Important - For Users of Direwolf20_1_5 Modpack - Urgent feedback needed.

Discussion in 'Modpack and Launcher News' started by slowpoke, Aug 4, 2013.

?

Which Method Should we take to fix the pack

  1. Band Aid Fix and try to preserve existing worlds

    8.3%
  2. Full fix which may require a restart.

    91.7%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. slowpoke

    slowpoke FTB Founder Team Member FTB Founder

    Update : The public recommended pack for Direwolf20 is 1.1.3 with a test 1.1.4 version. If you are using 1.1.2 or earlier swapping to this pack will require a world restart. If you were using the previously released private 1.1.3 pack with the code " iwanttorestartmyworld" you world should swap to the new public 1.1.3 just fine. (baring acts of aliens, computer derps, java derps or other unforeseen difficulties)



    If you want to keep a 1.1.2 or earlier world you will need to use the private pack code "DW20"to access the older versions. Those versions of the pack will not be updated, upgraded or changed. If you stay on 1.1.2 or earlier the only way to fix bugs is to manually update mods yourself or convert to the 1.1.3 public pack knowing you will more then likely need to restart your world.


    Show Spoiler
    Update: DW20 is available for testing on the launcher under the private pack code Iwanttorestartmyworld , Using this pack before a tool is released to convert worlds will require a world reset. This pack brings DW20 ID's in line with Unleashed ID's. DW20 and Unleashed now use Master Configs. This means they have configs for all the mods in Unleashed ,Unhinged and DW20. You should be able to take a mod from Unhinged or DW20 and put it in Unleashed etc. Unhinged does not use the Master configs, you will not be able to put a mod from Unleashed or DW20 into Unhinged and have it work. Please post any bugs we need to look at in the bug report thread.
    Show Spoiler
    Show Spoiler



    Update: Unleashed 1.1.3 is now the recommended version. DW20 1.1.3 is still up for testing as we are waiting on a bug fix. Once DW20 1.1.3 is pushed to recommended world ID mismatches will occur with worlds created with 1.1.2 . Future versions of DW20 will work off the id's used for 1.1.3.


    So as I am sure a lot of people have realised now. There are problems with the Direwolf20 Modpack that is currently out there. There are a number of fixes we can do to resolve this, however I do not want to make this decision without consulting the community.

    First Let me try and explain how this has happened. So initially the aim is that configs from Unleashed should match the configs from all our packs. This means that the configs from BoP in Unleashed should as far as ids go, match the configs of DW20. They are meant to be identical in order to help prevent mistakes like what has just happened. However, an error was made and this never happened this time. However the mistake wasn't realised until we updated the config of BoP in the unleashed pack and as always just copy it over into the DW20 pack in order to maintain this consistency. This would have been fine, except the configs were different right from the first day. So we had this.

    1.1.0
    DW20

    I:"Holy Dirt ID"=170
    I:"Holy Grass ID"=169
    Ender: block.id=254

    Unleashed
    I:"Holy Dirt ID"=254
    I:"Holy Grass ID"=255
    Ender:block.id=252

    1.1.1
    DW20
    I:"Holy Dirt ID"=170
    I:"Holy Grass ID"=169
    Ender:block.id=254

    Unleashed
    I:"Holy Dirt ID"=254
    I:"Holy Grass ID"=255
    Ender:block.id=252

    1.1.2
    DW20
    I:"Holy Dirt ID"=254
    I:"Holy Grass ID"=255
    Ender:block.id=254

    Unleashed
    I:"Holy Dirt ID"=254
    I:"Holy Grass ID"=255
    Enderblock.id=252

    As you can see, individually both configs work on their own until you mix them as happened in 1.1.2. Then the second error was made. Normally the procedure is to turn on all the disabled mods in the launcher and then the same in the server and run both and then log into the server to check for ID conflicts. This never happened, probably because the people involved were tired and had been up all night checking configs and updating the pack etc. No matter what the reason, this leads us on to now. After doing a full check, it seems that there are more instances where the configs of the pack dont match up. These do not seem to be causing any further ID Conflicts however it means the packs have different conflicts which isnt good. On top of this it appears that 3 Mods may need to be rolled back to earlier versions due to problems with the versions we have in our packs.

