Jump to content


Photo

Bug Reports: IR v4 Beta


117 replies to this topic

#106 Mike1072

Mike1072
  • Gibberling Poobah
  • 2399 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 27 December 2017 - 10:37 PM

Thanks for the feedback.  Even if it sometimes seems like maintainers are on a permanent vacation, we appreciate the info you provide, and having it written down lets us refer back to it later.



#107 Luke

Luke
  • Members
  • 58 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 January 2018 - 09:56 AM

Thanks for the feedback.  Even if it sometimes seems like maintainers are on a permanent vacation, we appreciate the info you provide, and having it written down lets us refer back to it later.

I'm happy to help!

 

I found another minor bug: the equipped appearance of all short bows is the same as that of long bows -> you should change that attribute from BW - bow to BS - bow?



#108 Bartimaeus

Bartimaeus
  • Members
  • 142 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 04 January 2018 - 02:14 AM

For Mike/Demi/Subtledoctor, here are more exact notes on the exact shields/Dagger of Venom issues (...and they are fixed in my version if you wanted to try to use it again, Luke):

http://gibberlings3....=28894&p=258145

Relevant part:

1. Fixed shield usabilities: SHLD06 (Large Shield +1), SHLD15 (Large Shield), SHLD18 (Large Shield), SHLD23 (Fortress Shield), and SHLD30 (Large Shield +2). Seems like it only applied to these four five large shields.
2. Dagger of Venom: MISC75 (Dagger of Venom) was additionally also incorrectly usable by Beastmasters and Clerics.


Edited by Bartimaeus, 04 January 2018 - 05:13 AM.


#109 subtledoctor

subtledoctor
  • Modders
  • 2316 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 January 2018 - 09:50 AM

I still don't understand what your version is, or what exactly it does, or which game is the intended platform for it.

- Is it an alternative to IR? A distinct mod with mostly the same codebase but some differences?

If so, now there will be two sets of players, some playing your version and some playing vanilla IR. If you get a bug report for your version but it involves code shared between the two, will the report and/or the fix migrate back to the original mod? Or will this end up overtaking the traditional IR? And if so are you going to support the whole thing?

- Alternatively, is this basically a patch meant to be applied on top of IR? My mod does this, so that would make sense to me.

This means that players can use "vanilla" IR, or my "patches" IR, as they prefer, and each part has its own code and it's own bugs/fixes/maintainers. A clear division of labor and responsibility.

- Or is this something else? From reading about it, I think this is the answer, but I don't quite understand what that something else is.

I have an excellent experience right now with IRv4b10. Yeah, some weapons might be fractionally misaligned with elves' hands in the inventory screen, but I honestly don't care about that, it's purely cosmetic and virtually unnoticeable. I don't use 1PP (don't even know if I can, on the EEs) so I don't really care about 1PP integration.

So, really no offense intended, but until I understand the case for what the "Revised Revisions" is and why it might be desirable, I'm staying away.

Faiths & Powers: Spell spheres and kit pack for priests and paladins
Might & Guile: Tweaks and kits for warriors and rogues
Scales of Balance: Game tweaks and rule overhauls
NPC_EE: More options for NPCs in BGEE, SoD, & BG2EE


#110 Jarno Mikkola

Jarno Mikkola

    The Imp

  • Modders
  • 6402 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The town where the dead haven't keeled over, yet. In Finland.

Posted 04 January 2018 - 10:11 AM

- Is it an alternative to IR? A distinct mod with mostly the same codebase but some differences?

Well, it's an interm version until slowpoke-Demivgrst comes back. ...
The 1PP is part of the EE games, so having it included or not is not a thing you can really choose with IR as it comes with it's own set of files, borrowed from a 1PP version that was before the last even.
Welcome to the sanity, you are free to search for the limit, it's out there, we drew it in the sand.
Here's how to install all the ... mods you ever really could want to Infinity Engine games. I removed the stable word from there as Roxanne began to add BS mods that are likely to break compatibility from the BWS.

#111 Bartimaeus

Bartimaeus
  • Members
  • 142 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 05 January 2018 - 01:55 AM

I think I said it before, but it doesn't have a label I can simply call it. The reality is that it fixes a large amount of bugs and oversights that I personally noticed and many of which I have reported over the years (but which seemingly never got fixed) in addition to bugs reported by other people, introduces (but does not at all rely on) compatibility with 1PP for non-EE games (and fixes those misalignment issues in the Enhanced Editions - and if I can get someone with extensive knowledge of the EE to help me, I can fix any other problems with the EEs like incorrect short bow paperdolls), starts handling items that weren't ever touched by vanilla IR (e.g. the Golem Tomes, the Jade Hound Figurine, the Pantaloon items, some quest items with funky descriptions, etc. - sometimes just description updates, but sometimes new revisions for those items entirely, quest items-excluded), as well as some of my own minor item design tweaks (e.g. Amulet of the Seldarine receiving a +1 wisdom bonus instead of yet another charisma bonus because I felt it went better with the item concept).

