Xoid

Originally Posted By: Earth Empires My old comp which has [a] Radeon 7000… Which is more than an entire generation behind. When someone with a Radeon made within the same time-frame and running on the same operating system as the people having problems manages to run the older Geneforges without incident for extended periods of time they then will have made a point. <long mostly irrelevant rant> Originally Posted By: Earth Empires …Avernum and Geneforge share [an] engine. "Technically", so does Unreal and Unreal Tournament 3. Nonetheless, it would be disingenuous to unequivocally state that those two both run on the same engine. Nethergate ('99) and Avernum ('00) share an engine. Avernum 2 ('00) and Geneforge ('01-'02) are different engines that partially share a code base. Geneforge ('01-'02) and Avernum 3 ('02) are different engines that partially share a code base. Geneforge ('01) and Geneforge 2 ('03) share an engine. Geneforge 2 ('03) and Blades of Avernum ('04) are different engines that partially share a code base. Geneforge 2 ('03) and Geneforge 3 share an engine. Geneforge 3 ('03) and Avernum 4 ('04) share an engine. Blades of Avernum ('04) and Nethergate Resurrection ('07) share an engine†. † Hard to tell definitively. On the one hand Nethergate is just plain old, and would share oodles of code with Avernum, on the other most of that code could be easily replaced with the latest from Blades of Avernum and appears to have been. It's a fairly safe bet that Blades and Nethergate Resurrection share more code than the two Nethergates. All the games partially share assets, all the games are developed from the same ever-evolving code base; only some of them share an engine. It's not an exclusive thing either, some games could be considered to share an engine with two others that would themselves not share an engine; said game would be the 'missing link' between the two. If Jeff either put out more games or licensed the engine to others you'd start to get enough disparate games that you could get some really convoluted distinctions between which shared an engine and which did not ending in an A > B > C > A-esque paradox. It would appear based on system requirements, age, etc., that of the Avernum and Geneforge games that Avernum 5 and Geneforges 4-5 share the most code. </long mostly irrelevant rant>

Originally Posted By: Earth Empires the[r]e could be some error on your harddrive so open command prompt (start--->run--->cmd) and type chkdsk/r and reboot. Done, didn't make a scrap of difference. Not that it would, I do this sort of thing regularly.

So it's looking for a graphic that's not actually used? The older version of the 3D editor didn't ask for it. So that'd make it a remnant of a feature that was commented out originally, or that you were going to add and didn't properly excise when it didn't pan out. I'd actually be less concerned if it were the latter, the mere possibility that you uncommented some buried relic of Jeff's already less-than-stellar code gives me the heebie-jeebies. Originally Posted By: Ishad Nha should mean nothing While it doesn't seem to affect anything, I'm not sure I want to screw around with this newer version if you're not certain it's a non-issue. (No biggie, the version that KernalKnowledge12 compiled for me years back still works well enough and doesn't have the annoying 'click' sound present in every other version of the editor.)

Downloaded Ishad Nha's updated 3D editor. The window loads up, inside is solid red, this error message appears: Graphic Missing Blades of Avernum was unable to find or load graphic 4919. Make sure the editor is in the Data folder of Blades of Avernum (and not in a sub-folder). Also, make sure all graphics are where they should be. Double-checked the archive; 4919 isn't included.

Originally Posted By: SpaceCadetHX Appreciate you looking that up in your game or wherever you managed to find it online. Quickly loaded the Research Hall script, copied the relevant section, pasted it to Shanti's dialogue in the entry valley and fired up a new game. Took all of thirty seconds. No prob. As for the plated clawbug idea? I've been meaning to get around to trying a mixed group with a levelled up plated clawbug backbone. I'm of the opinion that the extra two AP they get should make each levelled up plated clawbug a downright deadly critter, especially for the essence cost. I'd love an update on how it performs.

