Fichier reçu et désarchivé : il y avait bien un problème de taille du fichier wed dans ta première version, sans doute "généré" au cours de son extraction ou de son archivage. Peu importe, quoi qu'il en soit, cette nouvelle version fonctionne. Heureusement car elle concerne mes fameux lacs de lave !Salomon Kane a écrit :Je te renvoie le AR.8001 en CBF
OK, Je vais m'occuper du reste ... ; )salomonkane/Gwendo a écrit :Je te renvoie le AR.8001 en CBF/
Fichier reçu et désarchivé/Merci
Gwendo a écrit :J'ai fini par identifier le bug de ma dernière animation :
-Tu parles de ceux recensés par Erephine, dans sa notice concernant ces outils ?J'avais oublié tous les bugs de BAMWorkshop 1 et 2 !
-Merci Bien .Fini tes licornes roses !
: J'y pense : je ferai un "lot" lorsque je mettrai à jour le tuto et le transfèrerai dans une rubrique autonome.-A l'occasion un retour et une mise à jour des bugs connus serait bienvenue .
Les palettes définissent les couleurs de chaque pixel des bams : si elles ne sont pas définies correctement, tu te retrouves avec tes fichiers bams sans couleur, ou représentant un grand n'importe quoi. Cf. tes essais ratés précédents... La technique que je t'ai donnée fonctionne à 150 % avec la création de bams issus de fichier .gif.D'ailleurs je n'ai toujours pas compris l'importance des palettes en général et concernant la Licorne en particulier ... ?
Erreur : le second post renvoie à tes fichiers sons. Quant au premier, je n'y ai trouvé aucun fichier d'animation de Draco-Liche, juste un fichier image. À moins que je l'ai loupé...P.S :En savoir plus, avec à la clef le fichier Animation de La Dracoliche qui cherche preneur ... :
http://www.shsforums.net/topic/43708-po ... _p__495462
http://www.shsforums.net/topic/43708-po ... _p__526152
-Nickel.Gwendo a écrit :J'y pense : je ferai un "lot" lorsque je mettrai à jour le tuto et le transfèrerai dans une rubrique autonome.
D'ailleurs, j'ai déjà presque 2 pages de rectif à mettre à jour...
-Ah, OK .Les palettes définissent les couleurs de chaque pixel des bams : si elles ne sont pas définies correctement, tu te retrouves avec tes fichiers bams [corrompues]
-Super.La technique que je t'ai donnée fonctionne à 150 % avec la création de bams issus de fichier .gif.
-En effet il s'agit là du soundset de la Dracoliche de POR 2, très bien désigné d’après moi .le second post renvoie à tes fichiers sons.
http://www.baldursgateworld.fr/lacouron ... post279166Luren a écrit :[Tapis volant:]Non, tu vas te prendre un mur - invisible qui plus est -, ça risque de faire mal !
Petite explication : Les zones dans lesquelles les personnages peuvent se déplacer sont définies via un fichier spécifique, relié au fichier .are, où chaque couleur définit des types de zones dans une carte (ainsi d'ailleurs que l'environnement sonore qui y est attaché). Si ta map s'appelle AR5600.are, le fichier en question s'appellera AR5600SR.bmp. Un obstacle sera en gris, une zone de neige en jaune (et lorsque les pj marcheront dessus, le bruit des pas sera adapté), etc...Il s'agit d'un fichier .BMP en couleurs indexées sur 4 bits (16 couleurs). C'est ce qui fait que tes personnages ne marchent pas dans les arbres, dans les rochers ou dans les murs. Toutes les animations des PJ et des monstres subissent cette contrainte, et l'on ne peut pas la changer.
Seules les rares animations, décoratives, des oiseaux sont affranchies, mais elles ne peuvent rien faire, et se réduisent à une image fixe qui est déplacée (vol plané) et une mini animation de mouvement d'aile (vol battu).