So IRR is, essentially, wearing many hats, which is exactly why my fixes can't be translated over to vanilla IR. If you used my fixed files with normal IR - for example, the fixed shields mentioned above - you would run into the issue where my fixed files might not have the correct animations with vanilla IR, because vanilla IR currently has an old and broken version of 1PP integrated - even for Enhanced Edition games, causing some weird misalignment issues as well as other issues or inconsistencies that you may or may not have not noticed (and for some of us, this sort of thing is really annoying) - which messes around and renames animations. In my version of the mod, I completely tore out virtually all 1PP integration, which makes for a much cleaner install on both the original games (which, as a consequence, can now use the latest version of 1PP, which is significantly, significantly better than the old version) and the EE games (though I believe there might still be problems here because of the very limited playtesting I've done on BG2:EE, but almost certainly not worse than the problems vanilla IR has with the EEs).

So...it's an alternative branch with some new and (usually very mildly) different ideas in it, it's a major compatibility fix for the original games, and it's a compilation of bugfixes. There's not really any other way I can put. If you're not interested in any of that, then you needn't bother - but if you are, I would love help getting any problems with the EEs fixed. I'm also open to suggestions and new ideas...and I'm actively working on the mod. It sucks that I can't bring over my bugfixes to vanilla IR, it really does, but that's just the nature of the de-integration of 1PP creating divergent files that are no longer compatible with each other (in addition to any other divergences I may have created in item design tweaks). I talked to Mike about it, and he did not want the 1PP integration removed, and was more interested in updating the version of 1PP that IR comes shipped with. But that's as much of a herculean task as what I have already done by simply de-integrating 1PP to begin with (possibly more), and I just sadly don't see it happening at this rate. Took me significant amounts of my free time over a few month period in order to do it (though there may be a more efficient way to do it than how I did it), hence why I released this for other people who do not want to go through what I did to fix those problems (originally, it was for only my own usage, but I was encouraged by a couple of other people I had shared it with to release it for the public...so I did - funnily enough, I actually have the same sort of thing for Spell Revisions, but I won't be releasing that one publicly due to the massive headache it would create).

Edited by Bartimaeus, 05 January 2018 - 02:15 AM.


#112 Salk

Salk
  • Modders
  • 2946 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 05 January 2018 - 07:44 AM

Kudos to Bartimaeus!

 

I am, for one, extremely grateful for all his hard work and I wouldn't even think of using the original version of IR now because there is hardly a reason to do it now that IRR is out and has been thoroughly (I believe Bartimaeus to be very thorough in his work) tried, and with a very detailed change log as well.

 

It would be nice to see your SRR one of these days too, Bartimaeus!

 

And thanks again for IRR.



#113 subtledoctor

subtledoctor
  • Modders
  • 2316 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 January 2018 - 09:34 AM

It's not so much a question of being uninterested, it's my worry that it creates fragmentation, and reduces players options, and I'm just not willing support something like that. Admittedly I am somewhat obsessed with the structure of mods, and I tend to think that way.

Line, all these changes being made on top of IR, it makes all the sense in the world for them to simply patch items and move that code out to an optimal add-on component, rather than part of a giant take-it-or-leave-it mish-mash. And it wouldn't be hard to go that way. (In fact once you get used to doing that in Weidu it can be substantially easier than editing items in NI/DLCTEP.)

Ideally a project like this would be broken up into thematic pieces: 1PP (dis-)integration, basic fixes, visual fixes, content changes, and new content. I don't know, something like that. Once it's broken down into manageable bites, each bite could be worked on separately.

Like, if you are implementing new ideas and actively working on that, why is that stuff being included in the mosh-mash? There's no technical reason it can't be a separate component, or even a separate mod. So maybe the brand new stuff could be a distinct component. Maybe the basic fixes could be a distinct part, and shared back to vanilla IR. Or whatever. The whole thing doesn't need to be perfect all at once, I would just be more encouraged if some steps were taken in that direction.

Frankly I like the idea in principle, I would like a version of IR with out anything from 1PP, as that visual stuff is kind of useless to me. But for now, my personal 'mod radar' is flagging your project as something to ignore, for potentially introducing complexity and fragmentation. Again, no offense intended, just giving feedback on how it appears from a player's perspective.

Faiths & Powers: Spell spheres and kit pack for priests and paladins
Might & Guile: Tweaks and kits for warriors and rogues
Scales of Balance: Game tweaks and rule overhauls
NPC_EE: More options for NPCs in BGEE, SoD, & BG2EE


#114 Bartimaeus

Bartimaeus
  • Members
  • 142 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 05 January 2018 - 11:05 AM

Fragmentation I can understand, but player options I don't. Just the opposite: where players originally had no option to have functioning graphics, they now do (especially as I have now - mostly? - fixed the EE graphics in the latest version). That was the entire idea of releasing my version. Yeah, you get a few other additions on top of it, but on the whole, they're pretty darned minor.