System Specifications .OS: Microsoft Windows XP Professional, Service Pack 2 CPU: Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor E4300 @ stock speed RAM: 2GB PC2-3200 @ stock speed HDD: 320 GB Seagate Barracuda Video card: ATI Radeon HD 5700 ...Drivers: Catalyst 9.10 ..Direct X: 9.0c Yes, I'm aware both my versions of Direct X and the Catalyst drivers are out of date. I don't fix what isn't broken; Geneforge 1-4 have all run perfectly fine on this computer in the past. If anything I believe it's the sole change in hardware that's causing the problem: I switched from an ASUS 8800 GTX to an ATI Radeon HD 5700 when the GTX decided to ingloriously choke and die on me. Geneforge 1-3 run at regular speeds except when I bring up the menu or make area transitions. They're still playable but the slowdowns are noticeable and I find myself planning trips to and from zones in order to avoid the transitions. (Loading seems to work just fine, as does saving—it has to be the transitions that are causing the problem here). Alt-tabbing didn't cause problems in the past but it now causes the occasional crash with a nonsensical (and always changing) unhandled exception error in Geneforge 1-2. On a barely-related note, I'm getting the occasional VPU crash caused by Geneforge 5 when it switches resolutions. ATI's automatic VPU recovery kicks in and the resolution is changed successfully but will not revert once I close Geneforge 5. For the record I use the non-Direct X executable, and if I set my resolution correctly before firing up Geneforge 5 the VPU does not crash. The other Spiderweb Software games I play (Avernum 1-3, Blades of Avernum, Geneforge 4) run without issue.

Prices should be 'very reasonable' if you're with the right faction, otherwise they'll be exorbitant. Create Drayk will cost 1600 at the lower price. NB: aligning with the faction in question will prevent you ever being able to align with its diametric opposite, which is the reason I always avoided joining it despite the much needed training. You can always join the faction that earns you a discount at the Upper Research Halls at a later date...

Originally Posted By: WarHamster What's the quick save key? F10 to quick save. F9 to quick load. Originally Posted By: WarHamster I take it there's no way of remapping the keys[?] Correct. Originally Posted By: WarHamster Out of curiosity, what's the average lenght of G1 playthrough (when being relatively thorough, but not compulsively so)? Good question. Originally Posted By: WarHamster Is there any way to check your reputation (standing) with the various factions? Clakkit in Vakkiri can give you an idea of what your reputation is. It's also worth noting that Learned Darian can help you greatly by instantly getting you in the good graces of whichever sect you desire to join, even if you are at the opposite end of opinion for that sect. Originally Posted By: WarHamster How clever is the game with tracking your actions, i.e. will it only matter what you say to the big honchos of each faction, but not what you say or do to the 'little people' (how very shaper of me to think that way... )? In the later games there is the odd occasion that what you say will make no difference but these oversights are almost non-existent in GF1 IIRC. It is important to note that your opinions are weighted more highly when given to said head honchos. Originally Posted By: WarHamster It seems I'm no better off trying to gain experience to improve my older creations, when I can just create new and better ones with better skill. They seem to start off so much better and be cheaper to 'maintain' (essence-wise). Is this basically correct or am I misinterpreting things? The manual could have been a bit more verbose on creations, IMO. Freshly created creations get statistics equal to their level. Levelled up creations get statistics equal to their level at creation plus half of the number of levels they've got under their belt. As such, a freshly made creation of higher level is nearly always superior to babysitting creations to high levels. (Note that this is only true in GF1, in GF2-5 creations' base statistics are always equal to half their level.) Save your game, check your current creations statistics, absorb 'em, recreate 'em, compare the new to old and reload if necessary.

I'm sort of sceptical... *reads their About Us page* ...sold! I've been wearily eyeing GOG for quite a while but never had both the time and inclination to do my homework on them. I just went through their catalogue and while they don't have the one game in particular I'm thinking of, I am impressed that they have such good taste. (Arcanum? Baldur's Gate? Blake Stone? Blood? Blood II? Castles? Castles II? Painkiller? UFO: Aftermath? No really, I am impressed, and those are only the games I already owned and not... *ahem*.) The major reason I've never purchased some games is because their rightful owner passed on and they're now owned by some rich fat-cat—I have absolutely no compunction about pirating works when their creators aren't going to get reimbursed for it anyway. The fact that these games are recompiled to run natively on newer versions of Windows makes the purchase worthwhile even in those cases.

I remember someone taking Baldur's Gate II's assets and trying to shoehorn them into Icewind Dale II's updated Infinity Engine (higher resolutions, updated lighting and particle effects, D&D 3E ruleset, etc.). I think it's the same guy who was behind WeiDU, but don't quote me on that. He had some moderate success, and could probably get it mostly working had he a ridiculous amount of time. Pretty sure that's not quite what you meant though. IWDII is getting pretty long in the tooth too, truth be told. I haven't been able to get it working in years. Seems to be a problem common to games of that era: you can get things that are just old enough to run via emulators or compatibility settings, you can run the newest stuff natively, but there's a big gap between the two. I own so many games that I can't play because they're too complicated for an emulator to run them fast enough and there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of getting them to run natively since they depend on bug-for-bug compatibility with older versions of Windows, Direct X, and in some cases even drivers.

