41 réponses à ce sujet

[Pstemarie]

Now that I've released Project Q, I've decided the time is right to look at the feasibility of merging Project Q with CEP. So far I've downloaded CEP 2.4a and extracted all the CEP content into separate folders for each hak. I've also done the same for Project Q. 

 

According to the CEP documents, CEP 2.4a uses the following hak structure:

 

This is the official hak order for CEP 2.4:

 

cep2_top_v24

cep2_custom (optional)

cep2_add_phenos5

cep2_add_phenos4

cep2_add_phenos3

cep2_add_phenos2

cep2_add_phenos1

cep2_add_sb_v1 (optional)

cep2_add_tiles2 (optional)

cep2_add_tiles1 (optional)

cep2_ext_tiles (optional -- use ONLY if you want to overwrite the standard Bioware tilesets - without this you get seperate tilesets)

cep2_add_doors (optional)

cep2_core7

cep2_core6

cep2_core5

cep2_core4

cep2_core3

cep2_core2

cep2_core1

cep2_core0

cep2_crp

cep2_crp_s (optional)

cep2_build (optional)

 

Your module should be set to use cep23_v1.tlk as the custom talk table.

 

Before I delve any deeper, is this hak order the most current and is it correct?

[Rolo Kipp]

<raising one little...>

 

As I just  posted in Fomenting Mutiny, I'm also interested in stirring in the open portions of CTP (and Generic Doors if we can maintain the memorial conditions). Not trying to derail this thread, but just hoping we might make this a triple play or even a homerun :-)

 

Maybe even get a certain big bluish-black cat off the bench... *whistles idly*

 

Which would, perhaps, require hak structure adjustment (which is the tiny on topic bit :-P )

 

<...finger>

[Pstemarie]

CTP works with just about anything and I believe CEP already gobbled up the CTP generic doors. As for Q, since CEP is the senior citizen on the block - and sees wider use, it makes sense to me that Q content be rolled into the CEP hak structure. The biggest area of contention is in phenotypes.2da, but TBH there isn't really anything in Q that can't be relocated to a new line. The Q phenos that do conflict are accessed through scripting only and it would be a simple measure to alter those scripts.

[Rolo Kipp]

<sympathizing with...>

 

Yeah, although I don't use CEP, I know CTP works with it. My point here is actually more of an either/or thing.

 

It's another example of fragmentation, with CEP holding some tilesets and CTP holding others. If the Community Tileset Project collects the community contributed tilesets it should either come under the "Expansion" project umbrella, or the tilesets in CEP should be split off into the CTP (which I don't see happening).

 

Essentially, when a new builder or player comes to the game, they should have one clear primary upgrade. That's what CEP was once, and I think we all here participating in this mutiny feel it should be again.

 

This is *my* opinion only and does not reflect the stance of the Vault, btw. The Vault is a greedy witch and is quite source agnostic. ;-P

 

Edit: Aaaaand I'm derailing your thread, Paul. Sorry. I'll continue this elsewhere if anywhere. Shutting up now. Here, anyway :-)

 

<...the Pushme-pullyou>

[Pstemarie]

No need to continue elsewhere. What I meant by "...CTP works with anything" is that merging it into CEP would be far easier than merging in Project Q because, to the best of my knowledge, CTP already works with CEP. I think its a damn good idea and well worth exploring.

[cervantes35]

I really don't care for the way CEP merged all the tilesets together so I believe tilesets should be optional but a better structure should be established keeping there tilesets as an option for compatability reasons but also creating a new tileset stucture option as well.

[Rolo Kipp]

<feeling all warm and...>

 

Oh, cool :-) I misread that totally :-P

I  agree with Cervantes, actually. Major sub-systems like tilesets really should be optional parts - you shouldn't have to download *all* the tilesets just to get elven tree houses :-P - but I *do* think they should be parts, that is affiliated and easy to just add or not.

 

In particular, I'm looking at the Modular Hak system Henesua made for NwNCQ.

 

<...maybe a little feverish>

[Pstemarie]

Well, after rifling through CEP's files and structure its pretty apparent to me that any Q/CEP merge is going to be a new iteration of CEP and not a continuation of what's come before. No matter how you merge the two, you wind up creating something that renders work by Q users moot - if priority is given to CEP. Alternatively, if you give priority to Q assets, you bork content made by CEP users. Therefore, here's what I propose - revision 2:

 

1. Project Q v1.8 is the final release of Q.

 

2. CEP 2.4a - once TAD completes his fixes - is the final release of CEP.

 

3. CEP 3 is born. CEP 3 would combine Q and CEP, eliminating redundant files and incorporating any other content as permitted by its authors (e.g. CTP). Going forward, CEP 3 would become the platform of future development. 

[Rolo Kipp]

<packing his...>

 

I'm on board with that :-)

 

Edit: Clarifying, CEP 3 will be a new version and not implicitly backwards compatible, though a "compatibility" hak might be worked on in parallel or after 3.0 development? That I can get behind with enthusiasm!

 

<...sea chest>

[cervantes35]

I like that idea very much, as there are alot of redundant files and files that could be used directly to override older content that just really doesn't (should I say cut the mustard). I would actually start by adding all overriding content first in CEP 3. Just a thought.

 

This is not a slam on some of the older content just that the game has come along way since its inception and updated better resource content is available. My hats are still off to anyone who has made or tried creating content for this game and always will be.

