Elrotor
First time out of the vault
How terrible would it be to install FOTweaks over RPU if have already started a game?
FO2tweaks is safe it install, enable or disable at any point. (If you run into an issue, that's a bug, and should be reported to github)How terrible would it be to install FOTweaks over RPU if have already started a game?
It keeps barking at me that I've overwritten the ddraw.dll file for RP and it won't go away. I have FO2tweaks included and the V16 RP update. What could fix this?
[Main]
ModifiedIni=42
@Zorchar
You see if One switches to new eXtended Sfall some settings have to go to different sections of the ddraw.ini in order to work, but this dumb RP security script issues a warning anyways. This is especially true since I've managed to have the warning gone completely with sfall eXtended 4.2.3 and RPUv12.
It works as a reminder not a "Digital Rights Management" because some people don't like to read the readme/instructions... ... Also simply adding that line for RP is like bury your head in the sand.
1. Since that kind of problem mostly happens when someone updates their sfall version:1. Can u refer me to where it is written about in the readme/instructions for this kind of problem?
2. about simply adding the line? What else should I do to avoid it? When I asked the cause, I've been given the answer that it is simply because the .ini is not the same as the original. I mean, I only made a minor change in the ddraw.ini, and it happend.
2. The default ddraw.ini from sfall package is for vanilla FO2, in which some options that RP requires are not enabled. At very least RP requires WorldMapSlots=21 & BoostScriptDialogLimit=1 for its core content working correctly. If you really "only made a minor change in the ddraw.ini" the ModifiedIni=42 line in the existing ini shouldn't be gone to make the warning appear.sfall-readme.txt said:IMPORTANT NOTE:
If you are using a mod that included sfall already (e.g. killap's unofficial patch or RP, etc.) then that mod has probably included a custom modified ddraw.ini. In that case, overwriting it with sfall's vanilla ddraw.ini will be likely break your game. Instead, only overwrite ddraw.dll, and keep the mod's existing copy of ddraw.ini. (Or, if you know what you're doing, you can merge them together by hand.)
If you really "only made a minor change in the ddraw.ini" the ModifiedIni=42 line in the existing ini shouldn't be gone to make the warning appear.
1. I downloaded the latest sfall version. Is it also the extended version? what is the extended version?
2. I recently downloaded the latest inventory filter, and replaced my ddraw.ini with the new one, merging the old one by going one by one and replacing in the new file. Is this the "right way" to merge ini? I had no problems so far. (other than that annoying red message, which was solved by adding the line "ModifiedIni=42")
2.I made sure all RP related stuff is in my ddraw.ini as was in the original RP sfall's ddaw.ini. ModifiedIni=42 same as the stuff Nova mentions later on plus some other stuff like karma related lines. all remains the same. it's except that in sfall extended some lines go into different sections of ddraw.ini in order for them to work (theese lines need to be in diffrent sections than in original RP2.3.3 ddraw.ini in order for those lines to work correctly under new sfall) however dumb & outdated RP security script, sees that certain things are not where 'it' thinks they should be, despite that sfall no longer looks for them there, and this dumb security feature throws this goddamn red sign .It really should be disabled...
[main]
xxxxxxxx
[Extra patches]
[sound]
Thanks for explaining.
The new sfall, not-extended - the ini order is also different from the original. I know what u mean about like after
comesCode:[main]
instead ofCode:xxxxxxxx [Extra patches]
and other different things.Code:[sound]
So if u indeed merge the same way as I did, and still get the red sign, then u are correct that the extended version is the reason. Just saying so u will have the information..
I was talking about this as well.no i didn't mean that. Some lines from one section have to be mooved to a different ones and that's the main reason i think.