The IESDP has been updated once again.

There's quite a few updates this time, if you're interested visit http://iesdp.gibberlings3.net/history.htm for a semi-complete list. If you're not interested, just visit the main IESDP site!


The IESDP is located at:
http://www.iesdp.info/

The IESDP update board is at:
http://forums.gibberlings3.net/index.php?showforum=54

Thanks for the update, igi!

But unfortunately, despite my repeated reminders and notifications here and here, you forgot to add one of the most important points about SpellNoDec and its difference with ForceSpell to the new version of IESDP.

Neither SpellNoDec nor ForceSpell require the spell to be memorized or even known (as you correctly fixed this point in the new release of IESDP), but the main and the most important difference is that SpellNoDec respects the standard delay (pause) between spells while ForceSpell doesn't.

I somehow knew that you would forget to add this point and that's why I repeatedly asked you to add it before you forget it. It will remain for the next version, I guess.

I don't believe it's important to note every aspect. Simply saying that SpellNoDec() is identical to Spell(), with the exception that the spell needn't be known/memorized, should be sufficient.

I believe that all the details must be added to the document. I (for one) faced problems and spent a lot of time to discover many important points. But I could save that precious time or spend it on coding my mods if they were written in a document. You and a few other people have surely performed your own tests and have discovered the same points independently. Now that some of us have found some important points, not to add them to the document means that others will sooner or later face the same problems and will have to perform the same tests to discover the same results.

For example, here are the descriptions of "ForceSpell" and "ReallyForceSpell" in the current (newly released) version of IESDP:




At least, these additional important information should also be added:

1- ForceSpell and ReallyForceSpell allow casting spells on partially visible creatures (which is illegal). Partially visible creatures are only subject to physical attacks, but ForceSpell and ReallyForceSpell allow casting spells on them. SpellNoDec doesn't have this problem. Of course, there are cases in which we cannot use SpellNoDec because we need ZERO spellcasting time (for example when coding chain contingencies or spell sequencers). In such cases, we have to solve this problem by adding a trigger (!StateCheck(LastSeenBy(Myself),STATE_IMPROVEDINVISIBILITY) in the same block.

2- ForceSpell and ReallyForceSpell also allow casting spell on creature who are behind closed doors!! (let alone casting spells on creatures who stand out of the spell range). SpellNoDec doesn't have this problem.

3- ForceSpell doesn't respect the standard delay (pause) between spells (while SpellNoDec does)

My point is that the document should be such that all of the differences between these different actions are clearly mentioned in it. I have tested and found them all for myself. Some other modders might have done the same. But if the document contains these important points, others will not have to spend so much time to test and discover them one by one in the future. What is the point of the document if modders will have to test everything themselves?

Now that some of us have performed these tests and have discovered these points, why not to add them to the document?

Right, so in your estimation, the IESDP must define SpellNoDec() so that all of the following are emphasized:

Unlike Spell(): the spell doesn't have to be known or memorized

Unlike ForceSpell():
the spell respects the round-based system
the spell respects the range
the spell respects game mechanics regarding spellcasting
the spell respects game mechanics regarding the target

Unlike ReallyForceSpell():
the spell respects the round-based system
the spell respects the range
the spell respects game mechanics regarding spellcasting
the spell respects game mechanics regarding the target
the spell respects casting time

Unlike ApplySpell():
the spell respects the round-based system
the spell respects the range
the spell respects game mechanics regarding spellcasting
the spell respects game mechanics regarding the target
the spell respects casting time
the spell displays standard console feedback
the spell uses the set casting glow and projectile

As well as anything else I've left out. I'm a big fan of accuracy, but more so of common sense. If SpellNoDec() is Spell() without the need to know or memorize, then all of these other points are implied.

Keep in mind that the IESDP is largely maintained by a single person and is comprised of far more than a list of the triggers and actions for BG2. If you would like to write comprehensive details of each and every scripting trigger and action available, then I'm certain it would be a welcome addition, but running around shouting "You left out the most important thing! THE PAUSE! THE PAUSE!" isn't really accomplishing anything.

ForceSpell() and ReallyForceSpell() (and ApplySpell()) allow casting on entirely invisible creatures. The only requisite is that the target exists; the engine doesn't care the visibility, state, range, or path to the target. They are all instant actions. My point, then, must be why you insist on forcing a comparison between ForceSpell() and SpellNoDec(), when SpellNoDec() is clearly an extension of Spell().

Anyway, none of this matters. igi will read your note eventually and do what he thinks is right.

I didn't run around!!

If you mean why I didn't send my comments to G3, the answer is that BWL is currently the only Forum I browse and post to. At the time being, I don't have the time to browse other forums. And fortunately, I knew that igi visits this site regularly and would see my posts. He has recently won a contest here.