Et puis, il est impossible d'associer des animations entre elles (pj + tapis ou autre), de créer de nouveaux mouvements d'animation (monter, descendre, voler...) car ils sont codifiés pour chaque fichier .bam d'une animation et chaque type d'animation (monstre, animal, pj).
Zimage
Il est tout à fait envisageable de - franchir le Mur du Code - , ça fait du bienCommentaire de franco_sele 18/12/2006 17:59:26 :mais dans ce cas, j'ai 2 petites questions:
1/ comment compte-tu gerer les limites de mouvement du perso ( s'il marche, il sera limité par les murs par ex)
2/ avec une map pre-dessinée, comment passer derriere un arbre ? ... a moins de faire un map "fond" et une autre "1er plan", transpartante ... mais ds ce cas un systeme de tiles aurait été plus simple ....
, ! :
Zimage
Zimage
Zimage http://www.shsforums.net/topic/44311-what-id-like/Mod Idea 1) Special Ability : Defence
Mod Idea 2) Special Ability : Soft Knock
Mod Idea 3) Special Ability : Fatality
Mod Idea 4) Weapon Proficiency : Unarmed Attack Style
Mod Idea 5) Multiclass Option : Fighter/Cleric/Thief
Mod Idea 6) Expanded Weapons Slots
Mod Idea 7) Expanded GUI
Mod Idea 8 ) Realms fighting styles
Mod Idea 9 ) Non-Weapons Proficiencies
Mod Idea 10 ) Socketed Items
Mod Idea 11 ) Expanded Sound Set/ Expanded Ambiant Sound
Mod Idea 12 ) Expanded Team
Mod Idea 13 ) Optionnal Feature: Race/Faction
Mod Idea 14 ) Custom Humanoid CRE
Mod Idea 15 ) Throwing Weapon Switch
Mod Idea 16 ) Alignement Compass
Mod Idea 17) Localized Damage
Comme convenu je me suis fendu de mon post concernant nos tribulations dans la rubrique: To the Modders :-)A l'heure de la parution de Baldur's Gate I Enhanced Edition, je propose de faire le point sur les obstacles rencontrés tout au long de ce Projet et les relayer auprès des développeurs de BGEE
http://forum.baldursgate.com/post/quote ... mment_8351Hello to the modding community & enhanced edition team,
In our case through the devellopement of different projects around the infinity engine
(editor, campaign, media ...),
We want to know whether there were plans to provide or improve the following elements :
First, of course, an Editor and Campaign Tools Modding . (1)
Then,
Please give us the possibility to create and/or add :
1) Means of Locomotion
(It hurts to see, because of the indexing system maps, all our characters wander large areas,
then they exist : the flying carpet, horses and spelljammer's spaceships in the world of Faerun) (2)
2) More Familiars / Familiars customizable (3)
(For the same reasons, it seems that we can not create familiars that can accompany us through the maps)
3) More Slots in the engine for New Animations
(Considering the existing potential of 2d/3d animations from the isometric games, and creativity of the artists/modders, why deny it ?) (*)
4) Improve Animations for Birds
(In fact we would like to improve the diversity and render of these animations too static for our taste) (4)
5) Animations of Large Sizes and easy to integrate
(To import new : we find it is very difficult to be limited to 256x256, not to mention the complexity of animations as the dragon very difficult thing to restore) (5)
And so : exceed the limits on the number of slots, maps indexation, animations sizes, and customization etc.,
"Vers l'Infini et Au-Delà" ... : ) .
(1) : http://www.teambg.org/forum/index.php/topic,325.0.html
: http://www.teambg.org/forum/index.php/topic,108.0.html
: http://www.baldursgateworld.fr/lacouron ... post291584
(2) : http://www.baldursgateworld.fr/lacouron ... post289990
(3) : http://www.baldursgateworld.fr/lacouron ... post279221
(4) : http://www.baldursgateworld.fr/lacouron ... post280054
(5) : http://www.baldursgateworld.fr/lacouron ... post290207
: http://www.baldursgateworld.fr/lacouron ... post278953
: http://forums.gibberlings3.net/index.ph ... 24006&st=0
(*) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goSPqYAb ... r_embedded
Cuv a écrit :Fair enough, thanks for some clarification.
