THE OFFICIAL ENGLISH 2K3 VERSION IS OUT!

Posts

I don't think there are any changes in the graphics -- that isn't necessary.
He's talking about the names. The names were changed in the legal version.
pianotm
The TM is for Totally Magical.
28444
DeaconBatista
Those are peanuts. I only care about really annoying shit. Don't want to mak all the stuff again. I will just give the legal RTP graphics the names of the illegal ones and then it should work without crashing.


That shouldn't be a problem. If you don't have the RTP in the game file, it should still convert over. At least, that's what the popup asking if you want to convert promises. Mind you, if you don't convert, you can still work on your game in the legal version, but you won't be able to play test it.
I have a problem. I wanna use the RTP of RM 2000 (not 2003, because it's ugly!) legally. Is that also possible?
Rm2k was released with afaik the same usage rules as the rest of rm's stuff (legal to use in any other rm engine you own). Should be fine as long as you got a copy of 2k.
Where do I get a copy? This topique is about RM 2003 only ... :-/
You can purchase it on steam or on the official site. I believe it's about $20 but it's been on sale a few times so keep an eye on that if you like.

Part of the cost for the engine is the license to use the RTP in other RM engines (as long as you own them).
The new version of RM2K has had a lot of updates and upgrades applied to it, which RM2K3 hasn't. The section were you set how in-battle dialogue works is a good example, because it now allows you to move around each element at will. Far more powerful than the illegal version of RM2K is. I think that the new version of RM2K is almost superior to the new version of RM2K3, bar the fact it lacks some of the eventing commands that RM2K3 has.
author=Sated
The new version of RM2K has had a lot of updates and upgrades applied to it, which RM2K3 hasn't. The section were you set how in-battle dialogue works is a good example, because it now allows you to move around each element at will. Far more powerful than the illegal version of RM2K is. I think that the new version of RM2K is almost superior to the new version of RM2K3, bar the fact it lacks some of the eventing commands that RM2K3 has.


I concur. 2K doesn't have the sideview that 2K3 has, but with some eventing it can be somewhat accomplished, even if it comes off a bit odd. But since 2K seems to be still going pretty big in Japan, it would make sense that it still gets updated when 2K3 does not.

My only problem with either of these is that I'm too lazy to mess with the whole image issues (with size and color depth), and I've only ever used the illegal versions just to play games rather than make games; still, purchasing the legal version would at least grant me the RTP, which at $20 is a pretty good steal and the audio is still superior to that of VX and Ace (in my opinion).
Does that new RM 2000 version have MP3 support?
author=Cherry
author=MewMewPsychic
OK... don't know where to post this so I'll post it here.

I got the official RPG Maker 2003, which I am happy for. What I am less happy is that it's apparently buggy.

Simply put, I installed the official RTP and when trying to make a new project and checking the new interface, the moment I clicked on the Battle Screen tab, I got the following error:

"A load violation of address 00000518 occured in address 00531E13 of module 'rpgmaker2003.exe'."

Note that this was through a newly created project, not one downloaded or produced using a different version from the official one.


Is there any particular reason for this kind of bug?

This sounds really strange to me. Please, the next time you get this error message, don't click OK, but do the following:
- Open task manager (Ctrl+Shift+Esc)
- Go to advanced/details/processes (depends on your OS)
- Select RPG2003.exe and right-click it
- Choose "Dump"
- Wait a while, until a message box will tell you the dump file was created. It will also tell you the location of the file.
- Upload the file and send me the link via email or in a private message. Don't post it here because it might contain personal information such as your Windows username.
This way I can investigate what led to this error. Thanks!

