UB bug still present in v16, [split by Baronius] Options

[Baronius]

The bug was known for v15 already. Wouldn't it be easier to fix it in UB itself?

[This topic was split from this]

[Baronius]

Okay, so since I don't really want to get into a long discussion about who said what where (not least because those things never end well) I'll leave it there.

As I said, it's a general phenomenon -- it's not about jsut some statements of certain individuals. You surely also know that the best propaganda is a propaganda you don't notice. In other words, the best propaganda is what makes you believe there is no propaganda; it's all implicit and builds on the credulence of players and starter mod developers.

It's a question of definition, but I agree with you -- in this topic, I've never said it's a fixpack "bug" that it may break other mods.

Well, the UB bug that is denounced in the title this very thread is a compatibility problem with ToD et similia which doesn't cause problems in-game.

As I've said, it's a question of definition. In that case, I used the "bug" in that meaning, but it doesn't change on anything, it's indifferent. I could as well say "UB is presenting an incompatibility risk by overidding the original game's element when it's not necessary at all", that is, it's bad practice. The reason it became an illustration is that the G3 Fixpack seems to do the same -- but to a great degree, unlike UB.

a compatibility problem with ToD

A potential compatibility problem with all mods that are based on the original game (and well, mods are based on the original game). plainab's code solves it, but as I've descibed in that long post, you can't base your whole mod on hundreds of intelligent code blocks, because a (big or complex) mod -- when working according to the wishes of its author -- assumes too many intact original game elements.

On a side note, if you (possibly also) wanted to express that I contradicted myself, then, well, I didn't:

It's a question of definition, but I agree with you -- in this topic, I've never said it's a fixpack "bug" that it may break other mods.

Well, the UB bug that is denounced in the title this very thread is a compatibility problem with ToD et similia which doesn't cause problems in-game.

Which means I didn't use the term "bug" to refer to the incompatibility risks caused by G3 FP. It was used for UB, indeed. But it doesn't matter at all, it doesn't change on anything -- it's a matter of definition.

G3 FP won't break more mods or won't break less mods if we define "bug", "fix" etc. in a different way (unless its developers start to use e.g. my definition of "fix" to build/revise G3 FP, of course).

-------------------------------------------------

@TheBigg: what you said about testing is all true and nice. However, we're talking about IE mod projects. Not about huge and complex software projects. Although IE modding seems to be difficult (and indeed, it isn't easy for beginners, especially because it's a hobby for most mod developers and they lack preliminary skills in certain fields), it can't be compared to the real software projects that are being commercially developed. Although it's very beneficial, there is no need for very skilled "real" software testers in order to find the obvious and a few less obvious bugs in an Infinity Engine mod. A few people who dedicate some time and play the game carefully (and make typical tests according to the developers' specifications) are often enough to find many obvious bugs.

(However, as I've emphasized earlier -- but perhaps not in this topic --, proper testing would be just one crucial thing for the G3 fixpack; categorizing "fixes" and revising the mod would be another must. Furthermore, before applying a new "fix", it should be examined compatibility-wise.)