Ahh yes. That. I found that out too a while back. You still need to identify it (so that Magic Dagger becomes Dagger +2) but if you stick a line break in between it even looks somewhat decent (this time it's a real line break not 0x0B that they use in help files)
Because roleplayers will complain I think that the best idea would be to add what an item does in the help text.
No, that's not the case, you don't need to identify it at all.. I added some text to "BLue Magic Garb" just to make sure.. Without ID'ing it, BLue Magic Garb has the extra text.. (Hold on tho. That might mean that whether the generic name or not is used is due to some ("Magical", or "can be identified tag"..) Also, where;s the connection between the detailed and the generic name?
Connection between id's and non-id'd, I don't know. But there is a difference, as it goes from "Magic Cloak" to "Cloak of Elvenkind - description"
I haven't had a good chance to look at the item files yet, but which file has the item weight, weapon damage, etc. On all the normal weaposn at least, this is showing in the item window in the inventory.
Most of that is in the proto.. But I've already gone down that path... I'd love to add a "Details:" line below name, but can't seem to find out where that is... UI_Tooltips seems to eb connected, but I can't see what it's connected to. IOTW, what is referncing UI_Tooltips..
I would like to point out that this current way of adding the description to the name of the item can cause problems with the crafting menus - the names are all too long they overlap each other and make things unreadable.
The "Identified" and "Un-Identified" names are in descriptions.mes. There is a line in proto.tab for both, and you specify which Descriptions.mes line gets hashed when the item is un-id'ed and which one gets hashed when it is Id'ed. So, editing the ID'ed name (such as Cloak of Elvenkind) will have no effect on the Un-ided name (Magical Cloak) as the game won't bother looking up the ID'ed name until he ites is acually identified. Chris Woods
THanks for clearing that up.. I'm still pretty unhappy with this implementation of Item details.. It's probably ok as a stopgap.. But I'm going to continue looking at this next week.. Something for version 2.