Anyway, I said what I thought were in need to be said. I rest my case at this point and leave my posts on this topic for the record. Perhaps others will see what I meant or perhaps I'll see that I was wrong.

In my opinion:

SpellNoDec is: Spell without requirement of knowing the spell and without decrementing the memorised count.

The wait thing should be noted with ForceSpell. Not with SpellNoDec. IMO.
And yeah, better to collect info on the iesdp board. And with less noise elsewhere.

I understand that's it's a lot of work for igi alone to maintain the whole IESDP. It's no little effort to collect information from several sources, so I think it's a good idea to post results or links to them at the IESDP forum. However, in this case, igi was aware of these things. Perhaps he forgot to add them, or as devSin says, he didn't find it important to add all details listed by Sikret. He has right to filter the information.

However, there is another matter, and drake127 and myself did place a reminder long ago at the IESDP forum They were never added. I asked igi about it HERE and he replied that he had already added them.
If you compare IESDP's BG1 TotSC actions and the post containing drake127's and my results, you will see that important things are missing from the IESDP. (Yes CamDawg, there was a reminder placed at the IESDP forum, igi asked me to do so.) I didn't expect to use my descriptions (they may contain grammar and/or stylistic mistakes etc.), but the information itself. As I've said, the maintainer of IESDP has right to filter the information, and to leave out certain things he doesn't find important enough.
However, I do believe that facts such as character restrictions and file naming rules (research by drake127) in case of actions such as SpellRES (and others) or the unreliability of certain other actions are quite important. The IESDP descriptions are intended to help all modders, and thus such information which affects the direct functionality of commands (such as filename rules) is quite important. (So modders don't have to wonder why the spell isn't cast and spend additional time asking on forums or testing them on their own.) The descriptions I made based on drake127's and my research are accurate, so I see no reason why the information there isn't available in the IESDP descriptions.
I understand that BG1Tutu and BG2 modding and playing is much more popular nowadays, but I believe that IESDP -- as a general source of information -- should offer help to those modders as well who work with BG1(TotSC). Otherwise why does it have a BG1TotSC section?

As has already been pointed out, I do much prefer updates posted to the IESDP update board (thats what it's for). It makes it a lot easier to keep track of things. However, even when things are posted there I don't always remember to add them (see http://forums.gibberlings3.net/index.php?showtopic=6600), I am only a single person, with other things to do, and the IESDP is rather large (though people may argue, I feel I do a relatively good job of maintaining it).


For the actual matter at hand, as shown by the updates to SpellNoDec, I have taken note of the various thread scattered around and added information. I don't believe that the fact that NoSpellDec respects the casting pause needs to be mentionned - the current description doesn't say it doesn't respect the pause (nor does it even imply it).
However, if there is a consensus that this information should be stated, I'll add it (though, by extension, I'd have to add similar information to the other *Spell* actions, as I'm a stickler for consistency, and I'm seriously trying to make the IESDP more consistent within itself).
This would mean less time devoted to other aspects of the IESDP (not soley through the time spent adding the text, wihch may b relatively trivial, but the checking and confirming, and more importantly perhaps, my time and patience. I can only work on the IESDP for finiet periods of a time, whether that time be adding a few lines of text, or testing a few opcodes etc).

And what about the research related the BG1TotSC actions? Drake127 and myself introduce important points there, with much practical use. There has been a reminder on the IESDP forum for a long time, yet nothing was added from the research itself.
It's very little time, since if you don't want to edit them, you can simply copy the descriptions from HERE: no one in that thread (or elsewhere) ever notified drake or myself about any issues with those descriptions/results.

Well, you can say the same thing about "ForceSpell" as well. The current description of "ForceSpell" doesn't say whether it does or does not respect the delay between spells and doesn't say whether it allows or doesn't allow to cast spells on invisible targets and doesn't saywhether it allows or doesn't allow to cast spells on targets beyond the spell range. Is it enough for a document to stay silent about such important features? The fact that it doesn't explicitly say anything false doesn't enatil that it contains all needed information. If the document offers more or less similar descriptions for vastly different actions/commands, how do you expect a reader to understand the differences? Do you really believe that the fact that the document doesn't say false things about something is enough reason for refraining from adding more true and useful information to it.

Moreover, The differences between these actions is not limited to the delay issue. I have sent a list of the most important aspects of their differences here. Without such information, a modder would not know which action to use for a given purpose. They all have very different functionalities, while reading their descriptions in IESDP will leave modders with insufficient information.

I wouldn't have sent this post if you had simply said that you forgot to add them.