooooooooooo, the question is how much, if any carry over, exists from the game prior to waking up in Irenicus's dungeon to start SoA?  It looks like all my equipment is gone, like the vanilla game (EDIT:  I see that there is an option in the tweeks to have it show up in the dungeon).  What about quests and such?  Are there quests that span the two that I'd be losing out on?  I'm not above using EEKeeper to make my PC have the same stats as when I finished SoD! Do the joinable NPCs retain stats from the earlier campaigns?  (I didn't have any that show up in the dungeon, so I can't easily check).

vanilla joinable NPC retains their stats from BG1 and SoD portion of the game. If you got them killed and left dead on field they also won't show up in later campaigns (unless plot critical). Even without EET_Tweaks you could optionally kept some items (or all if you're power gaming) since you can visit BG1 areas from within BG2. You can do many of the remaining BG1/SoD quests during BG2 portion of the game but there are no quests that are affecting more than 1 campaign content (sans minor stuff like Pantalons) - at least on vanilla games, there may be mods that adds such quests

thanks, fixed locally

On 3/14/2021 at 2:55 AM, Dallan said:

I found this thread googling the same problem, and then I think I figured out why it happens (but someone who knows WEIDU better should please feel free to correct me).

Definitely agree that the component LOOKS like it's intended to and should be able to fix old EET saves (plus, K4thos said this in a post here), but as currently written it'll always skip and I think this is why:

BEGIN @910003 //Also update saves (no backups, check the readme file)
SUBCOMPONENT @910000 //EET end - last mod in install order
REQUIRE_COMPONENT ~EET/EET.tp2~ ~0~ @910001 //This component requires EET core component to be installed first
REQUIRE_PREDICATE FILE_EXISTS ~%USER_DIRECTORY%/save/saves.tra~ ~~
REQUIRE_PREDICATE FILE_EXISTS ~%USER_DIRECTORY%/save/saves.txt~ ~~
REQUIRE_PREDICATE !FILE_CONTAINS ~override/EET.flag~ ~SAVES_UPDATED~ ~~
REQUIRE_PREDICATE !FILE_CONTAINS ~override/EET.flag~ ~TRA_EXPORTED~ ~~

That last line suggests that the save update component will skip if the EET.flag file contains "TRA_EXPORTED" - but the main component always saves that text to the file in the "prepare files needed for save updating" block,  so if I'm reading this right it will never actually work?

(I've tweaked that requirement and my current EET install is currently chugging its way towards this part, so I guess I'm about to find out if I'm right)

The option to install this component shows up ONLY ONCE per installation (the first time you run EET_end). The reason for this is that you can uninstall/re-install EET_end many times, but saves patching is not something that you should repeat (until next installation). Doing so by mistake could lead to serious problems. And since it's risky process (there are no backup)

As for the FILE_CONTAINS checks - they are added to override/EET.flag file the first time you run EET_end on the current installation (that's how installator detects it)

Uninstalling EET_end is fine and should be safe (sans rare weidu uninstallation bugs, so always make a backup copy beforehand, regardless).

In future to save yourself time in situations like this have the EET_end mod installed after SCS, not before.

Quote

Quote

If i install itempack 1.8 which tweaks a few items in the game and gives the smith in BG2 a few new recipes after running EET end and SCS would it mess up my installation?

Yes, because anything involving dialogues (e.g. for the smithy) needs to be installed before EET_End.

Among other things EET_end merges some NPC dialogue files so it's crucial for mods that append or reference original dialogue files to be installed before it. When it comes to "anything involving dialogues" part it's only critical for generating correct files for save patching that can be used during next installation: saves.tra and saves.txt located in saves directory after EET_end installation (if they are not generated from final dialog.tlk used in saves, save patching may fail). So if someone is not planning to use this feature having some small mod like itempack 1.8 installed after shouldn't break anything (my assumption based on name alone, I have not checked its tp2 file)

But yeah, unless you are 100% sure that the mod doesn't mess with the same files as EET_end it's always safer to uninstall it. The process should be fast as long as it's really last mod in your install order (as it should be)

@morpheus562 your changes have been merged, thanks once again!