I have a similar bug, but it happens when I open either the troops or battle screen tab. Is there a solution to this problem yet? Or should I provide information, as well? I have a really old project (yes, from before there was a legal overseas version, sadly) that once I found out there was a legal version at last, I decided to transfer to the legal version. With quite a few tweaks, I've gotten pretty much everything in working order for me to resume work on the project, but with both tabs making it impossible for me to do anything in them, I can't progress, and it would take to long to rebuild it from the ground up. And even if I did, what if the errors were still there? What would I do then? Please, I need to get rid of these stinking load violation errors so I can make my project finally be legit (I abandoned it years ago because I was tired of doing something illegal. But with it finally legal, I want to finish it, for I put a lot of thought into its design).

EDIT: I figured out what I'd done wrong. I can finally resume producing this old project!
author=DolphyBlueDrake
EDIT: I figured out what I'd done wrong. I can finally resume producing this old project!

Mind sharing what you were doing wrong in case others have a similar issue?
I hate nitpicking but I just had a conversation with BadLuck about this, and it's maybe been brought up before, but we noticed 2 terminologies that should really be changed in the next version:

Both under "Control Variables"...

"Variable" within the "Variable" block isn't intuitive. It should be "Reference" because it's the referenced variable from another variable
Ex: If set to V0001, and V0001 is "3" then it's going to use V0003.

Next is "Variable ID" under Operand. Similar to the other one, it's more of a reference... but it's equal to the value stored from the index of the specified variable... so with the current terminology, if you do:
@>Control Variables: [0007] = 21
@>Control Variables: [0021] = 6
@>Control Variables: [0001] = Variable ID [0007]
@>Text: \V[1]
: : \V[7]

The text box will print:
6
21


The key point being that "6" gets passed from V21 to V1 by referencing V21 in V7.

Pirated 2k3 uses "Value Stored in Index" which makes much more sense IMO. Might be able to shorten it to "Variable Index", "Value in Index" or something, but "Variable ID" just doesn't make sense.
Variable ID = Variable Index
(ID = Index if we go with new RPG Maker Terminology)

I cannot access Rm2k3 anymore ever since I moved to Windows 10 (and the hacks applied) so either Cherry does it if he agrees or it'll remain that way.
Yeah that's understandable... but I think the confusion is how the terminology is used. Using my previous example, if you chose V7 with a value of 21, "Variable ID" makes me think 21 could get returned rather than its value of 6, even though that's what the "Variable" option above it essentially does. Reference or index describes a level deeper to me I guess.

I see posts frequently about confusion or general uncertainty about variables, so the more intuitive, the better. Maybe the terminology change should be across all makers? ...Unless there would be riots. :(
Really? I've always seen Variable ID as the number of the variable itself, not the amount stored in the variable. Never even thought it could be taken that way.
author=Liberty
Really? I've always seen Variable ID as the number of the variable itself, not the amount stored in the variable. Never even thought it could be taken that way.


Yeah I always thought of it this way. I still don't get the confusion by Pepsi to be honest (even rereading it many times) haha
author=Liberty
Really? I've always seen Variable ID as the number of the variable itself, not the amount stored in the variable. Never even thought it could be taken that way.

It's not, though. It's the value of the variable at the value of some other variable.

In other words, let's say 0001: VAR1 = 10. If you wanted to know what the value of 0001: VAR1 is, you could find out by saying 0002: VAR2 = 1, then saying 0003: VAR3 = Variable ID . That would make VAR3 == 10 (the value of VAR1).

It would not set the value of VAR3 == 1 (which is the ID of 0001: VAR1). Incidentally, there would literally never be a reason to do this, as far as I can tell.

edit: Here's an image of this.



Liberty, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying 298: VAR3 should be equal to 299, the ID of VAR2. It's not, though. It's 10; the value of VAR1.
No, what I meant is that I never saw it as not being assigned to the number of the actual variable in question - that is, it is relating to another variable number. The Variable ID is the number of the variable itself - you're picking to show that variable's input. It's a very simple concept to understand. You're basically making one variable INTO another variable - by picking the number of the variable (the ID of the variable) you want to substitute.

You're stealing that variable's 'identity' (ID). Variable 0001 is now (for all intents and purposes) Variable 0003.