Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kestrel]

I'm on Windows 8.1 and can't seem to get DF to load from the Starter Pack, even with DF Hack disabled or on default settings.  I downloaded vanilla DF and it runs fine, so what am I doing wrong?

Thanks.

Okay I've got it running, but only when I boot DF directly from its own executable within the Starter Pack's folder.  If I boot it from the Starter Pack, it just hangs at a blank white window and crashes.  Changing DF's compatibility settings to Windows 7 also appear to create the problem as well.  Thoughts?

Sounds like a needed-library problem.

Masterwork DF needs .net framework,
maybe it's same for this pack ? seems more like Visual Basic graphics.

Anyway for me, I have no problems on Windows 8.1.

Nope. Pylnp is a standalone python app, all dependencies included. Sounds like an anti-virus issue.

It was this.  Thanks for the advice.  I don't know why I didn't immediately assume anti-virus being the issue.

[evictedSaint]

Aw, Toady updated literally the day after Starter Pack did.

[Maul_Junior]

got tired of waiting for the 40.23, decided to download the 40.19 since I haven't played DF in a while.


..............40.23 is out?

yay!

[Evrett33]

I think its strange these things arnt coordinated and every release still breaks the previous ones.

[suburbanplankton]

got tired of waiting for the 40.23, decided to download the 40.19 since I haven't played DF in a while.


..............40.23 is out?

yay!

Where've you been?  40.24 is out!

[lethosor]

I think this might have gotten buried in the activity around the r2 release.

(link to post)

May I ask why this was renamed to "Starter Pack"? I think this name is too generic, given that this is not the only pack ("MacNewbie Pack", "Lazy Newb Pack Linux", "Lazy Newb Pack Installer for Linux", and "PeridexisErrant's Dwarf Fortress Starter Pack" are more descriptive, although it would be nice to make it clearer that this pack is for Windows as well). The difference between "Lazy Newb Pack" and "Starter Pack" may be obvious to long-time members of the DF community, but it clearly isn't to the countless new players that have been confusing different packs and posting in the wrong threads. For example, several people have reported the recent (Windows) TwbT problem in the Linux LNP update announcement on /r/dwarffortress (and that version of that pack doesn't even contain TwbT).

I don't mean to sound rude, but I've seen quite a bit of confusion regarding the different packs, particularly among new players, and I think a name less generic than "starter pack" would help.

[mndfreeze]

He probably has some sort of forum notification setup so as soon as a new pack is mentioned in this thread he hits 'POST UPDATE NOW' button and it uploads his latest finished work with changelog pre-written and waiting.

I do this for everything in the pack!  Here's the script.

hehe, I know! and Toady toadily does it to you the second you release a new verison!

[PeridexisErrant]

I think this might have gotten buried in the activity around the r2 release.

(link to post)

May I ask why this was renamed to "Starter Pack"? I think this name is too generic, given that this is not the only pack ("MacNewbie Pack", "Lazy Newb Pack Linux", "Lazy Newb Pack Installer for Linux", and "PeridexisErrant's Dwarf Fortress Starter Pack" are more descriptive, although it would be nice to make it clearer that this pack is for Windows as well). The difference between "Lazy Newb Pack" and "Starter Pack" may be obvious to long-time members of the DF community, but it clearly isn't to the countless new players that have been confusing different packs and posting in the wrong threads. For example, several people have reported the recent (Windows) TwbT problem in the Linux LNP update announcement on /r/dwarffortress (and that version of that pack doesn't even contain TwbT).

I don't mean to sound rude, but I've seen quite a bit of confusion regarding the different packs, particularly among new players, and I think a name less generic than "starter pack" would help.

When I named it, the idea was to eliminate the then-ubiquitous confusion between this pack and LucasUp's LNP.  At the time, there were no packs for other platforms and I wanted to avoid the condescending "newb" (it's a pack for anyone); while it felt too egocentric to put my name on it.

With the profusion of packs now, I'd be open to going to the associated trouble of renaming if there was a good proposal - I don't feel like having to change all the scripts, documentation, and mindshare on a whim.  If there's a good proposal, which should probably also include Beautato and be discussed with Fricy, I'd love to improve the situation.