AFAIK, unlike in previous games luck isn't checked for in any scripts in GF5. It also doesn't affect item drops like in GF1 (and possibly GF2). Luck was seemingly nerfed this time 'round. Luck boosts resistances by 1% each point, adds 2% to your chance to hit, and decreases the chance you get hit by 2%. I think these numbers differ for each game in the series. Since the first two points are almost free it won't hurt any, but it's not something I'd bother pumping point after point into. (Though you could try pumping points into luck almost exclusively and keeping every piece of +luck equipment around... it could be a viable build but I doubt it.)

Originally Posted By: Alorael Actually, I think Fallout 1 and 2 are in need of remaking. No, they're not so ancient that they absolutely need it, but the engines were clunky then, they seem even clunkier now, and there are fantastic games under the clunk. I know there are those who disagree and think the engine is fabulous, but I also think they're in the minority. Just the engine itself, or also the mechanics behind it? The mechanics could certainly be tweaked but SPECIAL wasn't that bad overall.

Captain Bhara, Lerman's Pass.

Assuming that abilities on weapons work the same as on creations, stun should proc. on every hit, but can be (silently) resisted. Going by the stats... the Stunning Blade is a 6th level weapon, Stunblade has a base effect of 3, and you should get +1 per level of attack strength (for swords and the like this is Strength + Melee Weapons). You should inflict 3 + 6 + Str + MeW levels of stunning. If abilities on weapons don't work the same way, but are instead a flat addition you'd only inflict 3 levels of stun. For comparison, freshly made with minimum possible bonuses a glaahk should be level 23 (Create Glaahk @ 1 + Magic Shaping @ 2 + base level [20]). Stunning Blow has a base effect of 6, and a glaahk has 10 levels in that ability. A level 23 glaahk will also have 11 strength, giving a total attack strength of 6 + 10 + 11 = 27 levels of stunning.

It always bugged me that the NPCs you could recruit would not only be several levels below you by the time you could get to them, but had poor skill allocations to boot. I always figured that you'd be getting someone halfway competent to join you and instead they're simply lacklustre. This bugged me, so I decided to revamp 'em. I built characters using an 80cp 'blank' of the NPC's respective origin, then spent about 3,300 gold on training (which is about the upper limit of what you could have spent on any individual PC's training by the time you reach Vanarium). The changes to the NPCs are made at the moment you recruit them, so as long as you haven't gotten them already you should be fine if you've overwritten the original script with my modded version. I also gave Rhian some basic spells, but it's been ages since I made this mod so I can't remember which ones exactly. I do remember trying to choose useful ones without going overboard, so you shouldn't worry about her being stocked up on nether spells. I could release this mod as-is—I have played the game from start to finish with both sides with this mod—but I'm worried that the t17Vanariumdlg.txt scripts (Celt and Roman) might have been updated in the years that have passed since I made the mod. (I don't know what I'm worrying about really, it's not like Jeff patches his games often, amirite?) What the hell. Here it is: Recruitable NPCs.zip

I'm certain that Gottesch used canisters. It says it in his description, he says it himself, and there are plenty of used canisters littered throughout the temple he took over.

Quote: Taken from my write up on data types: The void data type has been partially verified. Using the functions such as void print_num(short num) where short calls a function that also returns void, BoA will display the error message "Empty expression in line %d". %d, for those unfamiliar with programming, is simply a placeholder an integer. The calls that I suspect don't return void... when used as the argument for the print_num() function, I get the error message "Bad term in expression in line %d."

The bad news about corescendata errors is that they're fixable by the designers. Every scenario data file will get bloated by corrections that should be put into the corescendata files. Yeah, sure, a small text file might not seem like much with compression and a fast internet connection, but think of how many times a scenario will be downloaded. (Especially if they have to include bugfixes for the corescendata files in them, because Jeff never bothers to make an official correction to corescendata.) It's an unnecessary waste of bandwidth.

