This page is now considered old. There is a newer page.

Quick Installation Notes

  1. Download GoGet.Bat and store it from World of WarCraft's DATA\ directory. (For example, if World of WarCraft is stored in "W:\Program Files\Games\Blizzard Entertainment\World of WarCraft", store the downloaded GoGet.Bat file as "W:\Program Files\Games\Blizzard Entertainment\World Of WarCraft\DATA\GoGet.Bat")
  2. Also download WGet and store it in a DLTools\ directory that you make under WoW's directory/folder. (For example, if World of WarCraft is stored in "W:\Program Files\Games\Blizzard Entertainment\World of WarCraft",
    1. make "W:\Program Files\Games\Blizzard Entertainment\World Of WarCraft\DLTools\"
    2. and then store WGet as "W:\Program Files\Games\Blizzard Entertainment\World Of WarCraft\DLTools\WGet.Exe")
  3. Run GoGet.Bat from WoW's DATA\ directory. This is probably as simple as double-clicking the icon for the copy of GoGet.Bat that is placed in the DATA\ directory.

Current Status

The current status is that everything is believed to work. Everything which has been pointed out as not working has been fixed, to the best of the creator's knowledge. If anything is not working, please let the creator know (and also include a copy and paste of the text in GoGet/GoInst.BTM's window if the problem is occuring while running these files) by sending a message at Allakhazam or posting to the thread.

Latest Version

If a new version of World of WarCraft is released, chances are the old versions of the Patchin' Batch will still work just as well as with the old version of World of WarCraft. However, you might want to re-run the Patchin' Batch every time there is a download needed for the latest World of WarCraft version. That way new textures, if any, can hopefully be addressed when the Patchin' Batch is re-run.

To check if you are using the latest version, see the dates that the batch files output. If there is a plus sign near/after the date, that indicates multiple releases happened during the same day. You may wish to replace GoInst.BTM. One method that can work for doing this, if servers are up and responsive and Internet connections working, is to delete all copies of GoInst.BTM that are in the WoW directory and any subdirectories (see especially Data\ and Data\DLTools, and DLTools\ if that starts being used) and run GoGet.Bat.

Link Back

For movies and more, check out the page you should have come from which is linked to from the only page that people should be using to link to this site.

Disclaimer

This Patchin' Batch file attempts to delete files. Specifically, the files this Patchin' Batch attempts to delete are any files that it created (by unzipping from another file or by downloading with WGet), and/or, after asking, the results of using this or other modifications. Due to the possibility of bugs, the possibility of a file being modified from the original before you obtained it, and the lack of any reason to accept any responsibility, the creator of the Patchin' Batch accepts no responsibility for any (mis)use of this batch file. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK! The Patchin' Batch (GoInst.BTM, maybe not GoGet.Bat) is also designed to try to ask before accessing the network, but again, there is no guarantees of anything.

Table of Contents

Future Plans

GoGet.Bat has been renamed to GoGet.Bat again, after being called GoGetXP.Bat for the first version or few that had some code specifically designed to make things work in Windows XP. I haven't been receiving reports on the Allakhazam thread that this works, nor that it doesn't, so I hope somebody's been appreciating the effort. If people are continuing to have problems with the batch file, I'd like to either fix the batch file or move onto some other installation method. However, I haven't been getting recent (since the batch file had been updated multiple times) complaints about the batch file not working for anybody. I'd be more inclined to put more work into the project (maybe by re-testing and/or adding code to support downloaded zip packages, or adding support for more skins to the Patchin' Batch and/or this site, etc.) if there was more feedback to indicate that such efforts would likely be used.

I am not significantly opposed to a *.EXE executable file, rather than a *.BTM file for distribution, although I haven't been hearing any recent reports of problems and so I'm not inclined to spend the effort redesigning this patch if it's completely unnecessary.

Distribution

The simplest method for now is to get GoGet.Bat and WGet. Snag the World of WarCraft Patchin' Batch right here. (I don't know why I kept using the word "Snag" with each of my earlier releases, but now I'm doing it just out of tradition/precedent.)

The update in AlNudPt2 over AlNudPt1 that took me the most time to develop (successfully) (umm... I hoping, as of this writing) has been an alternate distribution method where a small file is downloaded initially, and that file will try to use WGet as needed to obtain other files. When a new version is released, this distribution method is likely to be how the latest version is made available, with other releases like larger packages possibly being released at the same time or later. (This is due not only to ease of packaging for distribution, but also this is believed to be how most casual computer users would prefer and be able to successfully use, and that an update can then be distributed easily without people needing to redownload an entire large archive just to get the new batch file.)

