The Community Expansion Pack - The EE Era

Then we can keep them, thought they had no purpose, when I looked at them myself I couldnt really tell a difference between those and the normal ones.

I think, iirc, the tilesets have some mesh fixes and a lot of walkmesh fixes - tears, unwelded verts, bad tverts, etc. - that Bioware never took care of.

I’d like to think Beamdog has taken care of them, but as I start playing with reskinning more and more vanilla tiles, I’m finding all the old familiar issues.

The CEP tilesets offer much more than the Bioware ones.

Many popular community tilesets are included as additional terrains.

For example, City Exterior includes the standard tiles plus two reskinned terrains (sandstone and gothic) and the Sigil exterior terrain. The first three all include community-made alleys etc.

You have to create an area in order to see the many terrain, feature and group options on offer.

Removing tilesets, scripts or whatever will break compatibility - existing modules will fall over owing to missing haks, or, if empty haks are supplied, terrain and logic will be broken.

1 Like

FWIW, and no criticism intended, I wouldn’t have gone with a whole new version of the CEP. Given the comparatively low number of things released so far that are EE only, I would rather have left the CEP alone and created an EE appendix to it. That appendix would have been compatible 2da wise with CEP 2.65 and only contain things that are specifically EE only.

Like I said for what it’s worth.

To anyone sitting on the sidelines here, this thread is for everyone to join in if you have a view. It’s not just for mods you know.


1 Like

Even when i’m closer to like projectQ aproach than cep’s one since its release, I like better TR’s aproach of making a big appen to the Latest cep release.

City Exterior and [CEP] City Exterior has the same tilesets for me, so I am not sure what to make of it :confused:

I have 2 versions of my mod available - one for 1.69 and one for EE, both using CEP. I love the idea of a CEP 3 that ‘tidies the clutter, corrects some errors, and adds a few new things’ but the tileset removal would, I think, break my modules (I’m not sure how, but I think editing an area with CEP installed resulted in some areas - mainly Mines and Caverns I think - being forever ‘hard-linked’ to the CEP tilesets. For example, Mines and Caverns becomes ‘Mines and Caverns*’ when creating a new area with all of the CEP haks present.

Are you open to suggestions on ‘models that need work’? (Giant Turtle is top of my list!) Or other suggestions on minor improvements/clutter removal? (probably needs a thread in its own right if you are!) Thanks for all your hard work :slight_smile:

Thank you so much for the info Phantasma, this is exactly what im looking for here :slight_smile:

Well, with that said I think there is no way around it we will keep the [CEP] tilesets for sure, improving models that are already in CEP is not something i’m great at, so im thinking to either try to do a few overrides for far superior ones that are readily available… or if others are interested in developing with me.

1 Like

Keep in mind when making improvements to models that you need to be consistent with the color of the current model and its general appearance. For placeables, you also need to keep the PWK the same size.

Color and general appearance may not seem like an issue, but consider for a moment a module that references in a quest a rectangular metal red chest from CEP which is updated in CEP 3 to be a wooden red chest.

For PWKs, if you change the overall size of the walkmesh geometry you could make it so adjacent placeables aren’t accessible, it could interfere with pathfinding, or, in the case of making a 2D pwk a 3D pwk, block LOS.

Glad to be of some use :slightly_smiling_face:

It has been a source of annoyance for me to have inadvertently introduced this hard link as Mines and caverns minimap doesn’t show doors correctly - but for extra info, if I remove the tileset haks I get an error loading the area in the toolset that can’t be circumvented

The Caverns and Mine tileset has had some issue in EE, I am normally using Zwerkules tileset revamp for cavern and mines, which will be included as an optional hak in here, Zwerk allowed the use of it but was skeptical.

The hakpak I am referring to is just a “facelift” hakpak that has some overriding to improve tiles, and add ceilings (drow interior, crypts, castle 1 and 2 interiors and other)

I think the change that Zwerk did to the caverns tileset might take care of that weird door issue the tileset has, that ive discovered.

1 Like

I vaguely remember a discussion about doors and minimaps from several years ago that, iirc, if the tile is missing a door dummy, you won’t see a door on the minimap.

That’s wrong - just tested it.

1 Like

And this was announced anywhere? I never heard of CEP tilesets containing any fixes. Maybe you are mistaking it with Community Patch that got plenty of these?

I understand the @Winternite point of view. EE already broke backwards compatibility and so you either make a EE-only version or you have to manage 1.69 and EE versions separately. I suppose, it could be made compatible for both, however you will either have to rip&copy content from EE and insert it into haks (which is not very moral to do) or live with the fact that CEP replaces/hides some of the new EE content.

You will also not be able to use new features like 16k resources limit removal, etc. if you want support both in one project.

Probably - hard to keep track of all the different “Community” projects: CEP, CPP, CPP (placeables), CMP, CSP - who knows anymore what’s got what for sure.

You should see far more in the CEP version. Include the two tileset extension haks, but not the tileset override hak.

You have to hunt inside the tilesets to find the additional terrains, which include Dwarven Interior, Elven Interior, Sigil Interior, interior windows, round tower interiors, grey and tan crypts and much else beside.

I don’t know if another mega compilación is a so great idea.

In My case a started my project with Q, cause I liked much more its overall quality over cep, and I could t do with its amazing castle rural extras, and the horse system, and partes and items.

But even when Q plcs are great I ended up adding the witcher ports and allmost all of the george Nwn2 ports (for variey and because they have a better graphic quality), and some picks from the CCC.

Perhaps its more useful to have a well documente and linked resource catálogo than a New monstruous compilation.

Again, that’s just My humble thought.


Hmmm, I might have to actually look at the CEP tilesets. Do those haks work without the rest of CEP?

How has EE has broken backwards compatibility?

Old modules still work under EE (bar one or two acknowledged bugs, and the odd defect in custom models).

As mentioned above, it’s perfectly possible to make CEP common to both EE and 1.69 using EE-only haks which 1.69 builders don’t use.

It’s even possible to have a single top hak for both EE and 1.69 for most 2da files. 1.69 builders would just have to accept missing models for official EE content and EE-only offerings. We could even label the lines as EE-only, as a warning. No question of providing content the builder hasn’t paid for.

Continuity is achievable here if the community has the will to make it happen.

Probably - haven’t tried - you might need the top hak, too.

1 Like