On 6/19/2021 at 6:08 PM, jastey said:

Nice to see you @K4thos! Thank you for working on EET again.

Thank you for support, work done on adding EET compatiblity to mods and updating compatibility list

On 6/20/2021 at 8:20 AM, Mike1072 said:

We'd welcome the repo in the G3 organization.  One of the main reasons behind setting up the organization on GitHub was to be able to more easily manage maintenance and approvals when authors take time off.  I've sent an invite to your GitHub account to join the organization.  Once you're a member, you should be able to transfer the repo.

Done, thanks!

On 6/21/2021 at 2:06 AM, Jazira said:

Or maybe I should PR you the translation as is, and PR later the proofreaded one ?

this is good idea. I've included your changes already. Once the proofreaded translation is ready I will post small update to the current build (13.1), so no need to rush now.

thanks, this is fixed in new release

Thanks! I'm almost ready with new release but will wait for your translation update before posting it.

On 6/14/2021 at 7:01 PM, Jazira said:

Hi, 

I got a few questions regarding a few lines inside 2da.tra (from @4000107 to @4000115), does those lines can contain special non-English characters ? Those line aren't displayed ingame but in command prompt window at installation, right ?

They are displayed in game in main menu (book with campaign titles). 4000115 is warning that shows up in-game. All those string can use non-English characters.

Quote

What does %col1% mean ? Is this an array created at installation ? It just shows the Mod's name that is not recognized, right ? For example : ~BG1 NPC Project BG:EE mod is not recognized by EET, so it can't be imported to BG2:EE with EET~ ?

%col1% is replaced with mod name. This string show up in weidu during installation, so English only.

6 hours ago, Jarno Mikkola said:

You could you know, release the v2.5 version of the IWDEEinBG2EE or whatever you have, and have who knows who to take on the task to finnish it, you would get the credits of what you have done, and note that it's not finnished yet. See, an aplha is not an alpha if no one can have it. As in, the problem with your absense is that no one has access to the data you have access to. So no one can fix the problems you have faced and so forth even no matter how good or bad they are. And they can't use your files, say like tipun.

fair. I'm planning to release IWD:EE portion of the mod on Github soon (on the fly conversion code). Should have done it years ago considering how things went. And I'm perfectly ok with anyone working on it.

The question now is if it makes sense for me to update this codebase to IWD:EE patch 2.6, open a public beta test and actively maintain it, considering alternative in @tipun's work is already available, being tested and actively maintained for quite some time. It would be 2 mods doing pretty much the same thing, competing for the same audience, so not necessarily a time well spent (I could invest it on remaining work needed for IWD2 side of things instead), especially if tipun would be interested in integrating content prepared for IWD-in-EET by various contributors in his mod (at least @AWizardDidIt writing, if he is ok with it).

Personally at the moment I'm leaning more to taking this opportunity to scale down IWD-in-EET mod content significantly, but the other option is also open. Let's wait for some feedback from community and see what are tipun's plans for his IWD mods in the first place (should have contact him via PM first, now that I'm thinking about it)

On 4/25/2021 at 1:11 AM, subtledoctor said:

(...)

Frankly I’m a little annoyed this subforum even exists. Maybe someone would have put effort into IWD-related mod(s) if “IWD-in-EET” was not an announced project. As things stand it’s been discussed for years, with nothing to show for it. 

this take is also fair. With how things went development wise, having whole dedicated subforum for it seems excessive. Archiving it and moving further discussion to single topic within EET section may be a good idea going forward.

Quick summary how things are. I've been burned out of IE modding for quite some time (I'm actually shocked checking my last post date), so I'm afraid there was not much progress made. The mod is still in a state that it somewhat playable and yet still far from something that could be released.

- IWD:EE content - on-the-fly conversion code is very similar to EET, so should be very playable, although the testing has been done only on surface level and the codebase has not been updated to latest patch yet. Awesome vanilla NPC banters by @AWizardDidIt are implemented (although not tested).

- IWD2 content - ongoing testing of story content, finding bugs and improving conversion code based on those tests. Rise and repeat over and over. This one still require massive amount of work before being ready for release and is what led to my recent hiatus. On the other hand experimenting with EEex, porting 3E rules and gameplay systems is a lot of fun Dialogue side of things has been started by @Grimo but only Targos was covered as far as I remember.

