DEITM049.ITM Error Options

[BeachBum]

I am in the middle of installing Big World and specifcally the Lost Crossroads Spell Pack for Baldur's Gate 2 = SpellPackB5 and am encountering an error.

When trying to install the Core Files and Graphics it fails with the following error. "DEITM049.ITM: read out of bounds".

Can anyone help resolve this.

Thanks.

[Baronius]

ToD vs. UB is a wrong example. UB applies a typical antipattern which introduces very serious incompatibility risks. The only case when such errors should be fixed in other mods (rather than in the mod which introduces them) is when the mod which introduces them isn't supported any more.

If FR_ROV isn't supported any more, then you're right that fixing the problem in other mods is okay. In fact, even if it was supported but a quick reaction is required, it's OK to fix bugs like this (as they don't introduce any further risks, the file is corrupt and that's all).

However, ignoring is a completely different matter:

[..] or ignoring the problem is generally better than having 1,000,000 threads asking "how do I fix that"?

This is exactly the fundamental difference between your and e.g. BWL's Improved Anvil's philosophy. (That is, we find every detail, feature of the mod important, because seamless details are what make a mod really excellent and powerful. Of course, this depends on the mod's type as well -- I'll explain it below -- but to most mods, this is true.)

So, assuming "ELSE 0" was used, even if the file works correctly in-game, there are still two major problems:
(1) If the problem hasn't been revealed yet, such "ELSE 0" instructions just keep in hidden further. This prevents/hinders the detection of corrupt, buggy files in (possibly widely used) mods.
(2) The mod which would have failed without "ELSE 0" tried to do something with the corrupt file, which means it wanted to add/extend/modify content. In other words, modifying that file is supposed to be a feature of the mod, something which belongs to its content.

You rather prefer happy players, who don't complain or possibly put apart the mod due to the negative experience with the installation failure; happy players, who play the mod, even if with missing features of the mod. If the author of the mod is happy with this fact, then OK, it's his or her decision. Of course, it's not a disaster if a mod like SpellPack can't apply its changes to 1-2 files from the thousands of files, but as far as I've noticed, this "ELSE 0" approach has been generally encouraged to be used in TP2 of all WeiDU-based mods. There are many cases where it's totally incorrect, e.g. for mods which apply changes primarily to specific elements (rather than applying general changes to all elements of a given type).

On a side note, there is no problem with a lot of threads, because that is why patches can be released. Once it's done, it can just be linked in every thread (and obviously there won't be hundreds of threads, just a few tens at most). The patch can be added as a pinned topic.

This "ELSE 0" approach (provided it's encouraged for all TP2s, and it is) also fits to the attitude I've noticed in case of certain mod developers/sites:

"Let's suppress, disguise problems rather than undertaking the inconvenience they cause and the effort required to solve them"

It's present at different levels and in different forms (that is, not all modders follow it to the same degree).

In certain special cases, "ELSE 0" can be justified, but not generally (for example, for mods which e.g. read all BAMs in the game, it can be useful). But usually, it's not required at all. Any WeiDU tutorial content (or anything like that, such as sample code) that generally encourages the use of "ELSE 0" should be corrected, or it will be misleading, especially for new modders who search for help material and base source code for their mods.

To sum up: except in special, justified cases, I believe that preventing bugs for the sake of "successful installation" instead of recognizing and fixing them is a strongly incorrect attitude. Of course, in this concrete case (SpellPack), it might be okay (usually, for instructions such as COPY_EXISTING_REGEXP with a predictably high number of matches, it should be OK).

[The Bigg]

ToD vs. UB is a wrong example. UB applies a typical antipattern which introduces very serious incompatibility risks. The only case when such errors should be fixed in other mods (rather than in the mod which introduces them) is when the mod which introduces them isn't supported any more.

If FR_ROV isn't supported any more, then you're right that fixing the problem in other mods is okay. In fact, even if it was supported but a quick reaction is required, it's OK to fix bugs like this (as they don't introduce any further risks, the file is corrupt and that's all).

I wouldn't call neither UB nor FR_ROV maintained, since their author and maintainer are (almost) retired. True, JC and/or SC could fix them by authority (I'd have done so if I were an admin). The reason why this doesn't happen beats me, but I suppose it's related to a misguided sense of copyright. Incidentally, in the case of FR_ROV, the mod's forum contains the fix as an attachment in a post (not even a pinned one), but it hasn't been applied since forever.

On a side note, there is no problem with a lot of threads, because that is why patches can be released. Once it's done, it can just be linked in every thread (and obviously there won't be hundreds of threads, just a few tens at most). The patch can be added as a pinned topic.

I find your argument misguided. Between threads, bumps, and unrelated bumps, there are at least 300 people who have failed to read the pinned topic before asking about ar0100.bif.

This is exactly the fundamental difference between your and e.g. BWL's Improved Anvil's philosophy.

Even if the file works correctly in-game, there are still two major problems:
(1) If the problem hasn't been revealed yet, such "ELSE 0" instructions just keep in hidden further. This prevents/hinders the detection of corrupt, buggy files in (possibly widely used) mods.

I believe that FR_ROV was made in 2002 with some older teambg tool (not IEEP). I doubt that this type of file corruption is something you must watch out for in newer mods. Also, "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send." (Jon Postel, RFC 760).

(2) The mod which would have failed without "ELSE 0" tried to do something with the corrupt file, which means it wanted to add/extend/modify content. In other words, modifying that file is supposed to be a feature of the mod, something which belongs to its content.

I don't understand this from a grammar POV. Do you mean that it's morally wrong for Spellpack to alter FR_ROV, or that Spellpack will have broken features?
In meaning 1, well, it's not really the fault of ELSE 0 for a morally wrong action. In meaning 2, I believe you're misunderstanding what ELSE 0 does. Generally speaking, ITM patching code looks like

CODE

for all effects
  read the opcode
  read another parameter
  if (opcode = X) and (parameter = Y) then
    doSomething()

If an item has 6 effects but states it has 10 (deitm049's situation), then using ELSE 0 will mean that the condition in the 'if' will be automatically false for effects 6-9, whereas it'd be applied normally for effects 0-5. If your code doesn't have the 'if', then the mod will generally fail at the doSomething() step.