User talk:Macgovern

Just saw you changed one of the Diner Dash games not being shareware; which I got from Mobygames. https://www.mobygames.com/game/40507/spongebob-squarepants-diner-dash/specs/windows/

Considering Mobygames is also user generated and submitted, is there any other way to fact check if it's the only source saying it or otherwise?

You misunderstand my intention with that edit. The row under which you listed the free trial is for games which can be played, in their entirety, start to finish without any limitations - ergo, not shareware, which PCGamingWiki considers a type of demo, which is, to my personal understand, not how the rest of the gaming Internet interprets the term. The section of the editing guide I linked to in my edit notes shows where such versions of games should go and how to describe them as the trial version/shareware/demo,etc. version of a game should absolutely still be mentioned.

As to the question of 'correcting' MobyGames, don't. They have their own definitions of things (which PCGamingWiki used as the basis of its taxonomy system), and that should be respected. It's merely a matter of translation between the two sites.

Think you misread my 'concerning' title with correcting. Definitely still agree as that's definitely not worth the hassle ;)

Hi, I just made an edit that you fixed (totally valid, I was going to fix it myself).

But I am a bit confused. The auto-generated path for Steam Play is just straight up wrong. I tried looking at the docs to see if it can be overridden, but no luck so far.

The [Note 1] disclaimer does mention something about Cloud Saves, but this game does not have them, which is what the auto-generated stuff is showing. But it's wrong. Not sure if this is the case for all Steam games without Cloud Saves, but this one in particular is the *Steam Library*. **Not** in the steam installation folder. I know many people just have a single library in the main install path, but this is misleading.

And I didn't even find a Path variable for Steam Library, so I had to write it manually.

I also find it weird how it doesn't auto-generate the *full* Proton path from the Windows one. Because if Windows is set to %USERPROFILE%\, then it might as well just copy and replace it with <Steam-folder>/steamapps/compatdata/1208400/pfx/drive_c/users/steamuser/[...the rest of the path]

Hi,

The path that's auto-generated is as it is due to various technical limitations.

For example, since the save game cloud syncing is set _after_ the configuration and save game data location, the Steam Play (Linux) auto-generated note note isn't actually aware of whether the game has Steam Cloud support or not.

Similarly, the way the wiki handles Windows paths means we cannot (currently) generate some string such as "drive_c/users/steamuser" automatically from a given input string like "%USERPROFILE%\AppData\LocalLow\Crimson Tales\Onirism". We may eventually get to that point, though it's sometime in the future as it requires migrating the backend code of these templates to a more powerful scripting language.

Past that, as I understand it the core problem is the fact that the auto-generated note points to "<Steam-folder>" and not e.g. "<Steam-library>" ? If so, is everything else otherwise correct (as in, it's stored below "<Steam-library>/steamapps/compatdata/1057640/pfx/..." ? Changing "Steam-folder" to "Steam-library" is someting that we can do.

I have improved the auto-generated note to now say the following:

<SteamLibrary-folder>/steamapps/compatdata//pfx/

[Note] says the following:

Notes regarding Steam Play (Linux) data:

• File/folder structure within this directory reflects the path(s) listed for Windows and/or Steam game data.
• Games with Steam Cloud support may also store data in ~/.steam/steam/userdata/<user-id>//.
• Use Wine's registry editor to access any Windows registry paths.
• The app ID () may differ in some cases.
• Treat backslashes as forward slashes.
• See the glossary page for details on Windows data paths.

The Steam Cloud part has also been automated and will only appear if the game uses Steam Cloud (may take a page refresh or two on the server-side for the note to appear).

You can't enable realtime or hardware raytracing in palworld. It uses only lumen software raytracing. Which works in dx11 and dx12. r.RayTracing=1 which enables realtime raytracing is need to to enable hardware raytracing. But it can't be used because the game wasn't cooked with Hardware Raytracing support. https://docs.unrealengine.com/4.26/en-US/RenderingAndGraphics/RayTracing/ If you enable it through settings at the moment, it will just crash the game and give you an error that you're missing a shader file. https://www.nexusmods.com/palworld/mods/147

I have UUU5 too to change fpostprocesssettings realtime, also I can edit the game cvars through the console realtime, that UUU5 can't do. You only can enable r.DynamicGlobalIlluminationMethod=1 and r.ReflectionMethod=1 to use Lumen. To use lumen hardware raytracing, you also have to have r.RayTracing=1, LumenHardwareRayTracing command values are already enabled by default, but they don't do anything, same with any r.Raytracing commands. If you do use r.RayTracing=1 instead of 0, you get a crash. End of story. You only get the same raytracing as it is in Lords of the Fallen if you hack it in.