There have been some good points raised in the comments and interesting alternatives surfaced, so let's move on to replies.

On 3/5/2021 at 4:35 AM, subtledoctor said:

At this point I’d be much more interested in discrete adventures - add the IWD main quest and HoW to the BG games in precisely the same way Argent77 added TotLM. Put Hjolder in the Druid Grove after Faldorn’s defeat, and let him Wnd Walk me to the North! IWD, HoW, and TotLM can all be separate adventures, no need for them to hang together as one massive campaign. (For that, we can already just play IWDEE.) 

Alas, I’ve glanced at the TotLM-in-BG2EE code, and I can’t make heads or tails of it. 

As for this project, it kind of seems like it got lost in the attempt to convert to a 3E ruleset for IWD2 inclusion. And even there, we also have the separate “IWD2EE” project, so this again seems redundant...

On 3/5/2021 at 9:48 PM, Lightbringer said:

@subtledoctor I second, third, and fourth this. It does seem like the project got lost in feature creep. I just want to go explore the North -- I don't need feats, skill checks, or any of the other stuff. Just let me tromp around Dragon's Eye and the Hand of the Seldarine.

With the current state of things this is something I'm now considering for IWD:EE portion of the mod for 2 reasons:

- I'm still not ready to give a release date for the whole mod and yet IWD:EE content is sitting here for a long time now. With some external testing effort and help, preparing a mod out of it seems doable in reasonable time frame.

- patch 2.6 due to migration from 32bit to 64bit executable broke compatibility with EEex to the point that according to @Bubb new version is at least months away (my reading: could be years). So it's either keeping the mod at patch 2.5 (at the expense of BG and IWD1 content and engine improvements), or separating them ,since EEex is crucial part of my IWD2 conversion.

On 4/20/2021 at 9:46 AM, Endarire said:

From what I heard, @tipun was working on converting the IWD games to EET.  There was already a set of mods for non-EE BG2 that added IWD content (The Never-Ending Journey).   @K4thos was doing a different version that required EEex.

I've just checked it and... it's true @tipun has a working betas of both IWD1 and IWD2 content for EET. That's super impressive. While I have not been able to test it yet, from the impressions on Roxanne's forum it sounds legit: http://baldursextendedworld.com/Vanilla_Forums/discussion/comment/12359#Comment_12359

At this turn of events I'm not even sure if it makes sense to continue IWD-in-EET as envisioned or maybe it would be better to collaborate with tipun, share assets, dialogues etc.

The advantage of EET style IWD1 conversion is possibility of automatically bringing over mods installed directly on IWD:EE previous to installing IWD-in-EET (same way as mods can be installed on BG:EE before EET), but realistically there are not that many mods worth porting over this way, so if tipun's implementation is in better shape maybe his mod should be used by players interested in experiencing this story instead of me offering pretty much the same thing? Especially if he would be interested in collaborating with @AWizardDidIt (whose writing effort is core of IWD1 in BG experience, imo - otherwise one could still play clean IWD:EE)

When it comes to IWD2 content I'm pretty sure that our approaches differ enough that there could be a place for both mods - one requiring EEex, being closer to IWD2, offering lots of 3E mechanics. And another as a content adaptation to ad&d rules, using clean BG2:EE engine. So yeah, I'm not ready to give up on this one But I think this version existence pulls away some pressure from me considering there is viable alternative available already.

@tipun, feel free to open a topic about your mods on this subforum or discuss them here, if you would like to share some details about thier content or your future plans with English community.

On 6/3/2021 at 9:31 AM, Cahir said:

Did anyone try to contact K4thos, if he plans to continue developing EET or not? I was rather sure he is just waiting for patch 2.6 to happen, but now I'm more and more convinced he is not interested in IE modding anymore. The fix for 2.6.6 is still lingering in the forums and this is rather serious issue to fix directly in the main build 

I'm updating EET for latest patch as we speak. Missed the patch release, sorry.