I am not currently in favor of the idea of distributing a zip file containing the patches, even though that would be easier for Mac users. There can be literally thousands of files, and if we have the created files distributed then users wouldn't have choices of what to install or not. Besides that, there would be much greater concerns of legality (copyright) if we start distributing files directly instead of as patches. All around, it's better to have a simple installer that gives users choices. (Granted, it would be nicer to have an installer that is simpler than the current method, but using zip files isn't necessarily going to be the easiest of best solution for all.)

How to use the patch

What's New

August 30th morning (I hope) release: Lots of new options: Downloading from the batch file, some support for Tabard transparency (thanks Slinkey!), and support for using CerianDK's super-large patch (that's a joke, it's actually zero bytes) are now all built into TOOGAM's Patchin' Batch. Also, I'm guessing that it is going to work now. The thing I spent the most time on, and which is probably the primary reason for the batch file tripling in size, was a different distribution method which allows for a smaller initial download (so you can start running the Patchin' Batch sooner) and which will hopefully be easier to use, since some/many/most/all people who tried the last version were apparently rather unsuccessful in running GoInst.BTM.

Documentation is not currently bundled in with any of the releases, and this web page may soon serve a more useful documentation than the AboutZip.Txt file, and therefore eventually completely replace the AboutZip.Txt file from older versions.

Version History

June 22
In process of being made to work with WoW 1.11.
January 17, 2006
January 17, 2006 Added support for downloading more files from a mirror since one of the distributors of a needed file stopped distributing the file. HTML page wasn't updated and this version wasn't announced.
November 9, 2005
November 9, 2005
November 9, 2005
Restructured a compound statement, re-enabling working code to optionally perform conversion to increase chick population, and subsequent questions (such as making some more clothing, like some shorts women wear, transparent). Anyone having incomplete results using an earlier version of GoInst.BTM is recommended to use this newer version.
  • Added support for automatic detection of races: When Blizzard adds any new races (as planned for the expansion pack), the work will be trivial (look in a different new file like WoWX.MPQ?) or perhaps non-existant in order to support new races.
  • Minor changes: Added color to some of the early errors GoInst.BTM could encounter if file placement is wrong. Removed unused (since it was not working) code for converting between types.
    • October 12, 2005

    Directories seen with SFN names of Interf~1 and Cinema~1 are now recognized. Date is highlighted, and GoInst.BTM's output is more colorful in the beginning, making it's presense easier to be recognized. There were some more internal, structural changes documented in GoGet.Bat, and these probably created the bug that led to the November 9 bugfix release. This is also the last version to contain the code for converting between a couple of "types" of skins. (The code was found to not work, and so it was commented out and wasn't being used anyway... removing it helped deal with some space limitations.)

    GoInst12.Btm
    Some older version, dated the same day as GoGetXP.Bat
    GoGetXP.Bat
    Dated September 22, 2005, this was the filename used when GoGet.Bat was first gaining code to work around Windows XP bugs (or perhaps limitations, which I consider a mistake either way) that didn't exist in Win9x. The XP was not originally created to be some lame way to publicize XP compatibility, but rather was a name I came up with to keep some versions separated. When I spotted a link I failed to update that went to GoGet.Bat, I decided to chop off the XP part of the filename. GoGetXP.Bat did, after all, work well with Win9X systems as well.
    GoGet.Bat Debug Version
    This may call itself assuming that it is named GoGet.Bat, so rename it. At the time of this writing, GoGetDB.Bat isn't expected to fix anything, but it is expected to generate more output to help in debugging the earlier version of GoGet.Bat. Dated Sept 17, 2005 with another version, byte for byte identical, also dated Sept 21, 2005.
    First release of GoGet.Bat that used WGet
    Although the majority of input suggested this didn't work, it is suspected that this is only because of some incompatibility with Windows XP. The data files this version required can be found in a later release. The files GoGet.Bat, old version and GoInst.BTM, old version were the only method that this version was released. Larger archives with files included, without the need to download, were not included. Documentation suggested to use GoGet.Bat and WGet.Exe. This version would errorneously treat Interface\Cinematics as a directory which is an add-on when asking early on if you want to delete pre-existing add-ons. (I didn't catch that since I had, at one point, accidentally deleted my Cinematics, perhaps because of this.)
    AlNudPt (All-Nude Patch)

