SC4 Dat Packer

[SC4BOY]

There is no reason not to use the .bak file if it is desired, but the file should have a cleanitol file which "archives" the .bak file. I have added ".bak" to my extensions for cleanitol, so one will not be inadvertently left in my plugins folder again  .. There is no reason, given reasonable care and organization of folders, to fear use of the packer on a NAM file.. or any other for that matter

.. and of course EVERY FILE that I use, I use at my own risk..   Your arguement about a "beta" that is done by an installer is not a bad one, and certainly if anyone fears using the datpacker, they should not use it. That should not prevent us from continuing to strive to understand the operation and process of the tools we use.. at least that's my two cents worth.. I always recreate my plugin, fully unpacked (or really pre-packing) so my uninstalls always work on an unpacked file..  seems rather foolhardy to try to install to a packed plugins directory unless you take great care.. whether its a beta or not.

And recall that this "understanding and clarification" is what... quite a few messages back now..  started all of this.. hehe.. never hurts to learn other things in the process tho..

(and of course no damage done by an install is going to cause any permanent damage to my SC4 .. I can "undo" any "damage" .. or at least recover to a pre-damage state. For this reason also, I happily use the packer.. or other tools too..  on most anyplace I feel it will give me an advantage.)


Your milage may vary

[wouanagaine]

1. Ref msg 418 .. can the information in the lower window be piped or copied to a txt file?

No, but the feature is added to the wish list

2. I think I read you saying two different things, so I will ask again. When datpacker is processing files and comes across information that it has previously read.. does it OVERWRITE the previous information or does it KEEP the FIRST VERSION of the data?  (this assumes the file information is not IDENTICAL). Sorry if I am confused.

DatPacker is using the same loading order as SC4 ( as far as we are right on our assumption of SC4 loading order ) ie lexicographical sort on files first then recurse on lexicographical sort of subfolders . So the LAST version of a TGI is kept.
There is a subtle exception here, if a file hold 2 copies of the same TGI, then it is the FIRST associated data that is kept.

3. The datpacker seems to process .bak files? Is this really a good idea? Most people use .bak to be information that is not to be used for some reason, but to preserve some previous version.

Actually SC4 opens all files that are in your plugins folder, regardless of their type ending.
If the files contain a valid DBPF database, the game will load its content.

Because of this it is especially important not to leave any *.BAK or *.SAV files in your plugins folder.
Otherwise you might actually have older (backed up) versions of SC4 files that are loaded after the ordinary ones.

RippletJet is correct, every file is open in SC4 ( so as well in SC4DatPacker ) and if they are a DBPF file ( a valid SC4 file ) they are parsed and used
so if you have file1.bak file1.dat file1.sav and assuming they are all different version of the file1.dat, they will all be parsed and the last one parsed will be file1.sav ( due to lexicographical sort ) which will result in having an old version loaded instead of the correct one 'file1.dat'

I would like to point out one thing.

Do to the nature of Transit and other Complex Mods it is generally not a good idea to DAT Pack them.  NAM is a component that has been broken up into smaller files and there are too many older mods out there that can interfere with new versions of NAM which NAM has superseeded.  It is advisable that any Transit Mods should be installed as they are intended to be installed and not by any means DAT Packed.

jplumbley is right, you shouldn't use SC4DATPacker for packaging NAM contents. I think the BAK file you're referring to is the one that the SAM Beta installer has created. This was done on purpose, in order to safely uninstall the SAM and restore the original NAM functionality. I can't stress it enough, but if a file says "beta", it's a beta and not meant to be used in a "productive environment" - and obviously on your own risk. It's highly dangerous to DAT pack a beta mod that is not finished, since it can cause all kinds of complications when a new version is released.

There is no reason, given reasonable care and organization of folders, to fear use of the packer on a NAM file.. or any other for that matter

I totally agree with SC4Boy here, I'm myself use and only use DatPacked file ( so I only play with my 'plugins_compressed' folder ), even the various essentials, the buildings as props etc are packed. and I have no problem at all.
Using some packed and nonpacked files is a bit tricky as you'll have to ensure that SC4 will load the files in the same order as with full unpacked structure

[Andreas]

I totally agree with SC4Boy here, I'm myself use and only use DatPacked file ( so I only play with my 'plugins_compressed' folder ), even the various essentials, the buildings as props etc are packed. and I have no problem at all.
Using some packed and nonpacked files is a bit tricky as you'll have to ensure that SC4 will load the files in the same order as with full unpacked structure

Well, of course you can do that, but it does require a certain knowledge about the functionality of those files, and extra care for putting them into the correct order. I wouldn't recommend it for the average player, who barely has an idea of the NAM's internals, that's why we put so much effort in the NAM installer. Of course, if you have the knowledge and always have your original files handy, so you can put them back in case a problem arises, everything is fine. SC4BOY said that he had no idea where the BAK file came from, maybe he should have asked about that in the NAM forum first (the file was placed in the NAM installation folder after all).