For the rest of what you said...I can understand where you're coming from, really, but understand where I'm coming from: the current version of Item Revisions comes with 1,193 files in its \itms folder. My IRR has 1,114 changed files - emphasis on "changed": they've been modified in some way. Those two numbers are almost equal. Ignoring any other changes I've made outside just the \itms folder, that's already insane. I'm not starting my entire project over by converting it all to patches (by the way, this would be an insanely ridiculously impossible amount of work to do this for all of IR at this point)...and that's before you realize that I do not remember every single thing that I fixed, and I'd have to separate what I fixed from other things that I did within the same files, increasing the amount of work exponentially. It just ain't happening - it just ain't. So if that means you will "ignore" IRR, I guess that's that. I don't really have the many months of effort to spare to "do it right" as you're suggesting, and even if I tried to, I would just become burnt out to the extreme and never finish it anyways. I just don't think it can realistically be done at this point. Sorry. If I had started this project with the knowledge that I might eventually share my fixes and other changes, maybe I could've done what you're suggesting. But I started it years ago, and I'm content with where it is.

@Salk: my SRR is not totally complete yet (well, divine spells are, but I'm still working through arcane), but maybe when it is, I'll send you a link.

Edited by Bartimaeus, 05 January 2018 - 11:13 AM.


#115 Arctodus

Arctodus
  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 13 January 2018 - 10:54 AM

Hey there !
 
I think I spotted a bug in IR. When I check in NI, the Bala's Axe Dispel effect doesn't allow a save vs spell like its description says. Probably not intended because then the item is a bit too powerful.

Edited by Arctodus, 15 January 2018 - 04:14 PM.
moved to bug report topic :)


#116 Bartimaeus

Bartimaeus
  • Members
  • 142 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 31 January 2018 - 08:02 PM

Does anyone know if the "Dual Wielding Changes" component considering Morning Stars a "heavy" weapon (-1 offhand THAC0) is deliberate? From the readme, it should be considered a medium weapon, not heavy.



#117 Mike1072

Mike1072
  • Gibberling Poobah
  • 2399 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 31 January 2018 - 09:01 PM

I suspect morningstars being in the heavy category is intentional. I added the component in v2 and it originally only had bastard swords, katanas, and flails as heavy weapons and daggers, short swords, wakizashis, ninja-tos, and clubs as light weapons.

It looks like some changes were introduced around v3 (this was when I was away and Ardanis coded a bunch of stuff). Battleaxes and morningstars were added to the heavy category, and handaxes were added to the light category.

Two of those additions were listed in the readme, but morningstars weren't. These quotes contain some evidence that the change to morningstars was intentional and it is the readme that is currently incorrect.
 

This is an extract of a table I'm writing to code the "Weapon Changes" and "Speed Factor doesn't change with enchantment level" components.

There are few new changes over v2 such as dagger's improved speed or battleaxe's increased damage, and clubs will now deal slighlty less damage than staffs.
 

Melee Weapons - Damage - Speed - Special
Dagger: 1d4 - 1 - light
Short Sword: 1d6 - 3 - light
Long Sword: 1d8 - 5 - none
Scimitar: 1d8 - 5 - none
Battleaxe: 2d4 - 7 - heavy??
Bastard Sword: 1d10 - 8 - heavy
	  
Ninja-to: 1d6 - 2 - light			   (dmg changed from slashing to piercing)
Wakizashi: 1d8 - 4 - light			  (dmg changed from piercing to slashing)
Katana: 1d10 - 5 - heavy
	  
Club: 1d4 - 3 - light				   (alternatively we may use 1d3+1 and keep its 4 speed factor)
Hammer: 1d4+1 - 5 - heavy??
Mace: 2d3 - 6 - heavy
Morningstar: 1d6+1 - 7 - heavy
Flail: 2d4 - 8 - heavy
	  
Staff: 1d6 - 4 - none
Spear: 1d8 - 6 - none
Halberd: 1d10 - 8 - can slash too, with +1 bonus to dmg and -2 penalty to speed
Two-handed Sword: 2d6 - 10 - none


Long story short, it's better to move morningstar into the heavy weapons category (aka -1 off hand penalty) rather than moving the mace into the light one with clubs, daggers and short swords.



#118 Bartimaeus

Bartimaeus
  • Members
  • 142 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 01 February 2018 - 12:20 AM

Thanks for digging that up. I think it fits better as a medium weapon conceptually, but due to the fact that it's a 'tweener without a good comparison elsewhere, an argument can be made either way.





Reply to this topic



  


1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users