    Warning: I found an issue that can leave "directory search handles" allocated on a Win9X/Me machine. This shouldn't be done, although using up 2 or 3 "directory search handles" everytime the batch file is run is something that probably won't be a problem on most Win9x/Me machines that just ran the batch file once, as I expect a system has numerous handles (though not unlimited) available. (I furthermore believe that closing the DOS session on a Win9X/Me machine won't fix this issue, though I could be wrong. This is hardly permanent damage, though: Rebooting would fix this memory allocation situation.)

    Downloads:

    Older Versions
    Documentation may come here in a future page update. For now, see Documentation for the older version: AlNudPt1.Zip

    Questions & Answers

    How do I...
    ...make my succubus dress more in-character of a succubus?
    • Run the Patchin' Batch, and select "Yes" to "Use default answers to questions (Recommended for first-time uesrs)?"
    ...see a "Type 2" skin?
    • Run the Patchin' Batch, and select "Yes" to "Use default answers to questions (Recommended for first-time uesrs)?"

    Due to reports of some systems not displaying transparencies in WoW nicely, it is recommended that you then select "Yes" to "Use CerianDK's zero-byte Clothes Remover (disable item textures) [Y/E/L,N/R]?" This is the fastest and most-likely-to-work way to be able to see the Type 2 skins (whether they be the ones built into the game or not). It does have the side-effect of making items have red question mark icons, though, so after quickly testing if that works, be prepared to run GoGet.Bat again and try out using actual transparencies which are, in my humble opinion, nicer on a system where they work flawlessly.

    ...see some skins that show actual nudity on my human or night elf character, once Type 2 files can be seen?
    • Run the Patchin' Batch, and select "Yes" to "Use default answers to questions (Recommended for first-time uesrs)?"
    ...customize my load screen when I am loading Kalimdor?
    • Run the Patchin' Batch, and select "Yes" to "Use default answers to questions (Recommended for first-time uesrs)?"
    ...increase the number of players that have nude female bodies?
    • Run the Patchin' Batch, and select "Yes" to "Use default answers to questions (Recommended for first-time uesrs)?"
    ...try out CerianDK's Clothes Remover?
    • Run the Patchin' Batch, and select "Yes" to "Use CerianDK's zero-byte Clothes Remover (disable item textures) [Y/E/L,N/R]?"
    ...try out transparent clothing on players with female bodies?
    • First you run the Patchin' Batch, and select "Yes" to "Use default answers to questions (Recommended for first-time uesrs)?"
    • Then select "No", when the Patchin' Batch asks you, "Use CerianDK's zero-byte Clothes Remover (disable item textures) [Y/E/L,N/R]?".

    Please note that transparency in WoW has been reported to not work wonderful on some machines.

    ...try out transparent clothing on those with female bodies due to the increase in females?
    • First you run the Patchin' Batch, and select "Yes" to "Use default answers to questions (Recommended for first-time uesrs)?"
    • Then, when the game asks you about using CerianDK's Clothes Remover, select "No".
    Make type 1 files (including those built into Blizzard's MPQ files) be unsupported?
    In theory, by modifying CharSections.dbc. In reality, this seems to not work, so there may or may not be a way to support this.
    What files does the Patchin' Batch modify?

    None.

    The current versions of the Patchin' Batch do not have any support for modifying the original World of WarCraft files. Instead, the Patchin' Batch adds files to the AlNudPat\ and DLTools\ directories under the DATA\ directory. Additionally, files in directories under DATA\AlNudPat\ may be copied out of DATA\AlNudPat\ to new directories under DATA\ so that they have effect.

