Frith5 wrote...
_six, while that'd be cool, I think this is more like wanting all cars to be able to use the same highways, and being able to jump in and drive any car you want, when you want it. All cars are available, not all cars are merged into one. 
'>
That's already where we are. The only barrier is people being afraid of the top hak police.
I dunno, I mean from the aspect of simply working together - most of us are. I mean, I'm a member of Project Q, but I've made terrains for CTP, a bunch of small things for random PWs, a huge amount of my own 'solo' content over the years - and pretty much all of that is at least feasably compatible. Especially with tilesets - I've always made sure mine don't even need doortypes merging to work together with others'.
The big barrier you tend to get in NWN is that in order to make something explicitly comaptible without the use of a merge hak, you force your project to
require it. For example, were Project Q to be made compatible with CEP out-of-the-box, it would become nothing more than a CEP add-on, which considering it steps over much of the same ground in a different manner, is clearly undesirable. I mean, one of the key motivations behind Q was to make it smaller than CEP, which would be for nothing if CEP was needed to use it.
Then of course we have the ability to leave aside 2da lines in order to make projects more easily mergeable. Well, for the most part, most of the projects do that. Q, CTP and PRC all use different areas of all our 2da files, and Q has left space for a few smaller and lesser known haks in our files as well. Q with CEP is a slightly different matter, as originally it was intended that content that was essentially the same in both haks should use the same 2da lines to make it more easily portable from existing CEP modules. However as time went on, and content was remade, reworked or just fixed it became more shades of grey and a bit confusing. I'm not entirely sure how exactly our content is arranged now (I haven't had a copy of CEP to compare since 2.0) but I'm pretty sure we scrapped the idea. I think when it came down to it, to have everything lined up we'd have had to reserve about 3 times as much space, with 60% of that space just empty lines for stuff we
didn't want to include but was in the CEP.
CEP has always been a huge barrier both as a group member and a lone artist due to its sheer size, and the frequency with which they overstep and change their reserved 2da ranges, add content to areas they claim they'd never touch, and their apparent lack of desire to interact with anyone else in the community.\\
It's funny how all these discussions always wind back to CEP, though. I think it's something to do with their acronym. It's so god damned catchy.
Modifié par _six, 10 mai 2011 - 10:45 .
