[MOD] Lux Invicta
- Thread starter riknap
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Should be the same, no need for anything fancy. The only difference is that the SVN is a experimental build.
name = "Lux Invicta"
path = "mod/Lux Invicta"
user_dir = "Lux Invicta"
This looks right?
path = "mod/Lux Invicta"
user_dir = "Lux Invicta"
This looks right?
Yup, as long as the folder you put the SVN build in is called Lux Invicta. If you changed it to for example LuxSVN you'll have to change the path & user_dir to LuxSVN
The bugs are grand and aplenty, with only a few exterminators to fight them off. Any you notice and report to us would be helpful.
I'm not sure if it's the fact that I was using Spotify alongside, but it appears that my GPU's ability to handle CK2 has failed. Until I can rebuild my computer, my testing ability is likely limited to manual checks and fixes. Which means that fixing my desktop needs to become a priority
if I'm guessing right, you were also using BLC, aye? it feels like the 2.0.2 update adds one hell of an overhead which makes using the current BLC something only higher-tier computers can use
. As much as I hate it, but I'm forced to disable DarkReborn's BLC work to be able to play LI (well, technically I can run LI with BLC, but a lot of localisations aren't loaded anymore - I'm pretty much min-maxing my own PC's capabilities :laugh: )you can view our internal build via the SVN by taking a look at our FAQs, but for an officially supported update none yet so far (I still need to tweak/fix/add/document stuff. I apologize for being ineffective).
if I'm guessing right, you were also using BLC, aye? it feels like the 2.0.2 update adds one hell of an overhead which makes using the current BLC something only higher-tier computers can use
you can view our internal build via the SVN by taking a look at our FAQs, but for an officially supported update none yet so far (I still need to tweak/fix/add/document stuff. I apologize for beiing ineffective).
If it's really causing that much of a problem, I can try and make BLC lighter, but quality will somewhat suffer (I'll have to cut a lot of 1 culture gfxcultures like the berbers or the afrophoenicians to achieve lessened impact on less potent GPUs). Still, BLC is a very gpu intensive mod even for me (200 years into the game I often start having black portraits and stuff... but restarting CK2 fixes that) so I should probably add a warning on the readme in the next release.
I probably should wait for Paradox's next patch anyway... I'm sure they have taken notice of the issue since some of the devs indulge in playing the mods from time to time.
we could always release your previous "BLC-heavy" version and work on a "BLC-lite" version and release them in parallel. of course, the version you'd wish to support the most is at your discretion (I'd personally support spending more time on the "heavy" version and essentially porting a "lite" version of it as a secondary priority - since the lite version could either essentially be stripping out the additional components while keeping in the swapping around of parts or so, or alternatively "fusing" minor cultures together ).
still, your choice of implementation
the thing I really liked about BLC is how it makes faces less random and more unique and aesthetically appealing, so being able to play LI with BLC certainly helps in the immersion scale. it'd be much appreciated if you could find time to make a lite version of it.
The same from Americastan.
if I'm guessing right, you were also using BLC, aye? it feels like the 2.0.2 update adds one hell of an overhead which makes using the current BLC something only higher-tier computers can use
Using Lux without BLC? I would need to go back to disabling the Mediterranean Portraits... plus I don't really start up the game these days aside from checking my work on the map. The only issue is now it won't even do that. I don't know if it's BLC or Spotify (both were working fine the previous day simultaneously); my GPU (or motherboard or something involving graphic input to the display) has been getting progressively worse. It isn't so much an issue with what's being run with the mod as much as the mod is running and my GPU is lazy. I could be wrong however; maybe the condition is only so bad that BLC is too much, but CK2 itself isn't far behind if that is true.
Good news is I would never undergo such a project without backing up my work, and so everything I've done is on a flash drive and my laptop. While it is indeed laggy and not intended for actual play, this laptop does have CK2 installed and will start it up, so worst case scenario I can use this until I can repair my desktop.
Well... Lux is kind of that mod where you play until it becomes too slow for you to play any longer
On the subject of quality vs. function, I lean more towards quality - even in the face of a ruined PC.Would one graphic culture really change that much? If so, then perhaps that would be a better option. If it wouldn't, though, then maybe it's not worth it. As for an additional version of BLC, the fact that we already run it as an add-on is enough of a hassle; I wouldn't want to pile more on top of you, and a half-baked BLC... is that even worth the work it would take to make? You might as well run vanilla at that rate.
Not to rag on you, of course riknap, just providing the other perspective
Don't butcher the BLC mod, it's already optional. So if some don't have machines capable of using it at the full potential, why should the rest suffer for that?
And on the side note, why doesn't this mod have a sub forum like CK2 plus and EK?
Last edited:
Finally. Now BLC can finally be taken out behind the shed and shot and more important matters be looked at.
I doubt that I'll be putting BLC down any time soon. I'll probably keep improving on it as soon as Paradox releases more portrait DLCs.
FG is right, making a lite version isn't really worth the time... by the time I'm done with it Paradox has probably already fixed whatever memory issues CK2 is having.
The "more important matters" ( or whatever you believe those are ) are already being looked at. Riknap is working on rebalancing the new defines values and FG was working on the new map so... chill down.
Probably because someone from the team would have to take care for moderating the forum. And I doubt any of us have time for that.
Sure, but there's also the fact that a monolithic thread is easier to organise.
A subforum would be good for bughunting, but that's about the one bonus I can see. 750 pages in exchange for slightly easier bughunting?
Naaay from me
Idk. I think a subforum would be easier to organize. You could have all of the AARs in one thread, tech support in another, ahistorical discussions, the list goes on. And TBH, anything that's buried beneath the last 50 pages is not worth my time looking for. True, you can just thread search and have it all in one go, but if you know what kind of information you're looking for, you could do the same in any of the other threads.
Not to mention we're one of the only major mods that doesn't have a subforum, while our page count shows that - for future organization's sake if for no other - a subforum might be in our best interests.
To whom do we need to send our petition?
The mods i presume ... Or maybe the forum administrator
Also, and perhaps most importantly after bugtracking, a subforum would be useful for maintaining submods and making them much more visible than currently allowed.
Very true. Not to mention the amount of crap we get for "non-topic discussion" on this thread; in our subforum, we'd be justified in discussing any number of possible mod-related topics with the threads we could create.