18 réponses à ce sujet

[Jenna WSI]

If I wanted to overwrite a creature from project q over one in CEP (already used in the module), for example the giant ants... would that cause problems? Of course we wouldn't update afterwards for CEP.

[TSMDude]

We have done quite a few. Are you going to overwrite it with overrides or total overwrite?

[Jenna WSI]

I'd like to do it in the hak itself. Rename the creature and associated files.

[The Amethyst Dragon]

Just do your renaming and put the newly named file(s) in your custom hak above CEP in the list. Even if CEP gets updated, your hak being higher priority means your change(s) will stay in effect. As long as you're using the same model file name (and line in appearance.2da), the new one will replace the old one in the game automatically.

[TSMDude]

The Amethyst Dragon wrote...

Just do your renaming and put the newly named file(s) in your custom hak above CEP in the list. Even if CEP gets updated, your hak being higher priority means your change(s) will stay in effect. As long as you're using the same model file name (and line in appearance.2da), the new one will replace the old one in the game automatically.

plus 1 as that is what we did.

[Pstemarie]

Another alternative is to leave CEP and Project Q intact and just write a tophak that merges the two projects how you like.

Project Q uses an updater to keep things current as did CEP at one time. At least if you keep the Q haks intact you'll get any fixes or upgrades we put out without having to do anything to your tophak unless a 2da is adjusted, but you'll have a log file that tells you what got modified.

Modifié par Pstemarie, 17 juin 2011 - 02:49 .

[_six]

Quite a few of the Project Q creature models require 2da changes (particularly for envmaps - ie whether they're reflective or seethrough) that could cause compatibility issues. Many of those are ignorable up to a point, but there are one or two (my skeletons and lich come to mind) where it can look really bad - so I'd suggest you include a 2da and keep that updated to the lastest CEP version as well.

Thank you for being so courteous as to ask us, by the way.

(I jest. Mostly.)



Edit: Oh, pstemarie made a post too, I must've been looking away  I like his idea too. It means you'll be able to get a large amount more unique Q content with a little more work, and marginally less downtrodden Q members. But whatever works for you, works for you of course.

Modifié par _six, 17 juin 2011 - 02:50 .

[DM_Vecna]

I have been using the tophak method and I really cannot suggest it enough. It is a way better long term solution. Especially as you get to know the content of each author better and want to make more changes down the road.

[Jenna WSI]

To ask you? I'm confused, did I do something wrong here?

[kalbaern]

Jenna WSI wrote...

To ask you? I'm confused, did I do something wrong here?

I'm confused as well. Is there an insinuation that merging Project Q with CEP needs some sort of permission? Why can't a PW use both ... and further more, why would they ask either "team" for permission?

[DM_Vecna]

I didn't think Six is insinuating that you need to ask them but I think when merging large content projects like Q and CEP where it feels(to me at least) that it is hoped by the authors to be used as a comprehensive full custom content system, asking permission/giving credit is a very classy move and if anything he was paying a compliment to Jenna for respecting their hard work.

[Pstemarie]

_Six was joking, Jenna and Kalbaern.

The only real reservations about merging Q Content is the fact that if the content is removed from a Q hak then put into another custom hak, it quite probable that any fixes made to said content will get overloooked. Ultimately, if the content proves buggy it makes Q look buggy - since Q was the source of the content - even though any issues may have been fixed on our end.

Project Q uses an updater to maintain its haks and files. If you don't use the updater you won't get the lastest content such as hotfixes, bugfixes, and new files. Because of this we advocate that any builder using Q content keep the Q haks intact and write a new tophak to manipulate the Q content with whatever content they are merging it with. Furthermore, if the CEP Team ever returns to using an updater, I'm sure they will advocate the same.

Kalbaern, no you don't need permission. Ultimately, we made the stuff to be used - SO USE IT. However, any author doing a complete merge and pulling resources from both Project Q and CEP, should know that they've taken on an ENORMOUS responsibility. Both Project Q and CEP regularly find and fix bugs and tweak resources. The minute you breakup either project, you've just put the responsibility of bugfixing and keeping things current solely into your own hands.

[_six]

 Oh, er, did that jest come off so badly?  It was kinda meant to be ironic, a reference to... never mind.

Besides, if anyone wants to use both Q and CEP, that's awesome. It's just it feels a little diminishing of our years of work, if they pick and choose tiny bits of Q to rip out, considering how much time we put into it. But I'm not about to stop you (and even with my massive ninja skills I'm not sure how I would).

Modifié par _six, 17 juin 2011 - 02:58 .