So okay, I'll fix that software raytracing is hackable, but beyond that you can't do anything, unless you steal the developers project files and recompile the entire game with hardware raytracing support.

Neither you nor the mod demonstrate the error, of which I am well-familiar from having tried and learning why hardware raytracing can't usually be forced in a UE4/UE5 title. I don't own Palworld, so I don't know what baking they did or did not do.

Please provide visual evidence, preferably video, that the error does, indeed, occur. If hardware raytracing is unforcable in this game, proof, not a "this doesn't work on my computer" statement, needs to be provided - especially given how trivial the error is to trigger.

r.RayTracing=1 enables raytracing, not his mod. He admits that he is trying to enable it, but he isn't. He knows that it doesn't enable r.RayTracing

" Also in the mod description you can read: "(Some of the RayTracing functions may or may not be enabled - the Engine.ini file arguments are trying to force these functions to be enabled." "

Just enable dx12 and r.RayTracing=1 in your engine ini.

This mod does not enable raytracing. https://www.nexusmods.com/palworld/mods/74/ They even admitted to it, and they said it's not a bug, when I said that he doesn't enable raytracing, he said it uses lumen software raytracing which is still raytracing, but most of the commands he uses do nothing. r.RayTracing.Enable is not even a valid command.

That mod creator is an idiot who just cares about his feelings, he doesn't give a shit about if the "mod" even works.

his respone when I tested his entire mod. https://www.nexusmods.com/palworld/mods/74/?tab=bugs " Still not a bug. Not supported != bug

No one is forcing anyone to like or download this """"mod"""".

Also in the mod description you can read: "(Some of the RayTracing functions may or may not be enabled - the Engine.ini file arguments are trying to force these functions to be enabled."

Have a nice one.

(I won't allow more spam and harsh answers from you. You can like or dislike this mod and no one is forcing anyone to download or to like this """mod""". But this is not giving you the right to ridiculize this mod or me.)"

Yup, that's the error alright. Thank you for providing the evidence as requested. Your edit will be kept, but tweaked so as to link to your bug report/proof.

https://youtu.be/on19WRXMSpk I'm making a video for ya. You can come check.

Edit: finished, trying to enable realtime/hardware raytracing, and then without it. That guide part from that mod was just silly lie by him. First time I reported it as a bug, he made the bug report private, and did only a single sentence "not a bug". I pointed all the commands out he used that did nothing, and he said it's "not a bug". What sort of person does that.

Well whatever, at least you see that it's only limited raytracing. And you only need. r.DynamicGlobalIlluminationMethod=1 and r.ReflectionMethod=1 Dx12 isn't even needed to use lumen software raytracing.

Excellent! Thank you for the additional evidence. The error you got when attempting to force hardware raytracing is exactly what I'd expect from a UE4/UE5 game which wasn't baked for hardware raytracing.

EDIT: As for the kind of person who'd react in such a nonsensical way? In my personal experience, people will do strange things for clout.

Thank you very much for listening. Hope restored for humanity.

Hi,

I understand that generic solutions should not lead to controllers being marked as hackable. I did this because the notes section of Playstation controllers in the editing guide mentioned: "limited can be used in situations where official developer-confirmed support is provided through a third-party solution (e.g. Steam Input), which should also be noted."

My question is, does this mean that only Steam Input API as opposed to the legacy Steam hook input should be considered limited?

Since a game using the Steam Input API provides native support for all controllers it supports, XInput, PlayStation, and generic controllers could all be set to true when a game does so.

Thanks for clarifying this. I will correct this in other places where I have made the same mistake.

I don't have anything to cite, this is original research and testing. The installer runs on a clean 64-bit VM of Windows XP. The installer does not not run on a clean 32-bit VM of Windows 7. Therefore, it is clear this issue isn't one of 64-bit Windows. I am also the creator of the Ubi Soft Installer Fix linked in that section; the issue is one of different exception handling on later versions of Windows (it's inconsistent whether it breaks the installer or not, but it does most of the time).

For personal research etc, please use {{Refcheck}} with an appropriate comment detailing the research:

https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Template:Refcheck

OK, I have made the change again with the appropriate tag, please let me know if anything else is needed!

Just looked at your edit, and it looks good. Thanks for updating it with the personal reference!

