My apologies. This is embarrassing because as soon as I wrote the message above, i decided to help out and try to find the npcs that I mentioned in a clean only CEP 2.67 module. But the weird thing is I can’t find them anymore myself. Maybe my own haks had a glitch in them. Again my apologies.
Sigh…
Thanks for your info, your help is appreciated. It’s a great relief to see that CEP is ok. I found the situation you talked about (overwritten bio models) in project Q.
…for the very good reason that those models aren’t in CEP after all.
My bad 
My bad too. I had confused CEP with Project Q.
Why on earth is the Community Expansion Pack new forum private?
We’re using this Custom Content forum to solicit community views in an open process.
However, the project team members need to discuss a tremendous amount of detail that would hold little interest for the general reader.
Also, we need a less judgemental space, where we can kick ideas around and make mistakes while doing the staff work and quality control.
Most projects have private team rooms or whatever for similar reasons.
Rest assured that this project will be continue to be inclusive and driven by the community.
Our operating model is sometimes called “democratic management”. The team will listen to the broad aims of the community, make pragmatic decisions if necessary, then deliver the fine detail.
The project team is open to everyone who’s willing to help us to do the work.
I’m not convinced hiding the nitty gritty discussions benefits you, to be honest, since more eyes can mean more help. Given the small community and low activity of the forum already, I doubt any feedback will be judgemental (given your self-constraints on the project to keep it to fixes) and would only help the community learn more or increase the team size as activity is seen to progress.
I was also going to offer some help with the wiki-fying of information (and bugs, oh the bugs…even if I don’t actively use I know of a few fun ones at least should be noted as errata) but again, if it’s not out in the open I can hardly assist much there, alas! I can’t commit to a full time team member “doing stuff” given my own plans but I hoped to help at the sidelines a little.
Sorry to hear the decision won’t be changing, good luck with it all in any case!
So why not start a new thread for bug reporting. In that way it’ll still be more open than BD is (not a criticism of BD, I get why even if it means they potentially get multiple reports of the same bug)?
TR
If you refer to the later thread, that’s now open for discussion there, following community feedback.
We will consider additional content if there is community demand for it, which will be established by the polling process described in that thread.
Not sure I see the point of adding new content when any such content will be restricted because of the need for backwards compatibility with Diamond (1.69) which precludes the use of PBR maps which were added in EE.
Sure, you can add it in optional EE only haks, but then you just expand the number of haks already in CEP 2 making it even more unwieldy than it already is. Furthermore, with the existence of CEP 3 (focused on adding quality PBR content and other improvements) as another fork from CEP 2.65, is it really necessary to add any new content to CEP 2?
I’m not on the project though so why would I do that since it could be easily ignored and waste my time? I’ve no idea how the team wants bug reports beside vaguely asking for them. Not sure spamming the forum helps anyone, all the things I point out may be already on the bug tracker after all since I can’t see it.
Beamdog have a public bug submission site already not sure how that comparison works (they’re hardly the community either so it’s not like that’s at all a valid comparison). In fact a github with issues posted would be perfect for such a project.
@Proleric since 2.x already got some minor updates with the aim to do just bug fixes and compatibility (and try and avoid making changes to things like walkmesh or remove any content which may break modules using the hakpacks), along came CEP 3.0 which could introduce EE only compatible content and “break” more things compatibility wise.
So the question becomes is 2.x now going to do EE only compatible content? If so why don’t you help the 3.x effort and focus there? If not then why would anyone use old 1.69 only additional content? This is why I suggested it’s a focus mainly on bug fixes. Perhaps this belongs in the other thread I dunno.
This makes no sense. Beamdog’s github bug tracker is visible to anyone that clicks on a link. They aren’t hidden behind a “members only” wall.
Now that the project has forked, I believe the most productive course for the community is for CEP 2 users (only) to comment here.
People who don’t believe in what we’re doing would serve the community better by focussing on their own projects. After all, we are doing you no harm.
The alternative is to descend into unconstructive sniping, which could quickly become a two-way street to no one’s benefit.
What bug tracker? I haven’t heard of it before. Link? AFAIK, you submitted bug reports which vanished into the ether and might some unspecified time later appear as being fixed in one of the patches.
TR
GitHub - Beamdog/nwn-issues: Neverwinter Nights: Enhanced Edition Technical Bug Tracker
They’ve been using this for quite some time.
Yup, this response pretty much takes me off the fence as to ever using CEP 2 for anything. Talk about the proverbial “thumb in the eye”.
You ask for community comment (which also includes concerns). Then when you don’t like the concerns that are expressed you ask that only CEP 2 users comment here. I fail to see the logic in that. I have CEP 2 on my computer so that I can run modules made with it. Evidently that doesn’t make me a user.
I choose not to build with it because there are currently too many unaddressed concerns for me, which will never be addressed (or viewed) because I’ve been asked not to comment here (by meeting half the criteria you’ve set forth for commenting: I don’t wholly believe in what you’ve outlined for plans). However, since you’ve now decided to move such technical things into a private forum, I’ll never know.
Cya, good luck with future updates. I’ll be using CEP 3 should I choose to use any large compilation pack for my modules.
Tarot I’m surprised you’ve not seen it, it’s been there for longer than I have been back and Shadooow posts to it (as do other forum goers). You really should join discord and check the previews and report bugs! Especially art stuff which I’m at a loss with. 
@Proleric you didn’t respond on why you’re not helping 3.x (or is it now you doing 2.0 which now competes with 3.0?) or what your plans are for breaking compatibility or supporting EE only stuff. I can’t say if I’m a user (module builder I guess you mean) or not since I’ve no idea what you’re actually going to do?
I’ll see about someone sorting the homepage so the CEP link goes to both projects or a second link is added. Seems only fair now!
I’ve been using CEP since the days of yore, back before even Project Q was still but a gleam in the eyes of some. I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with CEP. At least, no more bugs or glitches than come with the regular game. For me and as a builder, it is a one stop shop for adding colors to the building palette. There is still a lot of good content in there and very worthwhile. There’s nothing that would break a module by using it, and I should know since I’ve been building a great living module that has now spanned decades and incorporates a dozen or more of the old TSR modules.
But I do enjoy the nuts and bolts as well, and I have just enough knowledge and experience with it to be considered dangerous. So an open forum, closed forum, it’s all the same. I get that part of it. As long as I know Proleric is at the helm and there are open discussions here about its future, I am content. But I am equally as content with it being a static thing and to leave it as it is, and any future “CEP” project should be seperate and stand on its own merits. I don’t see the value in having a 2.65(x) vs a 3. Rather, it should be CEP 2.6x and an entirely new project that should not even be called CEP, but named something entirely different, but with a shrewd eye to make sure it is CEP compatible (when it comes to 2das, models, etc.)
Just my 2 electrums. But carry on.