[Putnam]

With the mod merger, I seriously think that everyone should be using this now. Like, seriously, I cannot describe to you how big that feature is.

[PeridexisErrant]

With the mod merger, I seriously think that everyone should be using this now. Like, seriously, I cannot describe to you how big that feature is.

    It's only going to get better; along with adding /data/speech/ I intend to make graphics work intuitively with mods, even where that involves raw edits, so that saves can be changed. 

Please give me a list of mods that should be included - I've had very little to do with that side of things, and I assume you can think of a good selection.  And checking again:  is the fact that the merge tool considers missing files to be vanilla going to cause many problems?

[Putnam]

Anything that doesn't include vanilla mods will either 1. completely replace the raws, including changing raws around (see: Masterwork) or 2. assume vanilla or simply not care, see: just about everything I have released now

Also, included? Uh. If I were to have to, I would put in every single mod that is capable of inclusion.

Right now, probably just Dark Ages, any weapon/armor mods you can get your hands on, DF Wanderer, any added-civilization mods you can get your hands on... so like I said, every single mod that is capable of inclusion, heh. I think it'd be better to just point people to them? Or maybe offer up entire packs a la Minecraft modding.

[PeridexisErrant]

Anything that doesn't include vanilla mods will either 1. completely replace the raws, including changing raws around (see: Masterwork) or 2. assume vanilla or simply not care, see: just about everything I have released now

Ok, that's the status quo - assume that it'll be OK, and push a convention of keeping empty files to signal deletion of vanilla raws.  I figure the PyLNP now has a fair bit of clout over the default distribution format of mods...

Also, included? Uh. If I were to have to, I would put in every single mod that is capable of inclusion.

Right now, probably just Dark Ages, any weapon/armor mods you can get your hands on, DF Wanderer, any added-civilization mods you can get your hands on... so like I said, every single mod that is capable of inclusion, heh. I think it'd be better to just point people to them? Or maybe offer up entire packs a la Minecraft modding.

Mods:  (optional!)
 - Plants bugfix 40.23.2
 - Dark Age: Mythos of Rannmok 40.23 r2
 - All Races Playable v1.3
 - Stal's Armory Pack v1.7
 - Button's Raws 40.23.1
 - DF Wanderer v10

Lol    Once DF stabilizes and everyone updates their mods I'll probably be more selective (and either have a big mod-addon pack, or just link to DFFD), but until then 'include everything' is the policy.  Let me know if I've missed specific mods.

[Dirst]

I think the mod manager is a quantum leap forward for DF packs.  Can you explain briefly how three-wat merging works (or doesn't).  For example, two different mods adding permitted reactions to entity_default.txt?

This is something I've been meaning to test, but work has been eating up my time lately.  I made a couple micro-mods for testing (one puts beards on dwarves females, the other makes elves' ears long and "pointy"), but haven't actually been able to fire up the game. 

[PeridexisErrant]

I think the mod manager is a quantum leap forward for DF packs.  Can you explain briefly how three-wat merging works (or doesn't).  For example, two different mods adding permitted reactions to entity_default.txt?

   It's a line-by-line merge.  We have vanilla, the mod, and the mix so far (which for the first mod is vanilla).  The vanilla-to-mod diff is then applied to the merge; and returns orange if this overlaps a vanilla-to-mix change in some line or green otherwise.  This proceeds through the whole

Any absent file is assumed to be vanilla, so use empty files to preserve deletions.  Files not present in vanilla are copied over; another mod creating the same file will cause a merge rejection.  You can only really get into syntactic trouble if one mod relies on a vanilla part of the raws which another removes; I can't detect this without writing a full DF raws static analysis tool and I can't do that at all.

[cdombroski]

I would suggest including CatDamper (remove 'return vermin to owner' and 'adopts owner from cats') and Pedestals (a generic building that can be made from any type of artifact) from ModestMod

Is there anyway we could get a description of the mods into the gui? Maybe as a mouseover tooltip?