    So where does this leave us. Essentially with 2 choices, we can do a band aid patch on the DW20 pack, fixing just the conflict and backdating the relevent mods. Or we can do a full fix and bring the packs back to where they should be. So the question then is what are the consequences.

    First the band Aid: This should leave most DW20 1.5 worlds mostly intact (esp if you have not been to the promised land) and even in that case, reasonably easy to repair. However then the 2 packs would be out of synch.

    The second is a proper repair, getting DW20 pack back to where it should be, however there would be enough changes done to IDs. that world restarts may be needed.

    This is a pretty important decision though and one that needs input from the affected community.

    On a final note. I wont be giving out names or who was involved or anything. It was a mistake, mistakes happen especially when people are tired. I also dont want to see anyone else trying to assign blame in this, it doesnt accomplish anything. What I really need here is input on which of the steps you feel we should take.

    Thanks

    Slowpoke.


    New Update: We have decided to go with the full fix. There is a delay currently. We have the configs set up and the new mod updates tested to load without crashing.While we finish testing we are working on finding a way to make it less likely for worlds to need resets on the DW20 pack. We are hoping to have a solution to prevent unnecessary restarts. Update : The new packs are ready for community testing however right now we are having issues uploading them to the repo (server) the launcher accesses. This is something we have no control over. When we can get them on the launcher we will.
  2. Dragon707

    Dragon707 New Member

    Well, i think a full fix is better than 'try to'. When it goes wrong or it wont work anyway there is just more wasted time i think. Mayby after a restart you can 'filter'(?) blocks with new id's etc.
    Bozlid, aaronfranke, Ralnick and 2 others like this.
  3. rio44

    rio44 New Member

    a stitch in time saves nine, I'd prefer a full fix so that more Band Aids aren't necessary in the future
  4. SamRaven2

    SamRaven2 New Member

    I agree that a full fix will be better in the long run. As a newer pack, users should expect to see problems from time to time. Despite having a fairly advanced world, I would much prefer having to restart it if it would mean that I won't have to worry as much about possible conflicts in the future.
    Shannon and Rafael F.D. Freitas like this.
  5. Daemonblue

    Daemonblue Active Member

    While it should be noted that I don't play the Direwolf 20 pack, I would still like to voice my opinion on this subject. I personally believe a full config fix would be appropriate here since, for the long term, it will make everything easier. The problem with a simple band-aid is while it might save current worlds, this mistake might happen again at some point causing this to be brought up again. I personally feel that if a world restart is necessary it should be done sooner rather than later, and getting the configs synced properly will not only help prevent something such as this happening in the future, but will also make the mods in each pack more compatible with each other and, by its very nature, should reduce the number of reported id conflicts.

    Also, it should be noted that if anyone feels the absolute need to save their current worlds they could use mIDas. While it's not 100% fool-proof it can still help people save their worlds in several cases if used properly.
  6. robertcarr22

    robertcarr22 Member

    I don't see why it would matter much if the DW20 and Unleashed were out of sync as they are different modpacks and I don't think many people will be changing worlds between packs.
    But having to restart worlds is the worst thing that can happen for servers. It causes many players to be very frustrated and having only recently restarted to move to unleashed from ultimate you can see why.
  7. Uraniuoxied

    Uraniuoxied New Member

    I would prefer the full fix, as much as I hate restarting, I think it will be worth it in the long run.
    --- Double Post Merged, Aug 4, 2013 ---

    Do you want to restart once, or do you want to restart multiple times in the future is the question though... you have to keep that in perspective.
  8. Draeci

    Draeci New Member

    A handful of friends and I, have been tooling around playing with it. The bugs are pretty obvious. I would rather have to reroll our world to have the long term no bandaid fixes made than have constant updates. Constant updates means we are updating 10 computers at a go. Its supposed to be fun not a oh we get to watch another load bar.