Just noticed @jastey's recent activity on compatibility list and decided to review what's going on. I've been out of IE modding for quite some time and it looks like I've missed patch release. Sorry everyone for this situation and thank you for providing hotfixes. I'm downloading games right now and will merge pull requested changes on Github as soon as I will be able to test the installation (max tomorrow).

Considering my activity has been very irregular, to avoid situation like this in future, I think it may be a good idea to transfer repository ownership to either Gibberlings3 (if @Mike1072 is ok with it) or InfinityMods (@AL|EN?) github organization, or at least give someone access to the repository.

Just wanted to say thanks and show appreciation for the work done on this update 

Quote

If we have to code familiar mods in a certain way to be compliant with EET's new system, do you think you could publish a guide or something, on how to do that?  Or, I guess, how to circumvent the EET changes entirely and allow the mod to control familiar stats, and effects on their summoner?

not sure if you've read it: 

Quote

If the question is the stats of familiars at different stages of the game - 12hp in BG1, 24 hp in BG2, 48 hp in TOB, etc. - then could that not be achieved with different level-based ability headers in the FF spell itself?  Or have the familiar perform a polymorph upon being summoned, into a form appropriate to the caster's level?

it's a very old change and I no longer remember exact reasoning behind choosing this implementation over another. Any change to this would require lots of testing, so don't expect it any time soon. Not sure if it's even worth it considering:

- component 66 probably already works if it uses vanilla Find Familiar spl files,

- component 67 should already work (from what I understand from description) if you use vanilla CRE names (just extend this patching to familiar CRE files imported from BG1 - in EET they have _ suffix)

- component 68 could be implemented by patching just K#FAMSUM.BCS (which is pretty self explanatory how to do it if you open the file and look what's in there)

- component 69 is very similar to EET Tweaks component "Familiar death consequences"

Quote

Thanks for the response... but that didn't quite answer it for me!     I understand you correctly, does that mean I cannot use the basic Find Familiar spell in EET games?  Opcode 192 cannot be used?  I have to manually script the summon?  If so... how does one do that?

you can but in such case you will remove the EET feature that allows summoning different CRE files in different parts of the game. If you prefer it like this you can use this code to get rid of EET implementation:

ACTION_FOR_EACH file IN FAMCAT_ FAMDUST_ FAMFAIR_ FAMFER_ FAMIMP_ FAMPSD_ FAMQUAS_ FAMRAB_ FAMCAT FAMDUST FAMFAIR FAMFER FAMIMP FAMPSD FAMQUAS FAMRAB FAMCAT25 FAMDUS25 FAMFAI25 FAMFER25 FAMIMP25 FAMPSD25 FAMQUA25 FAMRAB25 BEGIN
    COPY_EXISTING ~%file%.CRE~ ~override~
        LPF DELETE_CRE_EFFECT INT_VAR opcode = 232 END
    BUT_ONLY
END

You will also need to restore vanilla SPCL342.SPL and SPWI123.SPL since EET removes opcode 192 from them and adds script execution instead.

Alternatively, if you want to keep EET implementation, you can edit:

- K#FAMSUM.BCS - controls which familiar will be spawned and initial bonuses

- K#FAMKIL.BCS - controls what happens when your familiar dies

- K#FAMREM.BCS - used to manually remove the familiar without negative consequences (for example after importing character that has familiar to new game or at the end of SoD, so that player can summon new one after leaving the cage)

unswered here: 

all it does is unhardcoding find familliar spell to no longer use opcode 192 but scripts instead, so that different CRE files can be summoned in different parts of the game. And since summoning and removing familiar scripts are meant to work exactly like opcode 192 by default, hence the K#FAMPRO global variable usage.

EET changes find familiar spell to trigger K#FAMSUM.BCS, which does the same thing as original opcode 192 but allows to easily set which CRE file will be spawned (different in BG1, BG2 and ToB). Also vanilla familiars trigger K#FAMKIL.BCS on death (via cast spell on condition opcode) in order to implement the same penalties as opcode 192. This way the system is completely unhardcoded and does what we need using vanilla CRE files with no other changes necessary.

Quote

Hmp.  There's got to be better ways to do that...

I'm all ears.

