Fallout Editor poll thread..

Saint_Proverbius · Post by **Saint_Proverbius** » Tue Aug 13, 2002 8:36 am

[Game -> Update]

On The Bounce has informed me there's a <a href="http://feedback.blackisle.com/forums/sh ... >thread</a> on the <a href="http://feedback.blackisle.com/">BIS forum</a> where the fuzzy and lovable Chris Avellone asks wether we'd rather have the editing stuff for <a href="http://interplay.com/fallout/">Fallout</a> and <a href="Http://interplay.com/fallout2/">Fallout 2</a> now or wait for documentation.<blockquote>I'm posing this poll as a hypothetical question. No action may come from it, but I am curious what you guys would think about BIS releasing the Fallout editors.But before you cast your vote, some disclaimers.One, these editors are not the holy grail. You will not suddenly have a light shine down on you from above and allow you to instantly create any Fallout scenario you require - especially since scripting and dialogue are a different beast altogether. Furthermore, after playing around with the editors for five minutes, you may discover that your eyes are bleeding and a strange rash is forming on your fingers - and whatever you do, don't scratch.Two, BIS could not offer on-line support at this time or even provide the support documentation required anytime soon. The few people (maybe 2) who even remember how to use it are currently very busy with in-house projects. Given a few months, we might be able to put some documentation together, but our ability to support it on-line is unlikely.Three, this wouldn't include the source code.</blockquote>Oh, yeah, and releasing the editors, BTW, was JE Sawyer's idea.. Basically to get the <a href="http://interplay.com/fallout/">Fallout</a> fans off their back. Who says persistence doesn't pay off?Personally, I'd hold out for the source code since there's a lot of stuff hardcoded in to the engine itself, but that's just me.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Tue Aug 13, 2002 10:15 am

Not really related to the subject, but there's an error in the post. The link to the thread is broken; you wrote 'http://' twice.

Saint_Proverbius · Post by **Saint_Proverbius** » Tue Aug 13, 2002 11:03 am

All fixed.

Kreegle · Post by **Kreegle** » Tue Aug 13, 2002 12:34 pm

Praise be to MCA!

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Tue Aug 13, 2002 3:16 pm

Well at least this shows if we keep nagging for another 2 or so years we'd get fallout 3....

anyway

Either would be nice. Plus the advantage over the fot editors is that a lot more people have fallout.

Flamescreen · Post by **Flamescreen** » Tue Aug 13, 2002 5:13 pm

It also might not be impossible to convert some FoT graphics(those that were nice) into FO/FO2 ones and use it to enhance it. Do you think they will include sprite editors btw? I'd like to have cockroaches in FO.

Red · Post by **Red** » Tue Aug 13, 2002 6:25 pm

There are several things which differ btween FO and FO:T sprites:

Number of directions (6 vs 8, and only 2 directions actually match with the 4 other which would need some tweeking). Then there's the alpha (anti-alias) layer which you need to get rid of. Finally, FO uses a slower framerate for tha animations than FO:T, so you'd probably need to lose at least half the frames.

Only the first problem is a real showstopper however.

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Tue Aug 13, 2002 7:15 pm

So basically, what possibilities does this offer to the modders/editers out there?
Bug fixes, minor in-game tweaks etc. for Fallout and Fallout 2?

I'd rather would have had the source code released but I guess IPLY execs are against this, because of the possibilities of a 'fan made sequel'. But if we keep bitching about it...

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Aug 13, 2002 7:27 pm

Red wrote:There are several things which differ btween FO and FO:T sprites:

Number of directions (6 vs 8, and only 2 directions actually match with the 4 other which would need some tweeking). Then there's the alpha (anti-alias) layer which you need to get rid of. Finally, FO uses a slower framerate for tha animations than FO:T, so you'd probably need to lose at least half the frames.

Only the first problem is a real showstopper however.

Yes I kinda forgot that. It's been a long time since i undated the graphics to see if I could use it for making a FO PA in FoT. Now it seems more possible for the opposite!

Also I think that these tools might be even more limited than FoT Tools. Despite that fans always find ways to overcome such obstacles. There are far more fans of Fallout than FoT, so more would be interested. Hopefully, they'll include a speech editor. It was the most missing tool of what we had in FoT.