[AndarianTD]

A CEP/Q "top hak" merge is definitely doable, and some of us have pioneered the way by implementing versions of it and providing feedback for others on the results (for example, here).

I am also currently working on a new update to Sanctum of the Archmage Chapters 1 & 2, to version 4.0. In addition to other updates, it will include using the Sanctum / CEP / Q integration top haks that I developed for Sanctum 3 (still in development). I hope to get it out this summer; and when I do, anyone who wants to use those top haks as a blueprint or example for how to do this is welcome to. It won't be perfect for your needs, since I tailored the merge for the specific needs of my own modules as well as to provide for some of my own module-specific custom content. But it should be good enough to use as a start to modify for your own purposes.

The approach I took (except in a few isolated cases) was to leave the Q content untouched, and in the case of any conflicts, to rename and/or move either the CEP content or my own custom CC to open 2DA ranges. As a result, if you use it you may find you'll need to update some of the non-Q specific blueprints in your module accordingly. But most of the important content will be there (or at least, the content that was important to me ).

Note that my top haks were designed using the 2DAs from the last Q release (Q1.3) and CEP 2.2. I may update them to include the new Q release 1.4 2DA entries before releasing Sanctum v4.0.

By the way: any new small or large metallic shields in the new Q release? :looks hopeful:

Modifié par AndarianTD, 17 juin 2011 - 05:02 .

[Pstemarie]

AndarianTD wrote...

By the way: any new small or large metallic shields in the new Q release? :looks hopeful:

Yes.

[AndarianTD]

Pstemarie wrote...

AndarianTD wrote...

By the way: any new small or large metallic shields in the new Q release? :looks hopeful:

Yes.

Excellent! I'll look forward to checking them out. That may enable me to update some of the obsolete one-piece shields I had to provide for because the module design required them to have a metallic appearance.

Modifié par AndarianTD, 17 juin 2011 - 05:10 .

[TSMDude]

_six wrote...

Quite a few of the Project Q creature models require 2da changes (particularly for envmaps - ie whether they're reflective or seethrough) that could cause compatibility issues. Many of those are ignorable up to a point, but there are one or two (my skeletons and lich come to mind) where it can look really bad - so I'd suggest you include a 2da and keep that updated to the lastest CEP version as well.

I have not seen any in the ones we have done but then again it has just been the orcs and bugbears...I will look at the list when i get home though.

Would the people here (not Q as the list would not help them I would think) who are doing it the way WSI and us at TSM are doing it want us maybe to post the ones here we have seen problems arise with "if" they do have problems?

AndarianTD wrote...

A CEP/Q "top hak" merge is definitely doable, and some of us have pioneered the way by implementing versions of it and providing feedback for others on the results (for example, here).

I am also currently working on a new update to Sanctum of the Archmage Chapters 1 & 2, to version 4.0. In addition to other updates, it will include using the Sanctum / CEP / Q integration top haks that I developed for Sanctum 3 (still in development). I hope to get it out this summer; and when I do, anyone who wants to use those top haks as a blueprint or example for how to do this is welcome to. It won't be perfect for your needs, since I tailored the merge for the specific needs of my own modules as well as to provide for some of my own module-specific custom content. But it should be good enough to use as a start to modify for your own purposes.

Note that my top haks were designed using the 2DAs from the last Q release (Q1.3) and CEP 2.2. I may update them to include the new Q release 1.4 2DA entries before releasing Sanctum v4.0.

I had thought you were not going to release your stuff Andrian? If so that is awesome news as I have followed your notes here and there and very intrested in seeing the hak/merge you have done released if it is to be so.

Modifié par TSMDude, 17 juin 2011 - 05:28 .

[Jenna WSI]

Okay thanks for clearing it up, I just wasn't sure if any unspoken rules were broken. I posted before that we were thinking of removing CEP and making our own hak but was told it was far more trouble than it was worth... and if we didn't have CEP in and had been using a smaller custom made hak, I might have wanted to use the full version of Project Q. I already ask alot in download size, so it doesn't make sense to use the full hak and make the download even worse. So it's nothing against your work at all, just about hak sizes. Everyone working on CC already makes it hard to keep the downloads small with all the awesome content available now

Modifié par Jenna WSI, 17 juin 2011 - 06:12 .

[Azador]

I do wish it was easier to make the two compatible. Most major projects use, or at least started, with CEP. CEP is older, better advertised, and has a ton of useful content. Project Q has a lot of good content, but when it's so difficult to make compatible with CEP, most won't use it at all. I find myself using independent releases from Q artists rather than trying to pull apart Q itself.