Project Q - CEP Merge Development Thread

[Legacy_Pstemarie]

               

Since you asked...   '>   The view from one builder is...I unfortunatally wouldn't be able to use it pretty much for the same reason AD said.  Okay, it's a small group -- 7 players, a writer, and a builder.  Still the world is seven years old.  Just making it work with new backward compatable CEP will be hard enough for me from all the stuff I've already smushed into it over the years. 

 

Sadly, its starting to look like it would just be another big project that wouldn't get used. TBH, I probably wouldn't use it either, given that my own module has a solid foundation with Q and includes a ton of exclusive content I've made myself. Also, any large project that's wanted to use a merged CEP/Q has already done so, creating their own unique haks.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_henesua]

               

I wouldn't over think this, Pstemarie.

 

Instead break down the content conceptually into modules, and then approach each individually, looking at how merging the content for that module actually works.

 

I think compatibility in most cases is not a problem to maintain at all, and all the worry over compatibility is overblown.

 

Simply try to do the best you can on a module by module basis and ensure that each module can stand on its own.

 

The areas where I suspect real incompatibilities will arise are body parts/clothing, phenotypes, items. And something will have to take precedence over the other. There is no way to ensure that both CEP and Q are 100% respected in these areas. So do not dig a hole for yourself guaranteeing full compatibility. Instead you should assure people that you are doing everything you can to get these things to work together as much as is humanly possible. If thats not good enough who cares? Honestly. Once they realize that CEP 3 will not break modules buiult with CEP 2 due to its modular nature, and that adjusting to it will be much less work than was created when CEP 2 went off the rails (at its inception) they'll start using CEP 3.

 

Its simple really. Just start small, one module at a time, and do your best to maintain the most compatibility that you can.

 

But even more importantly, maybe it isn't worth for you to do this. You've got great talents as an artist, and rather than see you get bogged down trying to please people that won't be happy unless CEP 2 is 100% respected for every single choice made within it... I prefer to see you having fun making new stuff.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Empyre65]

               

I wonder if it would not be prohibitively difficult to make a converter executable, converting modules made with the current CEP to use CEP 3, and also from using Project Q to CEP 3 (maybe a seperate converter).

 

It would be ideal if the CEP would continue to not step on the toes of the PRC.

 

Another thought: instead of always giving preference to one project or the other for duplicated stuff, pick and choose whichever one is better. This will take longer, of course, but it will result in a better final product.

 

I am sorry that I am unable to help beyond my perhaps-uninformed suggestions.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Proleric]

               

I wonder if it would not be prohibitively difficult to make a converter executable, converting modules made with the current CEP to use CEP 3, and also from using Project Q to CEP 3 (maybe a seperate converter)....

I'm wondering about Letoscript here, if the differences to be patched were straightforward.

I suspect that near-compatibility would be important, though; over and above the obvious issues with clothing etc, anything that requires renumbering of custom 2DA or talk files is scary.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Pstemarie]

               

The principle issue with compatibility is blueprints that would need to be updated to reflect the position of the content within the new haks. Its easy enough to move assets around, but having to change 100s of blueprints to reflect such changes would turn anyone off, even myself.

 

There is also the issue of quality. Many of the people that have lobbied for a CEP/Q merge have done so because they want the Q assets - which are in many people's opinion better than some of the content the CEP has to offer. Furthermore, when I look at the newer content I'd like to roll in and compare it to some of the older CEP content, it makes me wonder why bother keeping the older stuff. With this in mind, we once more delve off into the direction of an all new project.

 

Thus, after a good nights sleep and considerable time to reflect upon this endeavor, I agree with Henesua for the moment. My time is better spent pursuing creation and leaving a full Q/CEP merge behind. This will afford me the time to finish my own projects, not alienate anyone or their hard work, and take this up again in the future when I've got more time to look at things.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

The principle issue with compatibility is blueprints that would need to be updated to reflect the position of the content within the new haks. Its easy enough to move assets around, but having to change 100s of blueprints to reflect such changes would turn anyone off, even myself.

This is where letoscript does the job. Ive been using this for similar case where I changed haks and need to change all placeable and door appearance in module by certain offset. Five minute job via letoscript really, if you need help I can do that.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Pstemarie]

               

This is where letoscript does the job. Ive been using this for similar case where I changed haks and need to change all placeable and door appearance in module by certain offset. Five minute job via letoscript really, if you need help I can do that.

 

WOW and thank-you. Yes, I'd very much like to see that.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

 

There is also the issue of quality. Many of the people that have lobbied for a CEP/Q merge have done so because they want the Q assets - which are in many people's opinion better than some of the content the CEP has to offer. Furthermore, when I look at the newer content I'd like to roll in and compare it to some of the older CEP content, it makes me wonder why bother keeping the older stuff. With this in mind, we once more delve off into the direction of an all new project.