Flamescreen · Post by **Flamescreen** » Tue Aug 13, 2002 7:31 pm

Damnit! My crappy provider done it again. I'm supposed to automatically log when I'm thrown off and it still manages to mess with it...*curses*

Red · Post by **Red** » Tue Aug 13, 2002 8:38 pm

No... We already have other tools for Fallout (mainly the script compiler) which makes even just the editor release MUCH more powerful then the FO:T crap... Ideally though they'd release more tools (script compiler and a proper prototype editor as the current ones aren't complete).

Flamescreen · Post by **Flamescreen** » Tue Aug 13, 2002 8:45 pm

This was what I was referring to, most FO available editors are more like demos right now. Some are unusable in some platforms. I have win98 so I probably couldn't use the latest mapper(besides it being in Russian again as I think I was reading) for instance.

After all these tools would be a wonderfull basis for people to devise additional ones(like you Red did with FoT). I'm thinking like: "see what's missing, so let's make it ourselves", kind of mentality...

Dan · Post by **Dan** » Tue Aug 13, 2002 9:36 pm

I say we wait untill Interplay toppels over then we buy the source code. :twisted:

Saint_Proverbius · Post by **Saint_Proverbius** » Tue Aug 13, 2002 11:37 pm

From what I've heard, the exit grid locations are fixed in to the engine itself. Without the source code to change this, you're stuck with exit locations and town locations that exist already within Fallout or Fallout 2, depending on which one you go to edit. You could redo the town layouts with the editor, and change the scripts, but you're still stuck with those towns.

Not exactly useful without the ability to change those locations.

Kreegle wrote:Praise be to MCA!

Chris is just the guy who posted the thread, it was JE Sawyer who had the idea to give Fallout fans what they needed to make their own Fallout stuff.

So...

Praise be to JE Sawyer! Praise the man with the idea, not the messenger of that idea.

And really, Kreegle, JE Sawyer came to #fallout months ago with this idea. It's pretty damned sad you don't remember that.

Red · Post by **Red** » Tue Aug 13, 2002 11:55 pm

Judging on how the maps work out, they're not hardcoded.

What might be hardcoded is where an exit grid actually brings you though... You can change that within the map script though - add exit grids and change the exit action... So it shouldn't be too much trouble.

I remember hearing that quite a while ago and still wonder where that came from.

Flamescreen · Post by **Flamescreen** » Wed Aug 14, 2002 1:58 am

That would be nice. But even if we're stuck with the current cities, a lot could be done. Change the graphics, and voila, new city. Is it possible btw to mix stuff from FO to FO2 and vice versa? I think they used the same engine, right? That could rise possibilities for creativity.

Also I believe if they release the "editors" we will probably overcome possible exit grid limitations. Plenty of good programmers around.( Check the FoT hacking programs for instance).

Temaperacl · Post by **Temaperacl** » Wed Aug 14, 2002 2:26 am

What might be hardcoded is where an exit grid actually brings you though...

It isn't- the map that an exit grid leads you to is contained in the information for that exit grid object.

Red · Post by **Red** » Wed Aug 14, 2002 2:29 am

Don't know, it's hard to test. I totally forgot about it personally.

Red · Post by **Red** » Wed Aug 14, 2002 2:49 am

Ok, I did a simple test: replaced the Den "entrance" (den businesses (1)) with the arroyo temple exit... I didn't forsee this but I ended up seeing the "get the vault suit" animation when entering the Den (since I used Ctrl-R to skip the "tutorial" an Arroyo...).

Anyhow, once that unexpected event ended, I ended up in the map I copied, but when I went into the "next map grid", instead of ending up in the Den, I ended up in the proper Arroyo map.

There's still one thing to check though. Maybe the "exit maps list" is hardcoded somewhere, and the maps themselves only contain a "pointer" (like all those .msg and lst references) which could still be hardcoded.

However I did a search in the binary and there are NO references whatsoever to any maps within the code in text form... But then how do the maps know where to exit? I checked the scripts at first and they don't specify any exit maps... And now I'm doing a binary search on all files in the FO2 dirs...

Red · Post by **Red** » Wed Aug 14, 2002 2:59 am

Ok, found the table definition... right under my nose. The reference would be found in data/maps.txt

Test done: changed the denbus2 definition to point to the denbus1 map instead.

When I exited to reach the denbus2 map it loaded denbus1 map as I expected.

So well, that's proven wrong Saint_Proverbius... It's all taken care of within worldmap.txt, maps.txt and the map itself. From what I gather the exit grid also has the "point" in which the player will find himself when he exits the map, as I found myself in a really weird location in the Den (near Smitty, which makes sense really).