search

raziel23x / skyrim-plugin-decoding-project

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/skyrim-plugin-decoding-project
1 stars 3 forks source link

Exception generated when applying cleaning filter #98

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Not sure if it CAN be reproduced.
2. I loaded the USKP, set the filter for cleaning, generated the attached 
exception.
3. Selected continue, the program behaves as normal.

What is the expected output?
Should simply finish applying the filter.

What do you see instead?
An exception report was generated.

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
Version 3.0.28.

Was simply going to use that to try and find any conflicting script data to fix 
in the CK when it threw the error.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by arthmoor on 12 Jan 2013 at 7:32

Attachments:

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
This assertion fires when you are trying to remove from memory an object that 
is either already freed or still in use. As far as my development goes, it 
means the calculated size of "something", "somewhere" is wrong. Not much help, 
sorry.

Original comment by HuguesLe...@gmail.com on 12 Jan 2013 at 4:44

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Taking ownership as it must have to do with other things I did. Cannot be 
reproduce though.

Original comment by HuguesLe...@gmail.com on 14 Jan 2013 at 12:23

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I can't reproduce it with latest SVN.
However conflict detection doesn't work properly with new unions, download USKP 
and open
Unofficial Skyrim Patch.esp \ Quest \ 000FE479 <T03PostQuest>
Skyrim.esm has object format 1, USKP format 2, and yet vmads are shown as 
identical. You can even change some ref in vmad and they'll still remain 
"green".

Original comment by zila...@gmail.com on 14 Jan 2013 at 7:22

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Should they be indicating yellow in a case like that? Have you guys even 
noticed a difference in the object formats?

Original comment by arthmoor on 14 Jan 2013 at 8:31

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Turns out, xxEdit is RIGHT! The first time around, the FormID is compared to an 
Unused record, so no conflict. The second time around, an Unused record is 
compared to a FormID, again no conflict!
Renaming the extra filed to something other than Unused produces a conflict.
Anyway, the form itself will always be in conflict as the version and object 
format differs, unless we set Version AND Object Format priority to cpIgnore ? 
That would make this whole quest an ITM!

Original comment by HuguesLe...@gmail.com on 14 Jan 2013 at 11:43

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I think it would be better to mark "unused" data as unknown inside object union 
so all objects will be highlighted if version doesn't match.

Original comment by zila...@gmail.com on 15 Jan 2013 at 4:15

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Fixed in 3.0.28

Original comment by HuguesLe...@gmail.com on 9 Feb 2013 at 6:51