Quality is often hard to compare. Im reclusive to the creature overhauls because they are in 95% completely remakes. To be honest I really dislike the LoW Troll for example, but there are more of them, that completely changed the creature nature and feel over what I was used to from other games/nwn vanilla. Also, from the point of action gamer, they are often too high poly/too high res, causing spawn lags - this is especially domain of the LoW.

 

This would be up to bigger discussion as I cant really point out exact specifications that are causing aversion to me, but thats my point of view on this. As much as many peoples out there hates the vanilla skeletons or goblins, I love them and will never replace them with more quality ones, that however are completely different and doesnt suit me.

 

On the other hand, there are few creature overhauls that are absolutely fantastic such as Improved mephits from six. The creatures I saw from Q would I preserve only for bosses, chieftaints and such, never used for "generic xp food".

 

No such problem with placeables though.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Proleric]

               Opinions vary on which creatures look best; for example, some value continuity over innovation. It rarely does any harm to include them all; after all, scrolling through appearances in the toolset is not much of a chore, and it empowers the builder to decide.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_FunkySwerve]

               

Yeah, there's the rub. The deeper I dig into CEP2.4a, the more convinced I am that I can build a package that will be backwards compatible. Although, the HAK names will be different, I DO NOT AT THIS TIME plan on moving CEP content around. CEP will have preference over Q for asset placement.

 

I have already begun compiling CEP assets into their new hak structure, beginning with the only required base hak for the new modular system I propose to use. The cep3_base_tex.hak is complete - it comes in two pieces. I have purged duplicate textures and updated all tga files - except map images, icons, and some other odd size textures - to dds format.

 

I have to rethink this - mainly (thanks to a PM), is anyone going to use a revamped CEP if its not FULLY compatible with CEP 2.x? Would it be better to just roll the Project Q assets directly into the existing CEP haks and just call that CEP3?

Like AD, I wouldn't use anything not backwards compatible with 2.3, unless there was an easy way to render it backwards-compatible, like swapping out a serverside-only hak.

 

Funky

 

WOW and thank-you. Yes, I'd very much like to see that.

I posted a perl script in the Formenting Mutiny thread that auto-generates palette items from 2da. Reposted here:

http://pastebin.com/kBHGsqFT

 

Funky

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               

I am sooooo behind this!

 

Bravo that sides have come to an understanding!

 

This is what I have stood for, all these years...

 

Really, brings tears to my eyes, to see that all those years of posts, reaching, and...yeah.

 

Now we just have to give the PRC a bit of lovin'...ok, maybe that is too much to ask!

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_SHOVA]

               

I fully support merging! I have merged the Q and cep2- With Q taking the priority, and overall things went rather well. A few things that that stood out, and some that I would like:

1 Many existing blueprints had to be adjusted- however seeing how this happens whenever new haks are added to a mod I didn't mind.

2 I removed the blueprints from the haks (items, creatures, and placeables] this made less of a headache in the long run. If blueprints could be in the form of an erf, rather than the hak, I'd jump for joy.

3. Clothing was the largest issue- something to do with the 255 limit of the 2da. If this could be fixed it would be astounding.

3a- if the 255 limit can not be fixed, I suggest that the Q clothing items be renumbered to overwrite the original Bio-ware clothing.

4 Perhaps it is time to really get organized in terms of the placeable 2da names. As mentioned rocks, stones, boulders- a scrolling nightmare. Plants are worse! I volunteer to help organize.

5. With scaling available on most creatures, perhaps it is time to remove the many instances of some creatures- elementals and dragons for instance.

6. I love the remakes of the Q creatures, but feel that an addition of a dynamic model for them would make a huge difference to the game. I have no skill to make anything, but know the talent in our community could make it happen.

7. Since the haks will need to be renamed, I suggest that they be named in such a manner to appear in order in the gui list when adding them to a mod. The way the CEP has ignored this simple logic has always left me confused.

8. Documentation, documentation, documentation! Again I volunteer to help with this.

9. There were CC left out of the CEP, as well as many CCC creations that would enhance this project.

10.After using the merge on an existing mod, and a fresh build, I learned that with such a fundamental change to the haks/tlk, it was in the long run easier to just start over, than to rebuild the existing mod. I realize that many PW's will look at this merge, and be hesitant to switch over. I also think that trying to keep the CEP part backwards compatible will cause a terrible amount of hair loss and heartburn. It may create more problems that a simple fresh approach wouldn't. just my two cents.

 

I am happy to help however I can.