Why cancelled my modifications ? It's not a discussion. It's a fact and I have just described the facts. I have tested. After 15 minutes offline without egs and internet, game has closed and connexion to egs has been asked. EGs version is not drm free

Please keep the conversation to art of rally's discussion page so you and the originator of the DRM-free claim, Dribbleondo, can discuss this, as he also tested the game on EGS and found things worked differently than what you described.

It's you who canceled my edit. That's why I'm writing to you to find out why. Was it the comment added next to it that caused an issue? I don't know how to add comments otherwise when making edits, unfortunately, as I couldn't find a way. On the game's Discord, the developers aren't even aware that the game would be DRM-free on the Epic Games Store. I tested it today, and after 16 minutes, the game exited, asking me to log in to the EGS. On Reddit, there are other players experiencing the same behavior. I opened a discussion about Art of Rally, but it won't change anything. I thought the purpose of PCGamingWiki was to provide accurate information. Apparently, that's not the case. Too bad."

I undid your edit because I was unaware of all the information you just provided to me. Had you added your sources to the article as references, your edit would not have been undone as information like that will always trump self-references.

If you re-submit your edit to the article with the references (see https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/PCGamingWiki:Editing_guide/References for how they're expected to be used), I'll be happy to ensure the edit fits within the wiki's standards.

Sorry. I would love to add but I don't know how do.

I will see your link.

if you go into the some of the mod links that i removed previously you will notice that the creators of the mod said that their mod became obsolete or it was merged into another mod, i didn't remove it for no reason

Good to know. Had you listed that in the edit notes, I wouldn't have undone your original edit.

thanks. please check the changes i made and change, remove or add anything that you see fits the best.

Since your current edits are a continuation of this, I will put my full edit notes here instead of clogging up the pages for SADX and SA2.

I am more than aware of the poor quality of the games' PC ports. However, just dumping mods onto the page, especially ones which add 'features which should've been there' beyond vanilla, is not acceptable. The mod pages before my latest undo used to look like the pages of RDR2 and MELE before they were trimmed by PCGamingWiki staff for similar reasons to my own.

Furthermore, neither SADX nor SA2 have the breath and depth of content which, say, Grand Theft Auto IV or Skyrim do. The amount of mods for those games, especially for Grand Theft Auto IV, which arguably suffered just as bad a PC port as SADX and SA2 did, is thus understandable - but even then, there are still limits as to how many mods are shown on the site.

Please do not continue to edit the pages. It will be considered edit warring (see https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/PCGamingWiki:Code_of_conduct#Behavior), and I prefer to settle this without moderator arbitration.

We see a lot of confusion with people about custom GI solutions like UE5's Lumen. They mistake it as an explicit hardware ray tracing feature, while in fact there are two modes of Lumen, that epic's devs unfortunately just call Lumen due to PR marketing reasons. This leads to people changing the ray tracing field again and again from "false" to "true", while it is not and depends on wether "hardware lumen" or only "software lumen" is implemented in the game.

Software Lumen in it's latest version is mainly a combo of conventional screen space and signed distance fields. Only Hardware Lumen makes use of polygonal ray tracing done per dedicated ray tracing hardware. So if the game only uses software lumen accordingly, then the field "ray tracing" should remain as "false" and not "true".

That confusion might become a pain in the ass with more upcoming UE5 titles. Unfortunately not many people read the guide lines, which explicitly require, that this field is reserved for hardware ray tracing only. So i suggest to change the field to a clearer definition namely "hardware ray tracing".

I concur. There is an internal PCGamingWiki discussion on whether the change is worth it, so hopefully something will come of that.

Thank you, As commonly known Hardware Ray Tracing means an essential increase in visual accuracy and quality. The RT feature is a quite important factor and selling point of modern gpus and comes with higher expectations. In this context it is somewhat concerning, that titles like "Lords of the Fallen 2023" and "The Talos Principle 2" already advertise high or ultra settings as ray tracing in a suggestive manner, while they are in fact only using software ray tracing. The latter comes with heavy drawbacks regarding the visual quality as shown here.: https://youtu.be/SxpSCr8wPbc

The confusion leads to gamers being disappointed about hw ray tracing, mistakenly thinking they would use it. The bad reputation of HW RT is already happening enough due to developers mixing RT with conventional rasterization techniques as in cross gen titles with all the drawbacks like "lights leakage", artifacts around objects, vanishing effects at the edges, rasterized shadows and other issues.