Yes, my main concern is making sure that mods can plug in just as easily to the core platform as they do with the original work. If there are engine changes (which is likely), then modders should be informed if modding is truly to be taken into consideration. And remember that this is BG1 first. Most of the conversation I see concerns BG2 changes or fixes which will be later. It would be nice to take into consideration animation slots, but that is for BG2EE.
I am an old modder and have seen people take credit for things they did not fully do themselves. Modders WILL mod this! How easy a time they have depends on the information given by the developers. New tools will, no doubt, need to be written. The days of TeamBG are long gone and all that programmer energy along with it. New joinable NPC's are a dime a dozen because they are easy to do. Not sure where I am going with this, so will stop and end with a short list of 'wants'.
1. Insert code into the exe for all of the IWD format animations so modders can easily make use of them. That information can be found in the ANISND.ids from BG2. They are the 'M' series animation slots. While at it, insert code to handle writing directly to add more slots. When BG2 is done, the reverse should be true. Add all the missing animation slots that existed in BG1 (I am looking at you, Basilisk). Anyone with a Hex editor can look at the exe and find out what to name their 'new' animations and make use of them.
2. More on animations: Insert the code to accept the un-modified creature animations straight from Planescape:Torment. It should also be covered under whatever DnD/License agreement was accepted to modify and enhance BG1. I spent 4 years converting them all to the 'm' IWD format, but a straight insertion would be preferable. Might as well have all animations available for both BG1 and BG2 in both enhanced versions.
3. Character animations: No need to actually incorporate new character races as some posters have suggested. Just put the code into the exe to handle them. How they are designated can be up to the modders. You have the freedom to add as many slots as you want... so add 20! Simple incremental numbering can suffice as their designations can be determined by the modders. Modders DO manage themselves and prefixes can be reserved to prevent incompatibility for quest mods.
4. Incorporate Detectable Spells in both BGEE and BG2EE which was developed at IEEAIS by Kensai Ryu and the gang.
5. Implement the Xyx-manuever into the enemy AI. Ask Dave Gaider if you dont know what that does. Contact me if you need that stuff or want clarification. Also put in the AI for Xyx's Smart Beholders when you get to BG2EE.
6. Get rid of the green water background in BG1. It serves no purpose if you change the overlay color to that of BG2 and only serves to annoy modders.
7. Keep the chitin.key readable by InfExp and Near Infinity (and DLTCEP too).
8. Do NOT change the area bitmap format as there are no other tools to build new areas reliably besides IETME and DLTCEP. Changing that format would require someone to alter Theo's program, and I am not sure he can even be contacted for the source code. That would require a new program to be written delaying modding. Or... give us a full area editor!
9. More scripting functions... but alas, I cant remember exactly what was missing that I really wanted to have available at this time. I'm sure it will come to me. I am mostly retired from modding bg and bg2, but I am not dead yet. You can find my posts at SHS (or anywhere else), but alas I cannot go there any more as my feeble old brain has forgotten the password.
That is all I can think of at the moment. Perhaps someone else has more ideas to add to this list. If a developer wants specific exe hex code information, I will happily get that information for them but wont post it in a forum.
cmorgan a écrit :That entirely depends... recoding using what?
If weidu is able to parse and work with BG[1,2]:EE, and it is a matter of a state or two being moved, there may not be any real hassle. If the dialog states are rebuilt and reordered from the ground up, or weidu is unable to be adapted to match a new format is to be used, there could be some serious difficulties with adapting. An entirely new adventure-tool would be awesome] For the more "technically minded" folks, this is a direct question to the developers/coders currently working on the project, as it does have an impact on the folks still developing mods for the older games (myself included). The challenge with a rebuild of dialog has two technical points: dialog state ordering and accessible dialog tools.
