Project Q - CEP Merge Development Thread

[Legacy_henesua]

               

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

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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?

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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?

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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?  

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_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.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Proleric]

               

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

Not sure that will fly. Since new projects are thin on the ground, this initiative presumably needs help from existing projects, whose motivation is a lot clearer if the aim is backward compatibility, or at least a degree of compatibility with easy migration.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Pstemarie]

               

Not sure that will fly. Since new projects are thin on the ground, this initiative presumably needs help from existing projects, whose motivation is a lot clearer if the aim is backward compatibility, or at least a degree of compatibility with easy migration.

 

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?

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_The Amethyst Dragon]

               

Boy, I get busy offline for the day, and everybody else gets busy online.

 

I like the idea of rolling Q content into the CEP hak structure, but I'm one of those builders that wouldn't use a CEP version that wasn't backwards compatible to 2.4.

 

I've done way too much building on my PW module using 2.4 (since I've been using that since it came out in 2011, and previous versions back to 2.1) to go through every on- and off-palette resource, and every area for painted down objects, to account for altered creature/placeable/door/etc. 2da entries.

 

I mentioned this in a PM this morning, but I'll put it here again...one concern I have is content creators that did not want some of their content that is used by Project Q included in the CEP.  It may have been mainly about personality conflicts with Barry_1066, but I wouldn't want to assume that just having someone else taking the helm would imply permission to use their works under the CEP flag without explicitly getting permissions, even if the rest of the Q content is rolled in.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Pstemarie]

               

Boy, I get busy offline for the day, and everybody else gets busy online.

 

I like the idea of rolling Q content into the CEP hak structure, but I'm one of those builders that wouldn't use a CEP version that wasn't backwards compatible to 2.4.

 

I've done way too much building on my PW module using 2.4 (since I've been using that since it came out in 2011, and previous versions back to 2.1) to go through every on- and off-palette resource, and every area for painted down objects, to account for altered creature/placeable/door/etc. 2da entries.

 

I mentioned this in a PM this morning, but I'll put it here again...one concern I have is content creators that did not want some of their content that is used by Project Q included in the CEP.  It may have been mainly about personality conflicts with Barry_1066, but I wouldn't want to assume that just having someone else taking the helm would imply permission to use their works under the CEP flag without explicitly getting permissions, even if the rest of the Q content is rolled in.

 

This being said, then the best avenue of approach is to merge the files via a new tophak, preserving the integrity of both projects. Giving priority to CEP means that some conflicting Q assets (e.g. certain phenotypes) would not be available. Merging at the expense of assets from either project is not something I'm interested in.

 

I'm not really concerned about content permission either. While it certainly would be nice, the majority of the folks that contributed to Q are either long gone, ignore emails (when their email works), or those that have responded to requests for content use outside Q always give the nod to use their content. 

 

I'm currently looking at how Andarian merged Q and CEP for Sanctum - this might be an excellent path to follow for integrating content.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_3RavensMore]

               

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?

 

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.