Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Neverwinter Nights: Enhanced Edition has been released! Visit nwn.beamdog.com to make an order. NWN:EE FAQ is available.
Soundtracks for BG:EE, SoD, BG2:EE, IWD:EE, PST:EE are now available in the Beamdog store.
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

What the hell have you people done to my beloved game?!

12346

Comments

  • lefreutlefreut Member Posts: 1,336
    realshemp wrote: »
    Kilivitz wrote: »
    Still, I wish they had done a better job when it was feasible to do so. They could at the very least prevent their promotional screenshots from displaying obvious bugs, like the vertically unaligned store panels.

    I'm sorry, maybe I'm just blind, but I can't for the life of me see anything wrong with the image you linked.

    The store panel used to be centered in the middle of the screen and in one part not split in two with one piece in the top and one in the bottom. This is not only an aesthetic change, it's also an usability change as your mouse need to travel more when you use the top panel and then want to switch panels.

    Merging the panels also mean that they could put some work to prettify the texture used.

    Something like this for example :*
    88w0ghe9k55s.png

    AndreaColomboRavenslightAdul
  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 10,578
    Yeah but in 1.3 you couldn't even do fixes like that. We were utterly stuck with the UI as it was. And if someone's about to claim that the 1.3 UI was objectively perfect and without need of improvement, congratulations, that would be the first objectively wrong opinion asserted in this thread. :wink:

    ThacoBell
  • AdulAdul Member Posts: 1,782
    edited February 21
    semiticgod wrote: »
    Now, I make mods for the IE games, and in my mods, I run into bugs now and then. But because my mods usually involve utilities rather than code, my bugfixes can be as simple as tweaking a file. That process only takes a few seconds, and discovering the bug only takes a few minutes. I work with independent parts that don't interact with each other, which means that if I tweak one thing, I don't have to worry about any weird side effects.

    But in computer science, tweaking a program is much more complex because the parts don't work independently of one another. [...]

    For modders like me, bugfixing is as simple as tweaking a file or fixing a typo in a single line of code. But for developers and programmers, bugfixing involves changing the source code itself, and that requires a lot of QA testing and other time-consuming chores to make sure you're not making things worse.

    I'm not sure where you're getting this from, but game developers don't need to touch the code to alter an object or script. They can do it the same way as you do it. The only thing that's different is that when Beamdog publishes an update, the altered files typically go into an archive instead of the override folder.
    semiticgod wrote: »
    Computer scientists routinely run into traps where fixing one bug creates another one. It's actually one of the biggest reasons why coding is such a time-consuming process. Worse yet, there are multiple potential methods of fixing a bug, each of which has its own cascading effects on the rest of the code. [...]

    As for whether this bug, or that bug, or the other bug, is understandable, that's another question. But it's worth pointing out that patching a game isn't just about changing a 1 to a 0 or replacing an old file. Patches alter the architecture of the code, and you need to test out multiple different methods of solving a problem before you actually implement it, just to make sure you don't generate new problems.

    It's the difference between replacing a brick in a wall and replacing a card in a house of cards. The problem is not that the structure is more fragile overall (though it is); the problem is that replacing a card has cascading effects. Sometimes, replacing one card means removing six old ones and adding eight new ones.

    Once again, they don't need to change the code to alter objects. A lot of bugs can be fixed without ever touching the code. And in cases where they do need to change the code, I think you're overstating the importance of the cascading effect. The whole point of object-oriented programming is to have a hierarchy of code fragments that provides you with easy access to whatever part of the program you want to change without altering unrelated functionality.

    Is it still possible to make a mistake and have unintended side-effects elsewhere? Absolutely. Is programming such a delicate task as to be akin to changing cards in a house of cards? Well, if it is, something's gone very wrong with your codebase.