So in this context it might be quite important for gamers to know, if the hw rt capabilities of their pricey modern gpu can actually be used or not for a title. More clarity in that matter would be highly appreciated. Thank you for your time.

That's it. I flagged you. You simply are not capable to understand. Also the way how you talk to people is unacceptable!

This was discussed quite a lot among the staff members and we eventually landed on clarifying the mixed use of the ray tracing row in the editing guide, as well as add a section on the glossary page about software ray tracing.

There were various reasons why we opted to go this way, but the primary ones ended up being:

a) it is almost impossible for end users to easily tell whether ray tracing is hardware or "software" based,

b) it also does not necessarily matter since even "software" based ray tracing is often superior to classic rasterized lighting effects. Note that "software" is a bit of a misnomer since the effects are still rendered on the GPU, just not on dedicated discrete ray tracing hardware chips.

c) to differentiate between these sort of differences is the whole purpose of our limited state. Instead of only tracking hardware ray tracing (and losing out on the ability to track software ray tracing), the updated editing guide allows tracking both. true will be used for hardware ray tracing, while limited will be used for games which only supports software ray tracing, with an accompanied note.

Content warnings are outside the scope of PCGamingWiki.

In Remedy's new title Alan Wake 2 there is nudity quite right from the beginning of the game. It can be disabled though. This is important for things like game streaming on public video platforms. Affected characters wear pants then etc.

Question is where to put it? Also there are other games like Baldur's Gate 3 with nudity. This point was not a big topic in the past. But with increasing visual quality in games it gets more public attention. Is it worth a dedicated field?

The nudity setting in Alan Wake 2 can be find at the bottom of the interface tab.

Looking for the option in the game's PCGamingWiki article, seems like an entire options menu missing from the article. As such, I'd take a screenshot, editing and saving it in a losslessly-compressed format (PNGs are the most common) according to the official screenshot visual guidelines (see https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/PCGamingWiki:Editing_guide/Screenshots#Visual_guidelines ), then upload the screenshot to PCGamingWiki and, once successfully uploaded, add it to the article.

Aside from that, content warnings are beyond the scope of the wiki. While obviously we won't host explicit imagery on the site (see https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/PCGamingWiki:Editing_guide/Wiki_policy#What_the_wiki_does_not_cover ), we focus on the technical side of things.

Sorry for being not precise enough maybe. I didn't mean to warn or upload a picture or something. I wanted to add info to the wiki, on how to toggle on / off nudity in the game. There is a setting for that in the game's menu. But i don't know, where to write this in the wiki. So i thought maybe a special field for nudity feature in the wiki may be a future proof thing.

That sort of information is beyond the scope of the wiki, I'm afraid.

The screenshot of the Interface menu uploaded by Fayaine is enough.

A screenshot has quite some drawbacks, when people are searching for this specific information. Because the needed info can not be crawled by popular web search engines on this wiki. Only words can be properly found and indexed by search engines. So i put a simple two liner info about this topic under the section "other information". https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Alan_Wake_II#Nudity

Care to explain your reverts about Alan Wake 2 Epic DRM? I can partially understand your first revert of user Future-proof, since the caveats aren't minor for some people. But you could've done what I've done and just changed the DRM symbol and leave the important info. There are many people that care about DRM-freedom and put work in the testing of games and reporting their valuable findings.

Simply put, the kind of DRM freedom you're referring to is considered too much detail for PCGamingWiki's target audience (see https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/PCGamingWiki:Editing_guide/Wiki_policy#Who_the_articles_are_for). I know you'll disagree, but that's what's been settled on.

That said, the information can be moved to the article's talk page since, historically, those have functionally been used to document information related to the game, but too detailed for the actual article.

Sorry, but that makes no sense and I don't see that the content of this page backs your position in any way. PCGW always has been for beginners and advanced users. A "first time user" also includes everyone who makes his purchase dependent on the DRM of the game. And furthermore: this is NOT about cracks. Besides: please tell me, where do you draw the line when to omit said DRM information? Zero caveats, one caveat, only minor? Who defines this. There are many games here that don't have 100% functionality when launched without their resp. clients AND where this is mentioned correctly on the page itself. Info about DRM is an important part in this wiki (all kind of DRM methods, lists for DRM-free games for every store etc.) Don't act like this isn't the case.

In all honesty, we don't draw a line. It's made up on an article-by-article basis. Any semblance of a standardized definition is coincidence.

And that's all there is to say. I put the information back in the article (see https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Alan_Wake_II&type=revision&diff=1452770&oldid=1452769).

I'm done here.