[Pstemarie]

I like that idea very much, as there are alot of redundant files and files that could be used directly to override older content that just really doesn't (should I say cut the mustard). I would actually start be adding all overriding content first in CEP 3. Just a thought.

 

Yeah, CEP 3 will be a complete rebuild. I'm having the toolset list out conflicts right now.

[cervantes35]

I am willing to throw my hat in on CEP 3 as long as we have a team of more than two members because my time is very limited and there  are only certain things I am proficient at doing and the burden should not just come on only one or two people with one being available only part time.

[Pstemarie]

Trust me, I'm not wanting to do this alone - or short-staffed either. However, given what's been proposed and the amount of people that have been asking for it - I think we've got support.

[cervantes35]

I think maybe we should roll in a bunch of the NWN Enhanced stuff as well then.

[Fester Pot]

Well, after rifling through CEP's files and structure its pretty apparent to me that any Q/CEP merge is going to be a new iteration of CEP and not a continuation of what's come before. No matter how you merge the two, you wind up creating something that renders work by Q users moot - if priority is given to CEP. Alternatively, if you give priority to Q assets, you bork content made by CEP users. Therefore, here's what I propose - revision 2:

 

1. Project Q v1.8 is the final release of Q.

 

2. CEP 2.4a - once TAD completes his fixes - is the final release of CEP.

 

3. CEP 3 is born. CEP 3 would combine Q and CEP, eliminating redundant files and incorporating any other content as permitted by its authors (e.g. CTP). Going forward, CEP 3 would become the platform of future development. 

 

Good idea. There has been a lot of voices over the years about the possibility of having Q and CEP be friendly with one another, and moving that idea forward would be a great addition to the community.

 

FP!

[henesua]

Would each hak in CEP 3 potentially stand on its own the way that Project Q does?

[Pstemarie]

Would each hak in CEP 3 potentially stand on its own the way that Project Q does?

 

I'd like to go that route, yes. However, so that content used for multiple purposes (e.g. textures) is not duped across multiple haks, some haks would be required. This is basically what I'm looking at for CEP3 architecture:

 

cep3_creatures

cep3_items

cep3_placeables

cep3_portraits

cep3_race1

cep3_race2 

cep3_sounds

cep3_tilesets

cep3_vfxgui

cep3_base_tex (required)

 

cep3_base_tex would be the only hak required for other modules. cep3_race1 and cep3_race2 would be considered ONE module. Each module would have the 2da files included that are necessary to see the content.

[henesua]

Very nice approach.

 

As far as attitude towards overriding content goes, any interest in pulling it all out, and sticking it in a patch HAK?

 

My basic philosophy is that only material which extends functionality should be included in a HAK that a player is required to download. Anything that is a facelift of existing content should be an optional override or patch HAK.

 

Does this work for ya?

[Pstemarie]

I like the face-lift approach through patch HAK and it definitely makes sense. I don't think that would interfere with CPP either, so its definitely something to consider. Put it this way, I'm open to any ideas at this point.

[cervantes35]

As far as attitude towards overriding content goes, any interest in pulling it all out, and sticking it in a patch HAK?

 

I like the face-lift approach through patch HAK and it definitely makes sense. I don't think that would interfere with CPP either, so its definitely something to consider. Put it this way, I'm open to any ideas at this point.

 

 

This seems to be a very good idea this is something I could start on for creaturse by running thru the vanilla pallette and culling together a good bunch of overriding monsters.

 

What naming convention if any our we going to follow for each catergory?

[3RavensMore]

Just a general question about this project.  Is your vision for CEP3 backward compatible with CEP2.3+ or are you envisioning an all-new compilation of content—meaning content will be removed and or altered in such a way that even with a renaming of haks it will still break CEP2.3 worlds/modules?  

[Pstemarie]

This seems to be a very good idea this is something I could start on for creaturse by running thru the vanilla pallette and culling together a good bunch of overriding monsters.

 

What naming convention if any our we going to follow for each catergory?

 

You're getting way ahead of the game. I'm focused just on CEP and Q at the moment. As far as naming convention goes, I'd rather not rename any models.

[Pstemarie]

Just a general question about this project.  Is your vision for CEP3 backward compatible with CEP2.3+ or are you envisioning an all-new compilation of content—meaning content will be removed and or altered in such a way that even with a renaming of haks it will still break CEP2.3 worlds/modules?  

 

Compatibility with CEP or Q is not the primary goal here, although it would be preferred if this can be achieved. The goal is to make a comprehensive package that, moving forward from this point, new projects can use as a reliable base for CC. 

Modifié par Pstemarie, 13 avril 2014 - 11:57 .

[cervantes35]

Not really getting to far ahead, this is a project I had been working for some time but stopped to do other things just thought I might pick it back up again just in case if not it, maybe a project I just go ahead and complete for critters anyway.

[FunkySwerve]

Well, after rifling through CEP's files and structure its pretty apparent to me that any Q/CEP merge is going to be a new iteration of CEP and not a continuation of what's come before. No matter how you merge the two, you wind up creating something that renders work by Q users moot - if priority is given to CEP. Alternatively, if you give priority to Q assets, you bork content made by CEP users. Therefore, here's what I propose - revision 2:

 

1. Project Q v1.8 is the final release of Q.

 

2. CEP 2.4a - once TAD completes his fixes - is the final release of CEP.

 

3. CEP 3 is born. CEP 3 would combine Q and CEP, eliminating redundant files and incorporating any other content as permitted by its authors (e.g. CTP). Going forward, CEP 3 would become the platform of future development. 

That sounds fantastic.

 

Funky