    If the program is interrupted (with Control-C, or if the DOS window is closed), or if WGet grabs an unexpected file, the program may also leave more files in DATA\. On a fresh installation of WoW, before any modifications are made, the DATA\ directory should have one subdirectory, Interface, which itself should have one subdirectory, Cinematics. The only files in DATA\ are four .html files (connection-help, Credits, eula, and tos), two .url files (AccountBilling and TechSupport), eleven non-patch .MPQ files (base, dbc, fonts, interface, misc, model, sound, speech, terrain, texture, and wmo), and some number of patch*.MPQ files (perhaps patch.MPQ and either patch-1.MPQ or patch-2.MPQ). There aren't any files ending with .Zip, .Exe, .DLL, .BLP, .TGA, nor ending Arj files (ending with .ARJ or A followed by a low two-digit number). If, when you are no longer running the Patchin' Batch, you see any additional files in the DATA\ directory (and not a subdirectory underneath DATA\) other than GoGet.Bat and/or GoInst.BTM then that likely wasn't intended by the Patchin' Batch so if they were created by the Patchin' Batch then there is likely no reason not to delete them. (I've seen the Patchin' Batch leave these extra files around a lot, but then again, in the process of creating newer versions of the file, I also quit the program while it was running a lot, which is not the recommended action for end users. Therefore, I'm hoping end users, who typically won't be aborting the program instead of letting the program end itself, won't typically be having any extra files.)

    Why is some non-skin-tight clothing colored like the flesh underneath it?
    This can refer, for example, to the bottom of a tabard, or to dresses and robes. The bottom of the tabard uses the same background color and borders as the top of the tabard. If the texture for the top of the tabard is transparent, so is the texture for the bottom of the tabard. The transparent texture means that whatever is behind the transparency, meaning skin, gets shown. Then, whatever gets shown, in this case the color of skin, gets laid over the model of the clothes. Therefore, you end up getting skin-colored clothing which is not skin-tight. One solution to this is to make the tabards not topless. I imagine a nicer solution would be for someone to create a new tabard model with an extremely small bottom portion (such as if it was only one inch tall). However, as of this writing, there are no reports of anyone actually customizing the 3-D shapes of a model.
    I don't like the results.
    To remove what's been done:
    Simply run the batch file, and if it detects modifications in the Data\ directory, the batch file will ask if you would like to delete the modifications. Simply say yes. Most WoW add-ons, such as Cosmos, are in the Interface\ directory (not the Data\Interface\ directory), although most of the original skin-modifying files were released with directions to place them under Data\. Alternatively, just delete all of the subdirectories under Data\ (including all of the subdirectories under Data\Interface\) except for Data\Logs\ and Data\Interface\Cinematics.
    To get different results
    Fisrt, have you tried running the batch file and saying "Yes" to deleting any other files that already existed? Mixing the effects of this batch file and other patches may not work too well. Choose no to the question about using recommended answers. Saying No causes more customizability, but this might not have been tested it as much, and I don't want people choosing their own options and then complaining that they don't like the results. At least try the recommended options first so you can see what this batch file does as it was designed. If you don't like them, feel free to try other choices.
    Does this work with other patches?
    Sure. Because this batch file may overwrite other files, it is recommended to use this batch file first, and then add any other "Type-2" patches that you desire.
    Does this work with the latest version of WoW?

    As of this writing, yes. If I find it doesn't, I will likely make a note of that on this page, since that would significantly impact the usefulness of these files (as WoW requires a server by Blizzard which will always insist on working with only the latest version of WoW). If the Blizzard-provided abilities that the Patchin' Batch use become unavailable, there are alternative options which may work.

    Will Blizzard ban people who use this patch?
    For evidence that they will not, see askdbliz.htm. However, a post on Allakhazam has pointed to Blizzard of Europe's postTechlead's input on this topic. Techlead works for Blizzard of Europe, and it's been said (somewhere) by (some WoW-playing customer, presumably) that CM's (which I later learned is a "content manager" for the forums) outweigh statements said from a GM (Game Master, one who interact with the game and can make changes).

    I believe a useful way of looking at this is to see a comment made about Microsoft. Microsoft's DirectX capturing abilities was replacing Video for Windows, likely in an effort to get consumers to use newer DirectX technology. Then another group within Microsoft, likely responding to some requests by businesses, released Video for Windows DirectShow filters. This kind of repaired what was broken, and probably intentionally broken in the newer software in order to kill off the older software. Conflicting efforts can be explained by a comment (I believe on a post on VirtualDub's forums) that stated that Microsoft is made up of numerous teams of people who don't always see things in the same way, or pursue all of the exact same detailed goals 100% of the time. I suspect this may be Blizzard's position: There isn't a clear official position, and so some different details have been released by different well-meaning employees of Blizzard. These statements seem to be conflicting a bit, and likely will until the issue becomes a big enough topic that the company decides to make a more official stance that will be followed more by employees. (Hopefully that won't need to happen.)