Quote

 

I just saw this in a post about modding on Linux:

"There's one other issue unique to Linux (and macOS) that we haven't entirely dealt with. Mods that recompile the chitin.key file with additional paths will use backslashes as path separators (because windows). Argent77 has written some code for his DLCbuilder tool that replaces the wrongslashes with rightslashes. I have packaged it into a separate mod which can be downloaded below. You ONLY need this if you aren't using DLCbuilder or K4thos's Enhanced Edition Trilogy, which has this built into the installation process as well."

Does EET alter chitin.key? I didn't realize that. To be perfectly honest I don't really know what chitin.key is or does. But I suspect it cannot be replaced in mobile games. (I'll properly test that when I get a chance.)

 

EET_end.tp2 has this code contribute by Argent77, so I assume nothing else is needed:

// Works around a bug in the game engine which fails to load KEY files containing backslashes as pathname separator
// Problem shows up after MAKE_BIFF is used on osx and linux games
COPY ~chitin.key~ ~chitin.key~
    READ_LONG 0x08 numBiffs
    READ_LONG 0x10 ofsBiffs
    FOR (idx = 0; idx < numBiffs; ++idx) BEGIN
        SET curOfs = ofsBiffs + idx*12
        READ_LONG (curOfs + 0x04) ofsBiffName
        READ_SHORT (curOfs + 0x08) lenBiffName
        READ_ASCII ofsBiffName biffName ELSE ~~ (lenBiffName) NULL
        PATCH_IF (NOT ~%biffName%~ STRING_EQUAL_CASE ~~) BEGIN
            INNER_PATCH_SAVE biffName ~%biffName%~ BEGIN
                REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~\\~ ~/~
            END
            WRITE_ASCIIE ofsBiffName ~%biffName%~
        END
    END
BUT_ONLY

Quote

* Second question: is there something I can change in the .tp2 file to turn off biffing? My relatively crude mod manager on MacOS has no facility for adding arguments when it runs Weidu. It would be a lot easier for me to simply keep a copy of EET that doesn't biff by default. (For that matter, could biffing maybe be sone kind of .ini/settings option, the way e.g. Item Revisions has .ini options you can set before installing?)

just make this line return false to skip biffing:

ACTION_IF (~%argv[0]%~ STRING_CONTAINS_REGEXP ~[bB]~ = 1) BEGIN

Quote

Does EET alter chitin.key or the game executable?  Does it make changes of a sort that cannot be ported to other platforms? 

it does patch it for windows, linux and mac (although I don't know if this one works since I haven't received a confirmation, requested earlier in this topic, regarding relative path to mac os game executable). The changes are minor (removes some hardcoded spells references that caused problems in ToB, gets rid of hardcoded DAYNITE / NITEDAY movies and some other stuff that I don't remember what it’s for). Even if you skip executable patching I wouldn't expect huge issues on a tablet. Here are the changes (implemented in lua since using weidu REPLACE_TEXTUALLY on an executable may result in out of memory problem): https://github.com/K4thos/EET/blob/master/EET/lib/binary.lua

this sounds like a very nice mod, indeed. Congratulations!

Quote

7 Elminster makes an Appearance:

Spoiler

Elminster will turn up once again in front of the palace.

 

Is this original content? If I remember correctly vanilla game already had unused lines for Elminster that refer to defeating S.

btw. same is true for Volo - his new dialogue will show up without any edits, IIRC.

we're in contact, don't worry about it. Patience, please.

edit: in fact the feature released today is one of the things I've requested

edit2: and another one 

We don't usually disclose the percentages or dates. If there is no new post about the progress then there is nothing new to announce (and in such case you definitely should not hold on playing the game). We work on this mod as a hobby, and disclosing too much information could lead to wrong expectations from the community in case of delays and put an unwanted pressure on the EEex author (since further mod development depends on EEex updates).

based on my test with vanilla BG1 link between west edge of Durlag's Tower area and Gullykin (ENTRY_NAME set to N, DEF_ENTRY set to 1) the party ends up in the middle of the northern part of the Gullykin, right here:

Not sure what would happen if that part of the map would not be traversable, but in such case you can just use entrance name (btw. BG2 doesn't have a single link that would depend on DEF_ENTRY and in BG1 it's also not that common)