[SC4BOY]

of course my fault as usual..

my problem was that datpacker packs it (a fact the NAM people should keep in their minds if they are going to create the .bak file and leave it laying around... perhaps even using a different naming system to insure it falls in the correct place for packing)

I'm certainly not the only person who is going to apply pack to NAM.. if NAM feels they are the exception, they must bear the burden of making the exceptions clear, I'd say.

[xxdita]

I've DatPacked NAM with no problems. DatPacker compiles everything in the order that it is installed. Perhaps if certain files are absolutely supposed to be loaded in a strict order, they should be installed into different folders? CAM was done in this way, with the A_CAM and Z_CAM folders, I suspect to make it almost fool proof?

[jplumbley]

of course my fault as usual..

my problem was that datpacker packs it (a fact the NAM people should keep in their minds if they are going to create the .bak file and leave it laying around... perhaps even using a different naming system to insure it falls in the correct place for packing)

I'm certainly not the only person who is going to apply pack to NAM.. if NAM feels they are the exception, they must bear the burden of making the exceptions clear, I'd say.

NAM is definately possible to DAT Pack.  You just HAVE to know what is in your plugins before you do it.  What happens if unknowingly you have forgotten you have a RHW v12b installed in your plugins, which was based of January 2007 NAM and you are DAT Packing a June 2007 NAM, the RHW file may be read last and when you DAT Pack it you will be reverted to January 2007 NAM but never know why.  You'll get mad at us the NAM Team because it must have been our problem and we screwed up your game when in fact it was that you had an old file in your plugin.  We cannot prevent everything, nor do we pretend to.  But as a general rule for the Community at large (Wouanagaine you are an exception) it is not advisable to DAT Pack your Major MODs such as NAM.

Before you DAT Pack you MUST review your entire Plguins folder and make sure you KNOW what and why everything is there.  If you dont know what the file is... Dont DAT Pack it.

[Pat]

When DatPacking its a matter of trial and error on what you can and cant pack.... sc4boy going and accusing someone else for a mistake you made its not cool at all!!!  Like i said its a matter of trial and error what you can pack and not pack and of course as Jp said you must remove all old compants of any other nam you have... I did the same mistake and i didnt blame NAM for my screwup just myself as realized i didnt follow the intrustions before installing NAM 6/07.....

[wouanagaine]

I don't think SC4Boy is accusing anyone Pat

[dragonshardz]

well, whatever SC4BOY is doing, I think that it is agreed that you should carefully reveiw your plugins before you DATpack, make sure you have a copy of the original plugins put in a safe place, and be prepared for something going wrong or even a CTD or BSoD

[Pat]

Wou it seemed like that to me and if thats not case im sowwies.... But i still do stand firm on you must watch what you pack and how its packed...

[xxdita]

And never try to play with all of your freshly DatPacked files until you move the originals out of your plugins folder. Serves me right though, I knew better.

[Swesim]

I´m not sure this goes here, but I´ll try here first...

I have downloaded the installer for the DATpacker, but the Microsoft Visual C++ link provided doesn´t get me all the way.
I can download the installer for Visual C++, but when I run it it stops after a few seconds and disappear completely after another minute or so without a trace.
I´ve tried four times now without success, any idea what might be wrong?

[dragonshardz]

Swesim, if you are running a Windows Vista x64 system the newer DatPacker won't work, however the older version will.

If you have a Mac, you'll have to ask Wouanagaine about that.

[Swesim]

I´m running a P4 2,4Ghz with 2GB and XP SP2 installed, I rather have the feeling that something is wrong with the MS C++ installer, but any hints would be most welcome...

[wouanagaine]

I´m running a P4 2,4Ghz with 2GB and XP SP2 installed, I rather have the feeling that something is wrong with the MS C++ installer, but any hints would be most welcome...

Please, if you find out what is wrong, tell me, I have the same problem on one of my PC and can't figure out why the installer silently fail

[sim-city_freak]

ya i have a problem when i try to run the dat packer a error shows up and says i should see log but i can even open the log does it have anything to do witht the library zip file?
if it does i can't extract things out of it

[wouanagaine]

you shall not unzip library.zip

you SHALL get the latest version on the LEX

[frdrcklim]

I need some help . I just downloaded the DAT Packer and it won't run. It's sad because I've heard all the wonders it made to other people. Loading a city in my computer takes more than ten minutes whether there is a city or uninhabited. This feels bad. This is the miracle breakthrough I desperately need.

[frdrcklim]

This is weird. Now it says the application failed to start because the application configuration is incorrect. One more thing. Which one is it? SC4DatPacker.exe or SC4DP.exe?

[wouanagaine]

the first one is a windows application, the second one is a commandline application

And you certainly not installed the Visual 2005 SP1 Redist package, that is why you're getting the error