CEP 2 Project - New Content

@Proleric Thanks! Another thing with CEP is that the list for the tail selection within creature properties is confusing quite a bit. Some of it is alphabetically listed, but it is kind of all jumbled up, with about 3 sections of A-Z, then a lot of non alphabetically organised stuff. When you want a scaled creature for a blueprint, it can be troublesome finding the model you want lol. Not sure how other builders find this. I know it can be done with a script as well.

Unfortunately that’s a toolset limitation - it probably should sort tail descriptions (like appearances) but it doesn’t. Sadly, we can’t reorganise the list, becase existing modules depend on no change to the tail numbers.

@Proleric Ah I see, best not to start changing that.

I tagged Virusman on Discord about this. It’d be nice to get the sorting straightened out on the 2da, assuming that’s something he can code into the Toolset easily enough.

Well, sounds interresting but have you ever had a close look on that thing? I guess not …

@Pstemarie it would be interesting to see what could be done, within the parameters Proleric pointed out.

I don’t think parameters/limitations as pointed out here really matter beyond whether or not Virusman is still coding the toolset upgrades for Beamdog. If he is, it might not be too difficult to implement.

I’m not talking actually changing the 2DA file, just changing the way in which the Toolset sorts and displays the data passed into it. As Proleric points out, other 2DAs are sorted by the Label field. I don’t see any reason why tailmodel.2DA should be any different.

@Pstemarie that would make more sense, I would love to make some suggestions for future toolset updates, but don’t want to confuse the purpose of the forum here.

@Proleric would there be the possibility of adding some extra item properties? CEP already expands the die roll for weapons and spell resistance which is quite nice and I’m very grateful for cause I use it a lot. Could there be some other extensions to AC (to maybe +20-50, Ability Bonus to about the same and skills to +100? That sounds crazy but there are some genuinely good applications I’d have for those. those in some cases. Having some extra Bonus feats would be great as well, currently for example, there’s only overwhelming and devastating critical for unarmed strike, rapier and some other thing. There’s other times as well, when for example, I might like an item with +50 regen, but need to have three separate properties 20,20,10.

The ultimate thing would be to have it so you could just literally type in what you wanted into one or two boxes like [26]d[4] or +[25]AC, then it would be all integrated. But imagine that would be a big change to the toolset.

For reference, I’m using 2.65 by the way.

Noted for future consideration…

…but right now we’re following the priorities agreed in recent discussions with builders.

A key goal emerging from this thread is to add new creatures, which has an obvious synergy with deprecating low quality creature models (aka Cosmetic Appearances). We’ve decide to merge those projects as a Creature Update project (of which more shortly) and focus on that.

After that, placeables and tilesets are next on the list.

@Proleric thank you very much!

The model update for NWNEE was absolutely superb, not just the character models but the armors, so much detail and just wow. I can see why updating creature models would be a future goal.

Tile sets would be a good area to work with as well. The ability to change the size of the area would be a good functionality.

Placeables, I can only think of the possibility to change the scale like with creatures.

It would be so good as well if you could scale a creature in an area and was able to then add it to the pallet at that scale, rather than or in addition to the creature large: [250] thing. This is useful if you want a super large creature, maybe 8 times the size. That leads on to the possibility of expanding the scaled invisible objects.

Some creatures become really strange when scaled up like the bat and demilich model, they go way up in the air. It would be nice to have an upscaled version with the bat, demilich and other similar models to be closer to the ground for better scaling.

Those are some of my experiences in those areas, but your builders will have much much more I’m sure!

Since EE added scaling functionality, there aren’t many reasons to ever include different size of placeables. Well unless it doesn’t scale walkmesh either - untested.

Even the usage of differently sized creatures dropped a bit, but the NWN-EE scaling is still imperfect and doesn’t scale creature hitbox so differently sized npcs can still be useful sometimes.

Anyway if you didn’t know, in EE toolset you can scale things by selecting them in area and then holding CTRL and using mouse wheep up to make them larger or down to make them smalller.

Different size placeable models still have their uses. Scaling only works with non-static placeables and users in Discord have reported various performance issues in EE with large numbers of non-static placeables in the same area. Unfortunately, I don’t have specific numbers to share on how many non-static placeables you can have before encountering issues.

1 Like

It only scales/moves/rotates the visuals and not the placeable’s walkmesh. That’s why the function is called SetObjectVisualTransform(). You can end up with placeables that can be walked through. Great for illusions, not so much for everything else. Different sizes are still needed.


And you also have the drawing distance issue for being non static plcs (walls, rocks)

I see, I haven’t run into this problem with placeables yet so I thought maybe the walkmesh is scaled also. I guess that since I am only scaling upwards and not by that much, it is not a problem (which applies to creatures too - scaling down is a problem).

@Pstemarie @Tarot_Redhand @Baireswolf @Shadooow

Never had big problems with hit boxes unless I made extremely changes to the scale. Most of the time it’s how well the hit boxes are made.

The EE scaling feature is something I’ve used sometimes, but in reality, usually I just use the CEP INV and tail models once the scale is known.

If you wanted to make a giants lair or a pixie den for example, it’s useful to scale placables. The NWN2 toolset was much better at this (there’s even an example of this being done in the giants cave in NWN2 SOZ) but scaling creatures more than 5x was a problem.

Skyrims creation kit is the same, worse actually, you can’t scale things more than about 1.2 times before the hitbox starts breaking.

I feel dumb to backtrack on my own suggestion (why did I suggest that??), but dare I say, it’s bad practice to drastically scale stuff unless the software scales collisions and hit boxes really well, or you have a system like CEP which is the best system I’ve experienced.

The best practice to make a super huge or tiny creature variant is just to make another model.

It would be nice to be able to scale placables, just got to know the limits of the game.

I am not sure what are you talking about.

Do you mean these invisible appearance models for creatures? If so then this is not CEP doing, this was added in patch 1.69, CEP just obviously contains more appearances to use via tail.

And to be honest, this is the worst mechanism for scaling we have. It has numerous issues, from creature height, to incorrect creature sizes defined in appearance.2da, the ugly glow (which you can turn off, but that is not a fix but workaround and many players prefer the npcs to highlight it is more convenient) and animations issues. EDIT: oh and I forgot about weapons not fitting creature hands obviously. And there is more - inability to set correct blood, shadows, etc. etc.

This is really just a hindmost choice for those who don’t know how to scale models themselves using NWmax or blender.

Guys, very interesting, but way off topic - more like toolset feature requests?

I’ll close this discussion for now. Watch this space for the CEP 2 Creature Update project.

1 Like