There is something to be said for brevity, but only when it's called for. I'm trying to keep things clear, concise and consistent. I'll put detailed descriptions when they are called for. If anyone thinks that examples for every call would be of great assistance, then I'll add one. It's only a call to the example template, and a sentence or two, after all. The main issue would be: is it necessary to have an example for every call? About the calls that I experimented with: Acted like functions that return the void data type: reset_dialog() reset_dialog_preset_options(short dialog_options) turn_on_debug_mode() Acted differently to all other functions so far, except themselves. (I'm calling this the "unknown" data type): print_big_str(string str,short num_to_print,string str2) print_big_str_num(string str,short num_to_print,string str2,short color) My thoughts on these calls: From my growing knowledge of C, functions that work with strings are... different to all other functions, generally doing wierd stuff. the data type returned here, were Avernum written in any other language than C, would seem to be the string data type. In all likelyhood, it is probably not. Admittedly, Jeff may be using a flavour of C that I am unfamiliar with, which would be most of them. On top of that, I'm far from proficient in C, it's way outside of my comfort zone at this point in time. Of course, if one were willing to do what is an illegal act, you could decompile Blades of Avernum to determine (approximately, anyway) what is going on. A couple of legal alternative to this would be: Exhaustive testing. Ask Jeff.

By the dictatorial powers invested in me, I proclaim that this endeavour be known as "the great editing", by future generations. (Hey, since the only person to even bother commenting on this was Kelandon, and since I'm likely going to be doing most of this myself, a little bit of hubris seems appropriate.) I've decided to recreate the documentation, in it's entirety, under the AvernumScript name. God forbid that I actually get anywhere with this today, but a little bit has been done so far (mostly in the appendix), but it's 4:52AM and I'm getting tired. God forbid that I decide to do this at normal hours. God forbid that, as a staunch atheist, I use the phrase God forbid too much. Oops, too late. EDIT 1: I've done a little 'testing' into what certain calls return, specifically, the calls that didn't list anything, not even void. Three of them act like calls that return voids, two of them do not. To learn how a function that returns the void data type acts, I experimented with about 5 calls that the documentation claims return the void data type. (The two had something to do with strings, IIRC. I'll provide more accurate information when I'm not so tired.) EDIT 2: Corrected some grammatical errors and spelling mistakes.

I managed to reproduce the bug, so I'm pretty certain that it's the editors themselves. This is probably just another case of: "I'm perpetually lazy, so I'll just slightly modify the code to the previous game/edtior I released and hope for the best.", commonly known as "Jeff's code sucks."

I'm open to scenarios made using mostly stock monsters, if they are well written, masterfully scripted, etc. I have no problems with a scenario consisting almost entirely of daemons, I could even find a scenario with a million of them enjoyable—if you can come up with an exceptionally good reason for their presence. I somehow doubt anyone could come up with any reasonable justification for that many daemons, but if they can, more power to them, I suppose.

NOTICE: I'm organising a cleanup of: Blades of Avernum Script Reference . Anyone who feels like participating can. Please see Talk:Blades of Avernum Script Reference for more information.

I never said the trial cost anything, only that "apparently it requires a credit card". If that is incorrect, then one of the posts on the two sites I linked to was incorrect. I objected to the company demanding my email address for a download, and having the gall to force junkmail down my throat. (Their disclaimer says they'll send you promotions. They can take that and StuffIt right up their...) so I didn't even get far enough to verify if they require a credit card. WinRAR is a program that can compress/decompress RAR files. Kinda logical since the RAR format was designed by the guy who makes it. Linky: DOSRAR's & WinRAR's " Homepage ". Incidentally, if you're looking for killer compression, try UHarc or it's more mature command line version. Or if you don't mind a six day decompression, maybe the *.paq format is more to your tastes.

Quote: Originally written by Aran: Also, the website CPeters linked to appears to be a good few years older in terms of updates than the Wikipedia entry on gifs. Therefore, if the Wiki entry says the patent expires soon, I'd be inclined to believe them... I deliberatley linked to an older site because I wanted to show the controversy that lead to the people abandoning the *.gif format. I had erroneously assumed it was common knowledge that the patent was ending. From various sources I've read, the patent has already expired in some countries, and there are of course, countries that care nothing for patents. Quote: Originally written by Niemand: CPeters: Ok, I didn't need a lecture... Well you're going to hate this then... Quote: Originally written by Niemand: ...all you had to do was tell me that the file I was trying to get Windows users to download was a .sit file. I'll be happy to swap the code .sit files for .zip files. There are enough reasons here and here as to why I hate StuffIt. My most legitimate concerns are that the *.sit format is both propriety and inefficient. Despite that, I looked up the Windows version and attempted to download the "free trial". Requiring me to provide my email address was enough for me to seek an alternative. Apparently they need a credit card too for Windows users. And the windows version is bloated, they did a poor job of porting the mess. Perhaps the reason you are satiated with StuffIt is simply because Mac does not have the sheer number of applications developed for it that Windows does. When you've got a thousand and one programs to choose from, you tend to get picky.