    Post edited by Adul on
    Kilivitz
  • lefreutlefreut Member Posts: 1,336
    @subtledoctor And if someone's about to claim that the 2.5 UI is objectively perfect and without need of improvement, congratulations, that would be the first objectively wrong opinion asserted in this thread. :wink: :wink:

    AndreaColombo
  • sarevok57sarevok57 Member Posts: 4,192
    lefreut wrote: »
    realshemp wrote: »
    Kilivitz wrote: »
    Still, I wish they had done a better job when it was feasible to do so. They could at the very least prevent their promotional screenshots from displaying obvious bugs, like the vertically unaligned store panels.

    I'm sorry, maybe I'm just blind, but I can't for the life of me see anything wrong with the image you linked.

    The store panel used to be centered in the middle of the screen and in one part not split in two with one piece in the top and one in the bottom. This is not only an aesthetic change, it's also an usability change as your mouse need to travel more when you use the top panel and then want to switch panels.

    Merging the panels also mean that they could put some work to prettify the texture used.

    Something like this for example :*
    88w0ghe9k55s.png

    this is what my stores look like in my game:
    wvx0ai9uiy9s.png
    2xkfv48sx649.png

    and now that you mention it, i do notice the gap, but for me, it won't hinder gameplay since the gap is so small

  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 10,578
    edited February 22
    lefreut wrote: »
    @subtledoctor And if someone's about to claim that the 2.5 UI is objectively perfect and without need of improvement, congratulations, that would be the first objectively wrong opinion asserted in this thread.

    I don't follow. Who ever said anything like that? You tagged me like you are arguing but I'm not sure what the argument is?

    Post edited by subtledoctor on
  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 10,578
    Raduziel wrote: »
    Ammar wrote: »
    That is the part that bothers me. If it was a casting limitation it would both be correct per PnP and a meaningful restriction. The way it is implemented now is an annoyance to the player.

    Oh, I agree. That would be the best case scenario, but IDK if is even possible within the engine.

    It... huh. Something like thst might actually be possible. Sort of. More like a chance of the spell fizzling if the caster's INT is too low. (You could still memorize the spell though, and you would expend a memorized spell slot in the failed attempt.)

    If people would actually be interested in something like that I could look into it.

    Raduziel
  • lefreutlefreut Member Posts: 1,336
    edited February 22
    sarevok57 wrote: »
    and now that you mention it, i do notice the gap, but for me, it won't hinder gameplay since the gap is so small

    The gap changes depending on the resolution and on UI scaling on/off. In your case, it's acceptable, but in higher resolution, the gap can be big. And I don't see any advantages of the current layout so why not keep the old one?

    AndreaColomboRaduzielAdulRavenslight
  • WatchForWolvesWatchForWolves Member Posts: 158
    edited February 22
    Just dropping by to say I will fight anyone who trashtalks Baldur's Gate UI. IRL. Come at me

    RaduzielThacoBell
  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 17,492
    What's holding the 2.6 patch - some things just cannot be explained at the moment. We're sorry. While we're doing our best at being honest with the community, it's not always possible to communicate certain things.

    "We'll do X! We'll do Y!" and then simply not delivering on those promises - wrong. Beamdog has been actually delivering everything it had promised, from SoD on mobile, to the 2.5 patch for IWD:EE, to the extra localizations for BGII:EE.

    It's just that the promises don't give any ETA, and if the wait is long the community comes to conclusions.

    It looks like even the recent blog was received as if the UI promise is broken, but it's not.

    We received a number of questions about UI for the Infinity Engine Enhanced Editions games and our plans regarding it going forward. Now that the console releases are announced, we can share that we’ve been doing extensive updates to our UI system that could very possibly end up paying dividends for the PC versions into the future. For the time being, however, all of the UI work we’re doing is centered squarely around the console versions of the games, so any changes to the PC UI won’t happen for a while.

    Catmull-Rom Bicubic scaling causes all kinds of issues on mobile, this is why it was removed with 2.0. Yet, Luke says that the possibilities of bringing it back based on the constant community request are being explored.

    StummvonBordwehrtypo_tilly
  • ThelsThels Member Posts: 1,278
    "could very possibly" is very evasive though.

    Don't get me wrong, I love BGEE, BG2EE, IWDEE and BGSOD, and I love Beamdog for delivering those to us. I also do think the current implementations are in a very playable state (if you are in a position to mod away the horrible interface).

