YF'S PROFILE

Yes.

There's no icon drawing in Sprite_Battler. The only thing close that line of code you've pasted is within Window_Base. No such code exists within any of my scripts.

To which:



480x320 resolution: No errors.

My conclusion: You've either messed up your own base scripts or you've downloaded some cheesy "full version" of RMVXA.

Hooray!

Oooh, that's much more efficient. Thanks!
REGEX isn't my forte as you can see.

author=prexus
The Databases in XP and VX are the same, if you look deep enough. Noteboxes exist in XP through the use of Scripts, and through clever use of the existing fields. Noteboxes themselves even seemed to exist after having taken clues from scripters such as myself creatively using the Description field and Name field of entries in the XP Database (parsing out information using Regular Expressions to add additional fields and such.)

In short, they don't exist. They only "exist" by abusing pre-existing fields, to which, I ask where is the practicality in that? Name fields and description fields both have limited typing space, which generally isn't sufficient enough for the more heavier and complex skills that a single notebox of VX's database can provide. For this event, it's better that you recognize VX's database is superior to XP's.

author=prexus
This is the reason I simply ignored talking about the databases and went onto the Map Editor since that is the key difference between the two. The Map Editor (which is inferior by far) and RGSS2 (which is superior by far) which you mentioned yourself can be ported backwards to RMXP (I believe Dargor and Yeyinde both did this as well as you and I and I am sure many more.)

Due to the existence of the RGSS Editor, RMXP and RMVX are essentially the same. They can both be ported backwards and forwards, they can both be stripped down and recoded (although certain aspects of their respective RGSS dll's are hard to overcome,) and their capabilities in all aspects short of the existing map editor, whether they are innate in the editor or need to be added through RGSS, are the same. The primary difference is the Map Editor, and VX's Map Editor is worse. Hands down. Yes, you can use SwapTX and Panorama mapping, but SwapTX doesn't get rid of the way the layer system works (as far as I know) and the over reliance on Auto-Tiles; and Panorama mapping can be considered more labor-intensive although can also offer much better effects than either map editor is capable of by default.

From my porting of RMVX to RMXP, there's nothing the RMXP DLL's couldn't handle. The audio actually played a bit faster by a couple of nanoseconds, while the graphics loaded a few nanoseconds later. However, the differences there are so minute that they don't warrant going into much detail for.

Also, RMVX's and RMXP's layer system works the same. The only difference is that XP has one extra layer. Auto-tiles aren't a big issue for VX either. They can be turned off completely or not used at all through a few key-shortcuts in VX.

author=prexus
Lastly, it's ignorant to say that the code wasn't simplified from XP to VX. The addition of the base Scene class, the visibility of the Cache, Audio, and Vocab modules, the accessibility of the Sprite Base and Window Base classes, and the removal of multiple headlines for the same script (Game_Battler 1/2/3, Scene_Battle 1/2/3/4) were all attempts to streamline and increase the efficiency of the code.

Cache, Audio, and Vocab were visible from the helpfile (though I don't know if that was the case for the EN version of RMXP).

Sprite_Base, Window_Base, and Scene_Base only made template methods for child classes. The coding structure in it is exactly the same. In fact, the most important of the classes: Scene_Base has little bearing on the child Scene classes since the majority of them would have functioned the same otherwise. This is not ignorance. This is merely observation from what my experiences as a scripter for both engines can say.

Game_Battler 1/2/3 and Scene_Battle 1/2/3/4 when pasted together yield nearly the same structure as the VX counterparts mechanically. Visually they're different obviously. However, little was done in actually streamlining the code.