    So in the best interest of fun long term fix no short term. I would in the end rather reroll a server then adjust as I go to the buggy parts.
  9. robertcarr22

    robertcarr22 Member

    But why would we need to restart in the future? the problem is that direwolf and unleashed have different configs so this only means you cant put a direwolf world into a unleashed server and vice versa. Unless ive totally misunderstood whats happening :p
  10. Matoyak

    Matoyak New Member

    Similar situation to Daemonblue up there: I do not play the Direwolf pack as my main (I use a custom pack for single player, and a friend's Broken Pixel Community pack for main server. Direwolf 20 is a friend's server I visit maybe once a week or so. I asked him what he'd prefer, and he agrees with me on this one as well, so I'm somewhat voting for him (he doesn't have a forum account). I say go for the full fix. Band-aids when dealing with software and code are never a good thing for the long-run. Take the hit now, while it's relatively small-ish rather than waiting for later when it'll likely be even tougher to deal with.
  11. Ray Herring

    Ray Herring Member

    def go with the full fix. Also, why not use things like mcupdater.jar to make things like this easier? it's a 120MB download each time an update comes out even if it is a minor fix. At least with mcupdater.jar the only files that get pulled down are ones that have a different md5 in the xml file.
    TigersFangs and Guthatron like this.
  12. Arcadious

    Arcadious New Member

    Flipz likes this.
  13. JasonZZ

    JasonZZ New Member

    Please go with the full fix. IMHO, a half-assed patch is never a good idea--it just makes more trouble down the way.
  14. Yuka

    Yuka Active Member

    Considering its still relatively early for the pack and there won't be too much lost, I'd say just go ahead and do the full patch as early as possible.
  15. Velotican

    Velotican Well-Known Member

    On my end I've already been making a major effort to allow DW20 users to transition to unified configs here:

    http://forum.feed-the-beast.com/thr...ed-1-1-1-0-supports-ftb-unl-dw20-and-rr.9536/

    I can prepare a special release that provides conversion files for old DW20 to new DW20 if you go ahead with a full fix, and I strongly recommend you do. mIDas is a lot better able to address these problems than it used to be in the past and I don't think you need to worry so much about major breaking updates as you used to now.
    nilness and Flipz like this.
  16. SlipperyJim

    SlipperyJim New Member

    Full restart for me.

    The Jimbat
    Starter
  17. Smog ShadowSeth

    Smog ShadowSeth New Member

    *Sigh* I'm clearly in the minority here but... I would prefer the band aid. Now viewing the poll, I'm realistic: it simply won't happen. I was finaly able after much month of wait and failed attempts with personnal packs to set up a server with the DW20 pack, and now this happen... BTW, no offense, but i do feel making errors like this defeats the point of user-friendly modpacks like those provided by FTB. Did someone say bitter? Yeah, I am.

    Oh well. Time to save the "wrong" configs and paste them over the "corrected" ones at each update I guess... Or trying to make a MultiMC instance that matches the wrong configs.
  18. TigersFangs

    TigersFangs Member

    I would think that a full fix would be better. Along the lines of "If it is worth doing, it is worth doing right". The funny thing is that I found the conflict when I went to run the DW20 pack with BOP today and was about to send my version of the corrected file to the FTB guys to bring it to their attention. xD Apparently they already found out about it. You guys are awesome!!! :)
    SilverStar likes this.
  19. Helpinghand97

    Helpinghand97 New Member

    Well my opinion on this is that we should do a full update. Yeah people might need to do updates but in a server point of view it would be the best and maybe the people on the servers would understand why the owners and the FTB team is doing this. Also people can always regenerate worlds. So my vote ill be on a full fix and update.
  20. One thing must be light up. If we do a band-aid, in future we can have a "problems" or is only the sync between to packs?
    I have a MASSIVE gameplay on my server, and realy dont want a full wipe. Its about 50 hours of game and dont now if would reestart...
    GIR65000 and Lassen like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page