    I just don't expect much more from Beamdog in the future. That is fine. It's been ages since some of these EEs have been released.

    Raduziellefreut
  • StummvonBordwehrStummvonBordwehr Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 541
    edited February 22
    I must add that I was one of the patient iOS users, that eagerly awaited SoD for iOS.

    Many iOS-players and forumites did get impatient, and many saw the wait as a sure sign that Beamdog would abandon the IE. They where wrong, and we did get the game eventually - as promised.

    The wait is long, but I am confident that we havent seen the last from Beamdog on the IE (I feel like a 2017 echo). History may prove me wrong, but I still believe.

    Post edited by StummvonBordwehr on
    AdulSkatanrealshempSteveRogers41
  • lefreutlefreut Member Posts: 1,336
    Catmull-Rom Bicubic scaling causes all kinds of issues on mobile, this is why it was removed with 2.0. Yet, Luke says that the possibilities of bringing it back based on the constant community request are being explored.

    Maybe I remember incorrectly, but I think it's the first time I see an official answer as to why it was removed.

    AdulAndreaColomboKamigoroshiRavenslight
  • AndreaColomboAndreaColombo Member Posts: 5,266
    edited February 22
    lefreut wrote: »
    Maybe I remember incorrectly, but I think it's the first time I see an official answer as to why it was removed.

    Frankly I'm not buying it.

    Let's set aside the fact that I don't recall ever seeing a complaint about Catmull-Rom causing issues on mobile devices—I don't read every post on these boards and I might have missed them.

    Let's also set aside the fact that I seem to remember their saying they needed Bilinear to enable sprite contours and highlighting when 2.0 was released—I honestly can't be bothered to go hunt for that post, and it's been a while so I might again be mistaken.

    Why would they remove Catmull-Rom from all devices if only mobile devices were having problems? PC could have easily kept it.

    Not so easily because it would have entailed maintaining different builds, you say? But PC and mobile builds are already different and maintained separately, are they not?

    But let's say they weren't—when people complained about the blurry filter, why were they given the option to go with Nearest Neighbor (advertised as "the previous scaler" even though it had never been there in the first place) instead of an option to revert to Catmull-Rom?


    With that said, I'll put the dream to rest along with many others I had for the Enhanced Editions.

    KamigoroshiAdulRaduziel
  • AdulAdul Member Posts: 1,782
    edited February 22
    With that said, I'll put the dream to rest along with many others I had for the Enhanced Editions.

    Well, it certainly took a while, but at least we now have a 'maybe' on this one, which I suppose is more than we've had so far. (Unless I missed it before.)

    So I'm still hoping both EAX and Catmull-Rom will make it back in at some point. Not holding my breath, though.

    AndreaColombo
  • Ludwig_IILudwig_II Member Posts: 148
    edited February 23
    Are there comparison screens to show how it looks like with Catmull-Rom?

    I see it being talked a lot recently but I have no idea how it is different visually.

  • AndreaColomboAndreaColombo Member Posts: 5,266
    edited February 23
    Catmull-Rom was the scaling algo the Enhanced Editions employed at release and until 2.0. I no longer have screenshots but in a nutshell: Nearest Neighbor tends to be pixellated; Bilinear tends to be blurry; Catmull-Rom has no pixelation and minimal blur (it’s a way more advanced scaling technique.)

    If you remember what the game looked like when zoomed-in at release, that was Catmull-Rom.

    EDIT: Perhaps someone on GOG can revert to 1.3 to take a screenshot fully zoomed-in, then take the same in 2.5 and post it here?

    EDIT II: Fairly sure I actually posted comparison screenshots from IWD:EE in the past. Will try to dig them up later.

    KamigoroshiAdul
  • KamigoroshiKamigoroshi Member Posts: 4,673
    Thank you very much, @lefreut and @Flashburn .

    Best way to compare is to click on the screenshots to open a bigger version in a different tab, then switch across tabs. Nearest Neighbor looks sharp, but pixelated; Bilinear is too blurry. Catmull-Rom is like the best of two worlds. No pixelation but lots of clarity on the details. I really miss it.