[Expansion]
Right now, modders have WeiDU to work with, and the dialog structure that BG/BG2/BG2:ToB .dlg files shipped with. If a number of mods that expect that dialog state 104 in file BMINSC.DLG to be about x, and suddenly it is state Y, then the teething pains adapting mods to BG[1,2] become strong. Not insurmountable, for anything but the big projects, like BG1NPC, but strong. Many mods create multiple interjections and leverage this dialog structure; string contents change, but the state orders do not.
{to make sure everyone is on the same page, I am not talking about strings:
string #5050572 = ~Hi there. I am a text reference spoken by Minsc. Boo is busy right now.~ [SOUNDREF]
I am talking about states:
In the string example, a rewriting of the string is no big deal - it most likely matches the original intent; mods that rely on that string to find the relevant state will just need to add the new content to be able to find that state and patch in the mod-added dialog. (Assuming weidu can still do the job. If we are in a new toolset, then we are back to rebuilding things by hand.)Code : Tout sélectionner
IF WEIGHT [url=http://forum.baldursgate.com/search?Search=%237&Mode=like]#7[/URL] /* Triggers after states #: 6 7 13 20 21 22 23 even though they appear after this state */ ~NumTimesTalkedTo(0) ReactionGT(LastTalkedToBy,NEUTRAL_UPPER) !Dead("Dynahe") ~ THEN BEGIN 0 // from: SAY [url=http://forum.baldursgate.com/search?Search=%23476&Mode=like]#476[/URL] IF ~~ THEN REPLY [url=http://forum.baldursgate.com/search?Search=%23489&Mode=like]#489[/URL] GOTO 3 IF ~~ THEN REPLY [url=http://forum.baldursgate.com/search?Search=%23490&Mode=like]#490[/URL] GOTO 4 IF ~~ THEN REPLY [url=http://forum.baldursgate.com/search?Search=%23491&Mode=like]#491[/URL] GOTO 2 END
In the Minsc state, it is the ordering of 0, 1, 2, etc. within the file. Current mods operate by referent to that state number, adding, changing, or manipulating the surrounding parameters and possible transitions. Repairing the malformed "Dynahe" is no big deal - changing the content of the strings to something similar is no big deal - even adding additional replies is no big deal. But changing the order of the replies is a big deal, or reordering the states directly instead of manipulation by weights, so that state 0 is now actually
it becomes less a question of porting a mod and more a question of building from scratch.Code : Tout sélectionner
IF WEIGHT [url=http://forum.baldursgate.com/search?Search=%237&Mode=like]#7[/URL] /* Triggers after states #: 6 7 13 20 21 22 23 even though they appear after this state */ ~NumTimesTalkedToGT(0) ~ THEN BEGIN 0 // from: SAY [url=http://forum.baldursgate.com/search?Search=%232795&Mode=like]#2795[/URL] IF ~~ THEN EXIT END
}
If dialog structure is pretty much retained, and new quest/NPC entries are added to BG:EE in similar ways to current usage, then the states that the current mod base utilize as a formal common skeleton will still be there, and as far as NPC and Quest mods (not the technical mods) go the process of adapting should be fine. If not, then we would need a roadmap of the new dialog states and create a way of remapping existing content; that is assuming that the dialog structure is retained in any similar way.
[Clarification]
The whole idea of a rebuilt BG game is exciting. This is not about clinging to old structures and resistance to new coding - this is about making a space for the 10+ years of modding that has added to the game. Specifically, it is about highlighting the primary challenges to an existing i.e. modder looking at moving content into the enhanced version. My hope is that the dialog structure has been retained, and that the developers have taken a look at the types of things that weimer and the bigg at PocketPlane have done to support inter-mod dialog cooperation (something that most new games do not do as well as they have).
