[00:56:53] --- sbx is now known as sbx|afk
[00:59:07] --- sbx is now known as sbx|afk
[02:21:50] --- sbx|afk is now known as sbx
[04:33:37] <Lightkey> being fun, time to leave
[09:00:04] <Fl00der> morning
[09:12:30] <sbx> heya Fl00der
[13:24:57] --- sbx is now known as sbx|afk
[13:36:17] --- Lord_Nightmare is now known as LordN_Away
[14:58:16] <EazyCheeze> yoyo
[19:12:18] <wjp> hm, it should be fairly easy to add some of those SI intrinsics to BG in exult, shouldn't it?
[19:12:27] <wjp> si_path_run_usecode, for instance
[19:12:46] <Colourless> mostly yes i think
[19:13:03] <Colourless> that one in particular should have no problems
[19:13:37] <Colourless> some of them may rely on if (GAME_IS) { } code segements elsewhere in exult
[19:13:46] <Colourless> s/GAME_IS/GAME_SI/
[19:13:48] <wjp> yeah
[19:13:54] <Colourless> like polymorph
[19:14:09] <Colourless> will not work in BG unless code is changed IIRC
[19:14:21] <wjp> path_run_usecode is implemented in the SI way in Exult, luckily, with the BG variant just using the SI variant with NPC set to avatar
[19:16:42] <Colourless> i think we should try to unify the intrinsic lists between the games with new code
[19:16:49] <Colourless> (numerical differences aside)
[19:17:06] <Colourless> make is much much easier to 'port' things between the two
[19:17:54] <Colourless> the biggest difference is the 'talk' event. BG doesn't have it, SI does...