    Pretty much. All that's left is a little ESRGAN treatment on the 2D backgrounds and all will giggle happily ever after. Heck, even NwN: EE really could use a bit of ESRGAN love. :)

    AndreaColomboAdulRavenslight
  • AndreaColomboAndreaColombo Member Posts: 5,266
    edited February 23
    If ESRGAN increased the size of assets too much for mobile, I'd be more than happy to download upscaled assets as a separate package, like a DLC that needs installing after the game. It would be a godsend not just on the backdrops, but on sprites, paperdolls, spell icons, and item icons as well.

    @Kilivitz correct me if I'm wrong but UI elements in the Enhanced Editions are approximately 25% bigger than in the original games. Using ESRGAN would enable us to make paperdolls, item icons and spell icons also 25% bigger (thus retaining the original proportions) with no visible loss in quality.

    For mods that restore the original paperdolls and sprites from BG1, modders could upscale the assets separately (not that I'd know anything about any such mods.)


    EDIT: To reiterate for the benefit of those less well-versed in these matters—ESRGAN and Catmull-Rom do different things and can be used in conjunction. They are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, using both simultaneously would net us the best visual quality these games could hope to achieve.

    KamigoroshiAdulLudwig_IIRavenslight
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 4,767
    Thank you very much, @lefreut and @Flashburn .

    Best way to compare is to click on the screenshots to open a bigger version in a different tab, then switch across tabs. Nearest Neighbor looks sharp, but pixelated; Bilinear is too blurry. Catmull-Rom is like the best of two worlds. No pixelation but lots of clarity on the details. I really miss it.

    It would be interesting to do a blind test of this - give a group of people say 10 different sets of screenshots of images taken using different techniques and see if there is a consistent preference. If that was the case that would be a decent argument to use that it should be adopted, even if that did cause some additional technical headaches. Looking at just these sample images myself I doubt that I would have a consistent preference (though I can see they're not identical when blown up and laid side by side). However, I appreciate that others will view them differently / more acutely (and my vision is not as good as it used to be in any case :/).

    @JuliusBorisov would that sort of test be something Beamdog would be prepared to be involved in (particularly if some of the work was done by community members)? Apart from anything else that would help demonstrate that there is indeed a willingness to consider change where there's good reason for that.

    Ludwig_IIStummvonBordwehr
  • AdulAdul Member Posts: 1,782
    EDIT: To reiterate for the benefit of those less well-versed in these matters—ESRGAN and Catmull-Rom do different things and can be used in conjunction. They are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, using both simultaneously would net us the best visual quality these games could hope to achieve.

    Hey, since Beamdog is moving on from doing EEs, maybe some other studio could come along, purchase all the rights, and release BG:EE:EE.

    Or maybe BG:REE (Baldur's Gate: REALLY Enhanced Edition)?

    Just kidding... unfortunately. :tongue:

    KamigoroshiAndreaColombosarevok57
  • Ludwig_IILudwig_II Member Posts: 148
    Thanks a lot guys. Now that I have seen the comparisons, I also agree that Catmull-Rom looks better than both of the other options. I hope they bring it back.

    But now that I've seen it, I'm curious. If this was available with v1.3, then what was the reason behind removing this functionality? Does anyone know if it was mentioned somewhere?

    AdulAndreaColomboRavenslight
  • AdulAdul Member Posts: 1,782
    @Ludwig_II Julius said this about it:
    Catmull-Rom Bicubic scaling causes all kinds of issues on mobile, this is why it was removed with 2.0.

    Ludwig_IIRavenslight
  • KamigoroshiKamigoroshi Member Posts: 4,673
    Adul wrote: »
    Or maybe BG:REE (Baldur's Gate: REALLY Enhanced Edition)?
    Baldur's Gate: Helluva Definition Edition? Now Actually Enhanced Edition? Visual Edition? As Intended Edition? One Edition To Rule Them All Edition? :p

    AdulRavenslight
Sign In or Register to comment.