/Edit: Sure thing on adding the technical folks, @AndreaColombo, thank you for suggesting that: @CameronTofer @ScottBrooks @KeithS
De plus pour peu qu'on soit motivé il semblerait que les devellopeurs soient soucieux de prendre en considération les desideratas des modeurs pour peu qu'ils sachent les exprimer avec précisions ... :CamDawg a écrit :The wants and needs of modders are not different from players--we wouldn't have bothered to mod a game we didn't like, after all--so I'm not sure a separate thread is really warranted.
Almost all of what I would want has already been amply addressed in the bug forum. Primarily, I'd love to see the engine bugs we couldn't touch in Fixpack (or in ToBEx) get addressed. Secondarily, if we break out some of the hardcoded areas of the engine into moddable 2da/ids files (subraces, more kits? Yes, please), even better. If that means we break some mods it's well worth it.
On the other hand, I'd ignore the majority of threads in the feature request forum. I think some improvements are necessary--improved graphics, higher native resolutions, UI changes--but I'm very dubious about trying to include AI improvements, unfinished quests, new content, etc. It's not very sexy to have an Enhanced Edition where most of the enhancements are under the hood but I think the downside potential of changing the core BG experience too much is not really worth it.
Anyone who knows me will recognize this as the unapologetic, conservative view of someone who a) had to referee a lot of modders under the Fixpack umbrella and b) communicate (and occasionally defend) those fixes to an equally diverse group of players.
Alors Gwendo, Luren, and Co., allez y jeter un oeil (si ce n'est déjà fait), peut être que vous aussi vous y trouverez matiére à reflexion et progression à relayer et surtout "to have a fun", car c'est pas tous les jours qu'un Baldur's Gate pointe le bout de son nez ... :laugh:AndreaColombo a écrit :[Request] Master Thread of Externalization Requests
I'm starting this thread to put together all requests to externalize (i.e. make soft-coded) one or more aspects of the game so that they can be modded. Although this thread is especially geared toward modders for their obviously superior insight on the matter (making some aspects of the game moddable falls well within their needs and desires, after all), anyone is welcome to contribute their requests.
Ce qui supposerait que dans l'absolu les animations créées et figurant dans Infinity Animations et celles qui nous occupent ici pourraient se voir intégralement intégrées au sein d'un Mod ... [happy ^ ^] ... dans BG1, et peut être à terme au delà ... ( dans l'ensemble des jeux IE ?, BG2 Enhanced ?, BG3 ? )AndreaColombo a écrit :[INDENT]salomonkane said:
3) More Slots in the engine for New Animations
[/INDENT]
Hi @solomonkane,
this has already been request here and is being considered for implementation.
You may want to check out the Master Thread of Externalization Requests too.
Ca permet de centraliser les references concernant les limites supposés et planifier d'eventuelles requêtes au grée de nos avancées .un article intitulé "Hardcoded limitations of the engine" qui recensait sur SHSWiki les limitations d'IE, le 5 Octobre 2007.
Cette liste (2007) est obsolète : ToBEx et Infinity Animations ont réglé une partie des problèmes (le nombre de kits, de slots d'animations, de musiques disponibles par exemple).Salomon Kane a écrit :P.S.
je rajoute ici cette trouvaille de Freddy_Gwendo :
Ca permet de centraliser les references concernant les limites supposés et planifier d'eventuelles requêtes au grée de nos avancées .
Pas grand chose, je me suis accommodé des restrictions du moteur. Quant à la structure des fichiers bam d'animation, si le fil n'avance pas, la recherche progresse. Je l'alimenterai bientôt avec du contenu vérifié et re-vérifié.D'ailleurs,
Question :
Par rapport au Mod et en général qu'est ce qui serait le plus utile de savoir ?,
Comme ici par ex :
http://www.baldursgateworld.fr/lacouron ... stres.html
Utilisateurs parcourant ce forum : Aucun utilisateur enregistré et 0 invité
Pourquoi les Ordres de Paladins ne comportent-ils que des hommes ? Et si tout ceci n'était qu'une fable racontée par les mâles pour dissimuler la vérité ? Ce mod tente de rétablir la vérité, du moins SA vérité...