}

It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Klumpen0815: (...)
avatar
vv221: (...)
avatar
igrok: (...)
avatar
artistgog: (...)
Hi guys,

Thank you for letting me know about this issue. I've learned that Windows installers has been changed to improve their building process. We are currently investigating what can be done to make things easier for you folks.

Sorry for the inconvenience caused!
avatar
linuxvangog: Thank you for letting me know about this issue. I've learned that Windows installers has been changed to improve their building process. We are currently investigating what can be done to make things easier for you folks.
avatar
adamhm: Hi, do you have any updates regarding this? System Shock 2 was updated today with the new packaging method, breaking my wrapper for it :/
Hi,

Nothing new I'm afraid. The change is here to stay, because it boosts the building process speed exponentially. That way offline game installers can be published on the website and distributed to our users much faster. For now, please use immi101's innoextract fork for unpacking the installer.

I am currently working with the team responsible for Windows installer to publish fragment of code that the community can use to unpack new installers. Eventually it won't be much different from what community came up with already.
avatar
adamhm: Is anything planned to resolve the other issues with these new installers? e.g. the significantly slower install speed, the potential for a lot of unnecessary SSD write cycles/wear, not retaining the original file timestamps etc?
avatar
immi101: I second the request to provide the original timestamps.
Regarding the...
- install speed: we observed that in some cases Windows games actually install b]faster than before, and in cases when they install slower, the difference is only about 10-20%. If your experiences with them were different, please provide us with your data so we can investigate.
- increased SSD usage: I honestly don't even know how to reply to that. Yes, the change introduces additional file operations during installation process, but not that much more than before. Data storage drives are meant to be used.
- timestamps: could you tell me what do you need them for and what do you mean by "original"? Can you name examples? Installed files have timestamps from the moment of file creation after unpacking. From our knowledge, it has never caused a problem with running games sold on GOG.com.

avatar
Ganni1987: (...) unless the situation improves, it seems I won't be buying any more old Windows games for Wine use.
avatar
ariaspi: (...) I will hold on buying anything here until some "clean" installers replace the current ones, if that will ever happen.
Sorry to hear that. I'd like to emphasize that installing Windows games on Linux systems is still possible by using Wine. As for other options, now and in the future, I have already mentioned them in my previous post.

avatar
phaolo: (...) I don't understand(...)
avatar
Yepoleb: (...) Don't understand (...)
avatar
ariaspi: I understand (...) but how come (...)
avatar
immi101: [They] only package the game once, then push out the result via galaxy and embed it into the offline installer.
instead of doing it separately for each distribution method
immi101 is right. And that's really what the change is about here.

One of the biggest issues reported is that in some cases, game updates distributed in offline installers are/were behind updates distributed by the Galaxy client, sometimes even lagging by a day or two. This might not be your priority, but we are now resolving this problem for everyone interested in being up-to-date when using offline builds.
Post edited April 13, 2018 by linuxvangog
avatar
ped7g: Any info why "Shadow Tactics: Blades of the Shogun" has version 2.2.2.f only for win and mac?

Did the linux binary choke on QA - if yes, is the dev trying to fix or it's over? Or was it not even submitted? If I understand the release notes on steam correctly, the 2.2.2 does exist for linux, so it's probably the QA thing, or not delivered. Some transparency in the process would help, I don't mind if we are not told particular buglist or contract detail, but at least some "undecided, other, secret || not delivered by dev || rejected by GOG || on the way" would be nice - and not just with this game.
Hi, I replied to this question here: https://www.gog.com/forum/general/general_linux_faq_and_troubleshooting/post1186
avatar
immi101: "original" = keep the timestamps the same as they are when the developer transfers the files to you. normally you expect that copying/transferring a file should not modify file attributes.
when I have a tool/mod that works on the old disc version but not with the GOG version then looking at the modification dates of the files is a quick way to get an overview if and where GOG modified things.
same when a game gets an update and I want a quick look which files got changes. Stripping the file modification dates is simply a loss of information for no apparent reason. There is a reason why that information is retained when copying data on an usb stick and giving it to somebody, when putting it into a innosetup installer and distribute it to people or when putting a file in a zip archive and extract it later.
Going against established common behaviour is bound to cause confusion and irritation. (and bugs: see that link for Oblivion)
I did some research and I've learned that in case of Oblivion vanilla is not affected and that the modding issues are caused by usage of legacy modding tools that can be replaced with better modding tools.

We will keep an eye on this. By all means please report all such problems to us! Since the timestamps thing affects games downloaded from Galaxy client in the first place, I would be grateful if you could report them using our Galaxy Issue Tracker: http://mantis.gog.com

avatar
immi101: I did some testing yesterday and some games indeed take notably longer, see Kingpin for the worst offender.
but note that all this was tested under linux+wine. some windows people probably should try to verify that.

(the good news: innoextract is way faster with the new installers ^^)

<data>
That's some good data that we can work with. We will investigate cases such as Kingpin and see what can be done to improve install speeds. Thank you!