    As for whether to follow TechLead's statements or someone else's: I'm planning to follow the information given on the web page suggesting it is okay. Not only was that said directly to me, but it comes from a Senior or Lead GM, according to the following paragraph: "

    It is important to follow these guidelines in the immediate situation when dealing with a GM. A GM will never ask you to do anything that would compromise an account or its contents. Though the GM's motives may be unclear, there may well be a valid justification for the request, but the GM may be unable to articulate this for various reasons. Rather than disobeying in protest against the request being made or the action being taken, please oblige him/her and later express your concerns to the WoWGMFeedback-US@Blizzard.com email address. Emails sent to this address go directly to the Senior and Lead GMs, who will investigate and address any instances of potentially inappropriate GM actions.

    GMs will make every attempt to show you the respect you deserve as a valued customer. We ask that you, in turn, show us the same respect. We take no joy in assigning account penalties, but sometimes must do so to preserve the integrity of the service. We look forward to our interactions with the players and hope to resolve issues quickly and painlessly so you can get back to enjoying the game.

    "

    In contrast, I know nothing about Techlead's role in the company: Whether he was senior management or someone with a bit lower position on the company. Perhaps he overstood his bounds a bit? Or perhaps not. It makes more sense to me, though, that GM's would have more knowledge/power on this sort of topic. They actually have access to modify game data as they deem appropraite for the business, including banning people from playing the game, and they have a legitimate business reason to be doing these things. CM's on forums, on the other hand, would have a business need to be able to post to a forum, and probably to ban or suspend people from the forums if they misbehave on the forums. When people talked about Eyonix's playing with a person named Chode, Eyonix directed people to take up the matter with GM's if they had an issue with it. That's right, the CM directed people to talk to the GM. So, in the end, I'm more likely to look at a GM's statement made directly to me rahter than a statement buried on a forum somewhere.

    Importantly said about this topic, it does not seem that Blizzard has started banning people, and if a ton of people keep asking Blizzard (and drain their corporate resources by spending paid-for labor answering to this topic), then Blizzard is less likely to ignore the issue and more likely to respond. A public response, especially if action is taken, is probably more likely to lean in the direction of caution against supporting customized nudity, so the best bet is likely to not keep asking this question time and time again.

    Some people have stated that Blizzard will start banning people, but then after some time it still hasn't happened. It seemed to be popular speculation, but not something that's been done.

    Ultimately, though, Blizzard could detect known skins and take whatever action towards a person's account that Blizzard wants to. And so, I take no responsibility for the results of an account that arise from decisions that someone else takes.

    Why is the bottom of a tabard skin-colored?
    Because the bottom of the tabard seems to match the top of the tabard. If you don't make the tabard's topless then you're not likely to have this issue.
    Can support for another thing or more things be added?
    Sure, fairly easily, as long as it doesn't require a whole lot of commands. If the code is extensive, it will push GoInst.BTM too close to, or beyond, the filesize limit of BTM files (approximately 64Kb). This could be worked around by splitting the batch file up into multiple files, but such work to work around this issue hasn't been done yet (to my knowledge, as of this writing). Support for some other things, like a popular Type 2 skin packages or two, just might be added to a future version. Adding more options, or shrinking down GoInst.BTM to make it more flexible for adding options, was a lower priority than just getting the current (August 30, 2005) release out.
    If I see an error scroll by, should I report it?
    How do I make some creature (pet, player, enemy, critter) look like a different creature?
    Though as of this writing I haven't done it other than what's included in the Patchin' Batch, I imagine the process is the same. Note that this is simply a question people wonder, and the Patchin' Batch does not currently supply an easy way to do this. Use MPQ2k or NewWinMPQ.Zip (most will probably prefer the latter) or MyWarCraftStudio to extract the *.m2 file of the model you want to use. Then rename that file to the name of the creature you want to replace. Place the renamed file in the appropriate location in the Data\ directory so that WoW will look for the *.m2 file.
    Is this distribution method a good one for other projects?
    No. I expect this Patchin Batch' to need some modification to support multiple mirror variables if any other mirrors are added. Having GoInst.BTM use WGet for distibution tripled the size of the batch file, and I spent a bit of time ensuring the batch file was sufficiently under 64K to actually run, and quite a bit more time initially dealing with command lines being to wrong. Now that I've made this Patchin' Batch, it will serve the purpose, but the approach took too long to make. I suggest against others trying to use the strategy of using 4DOS and WGET to download from multiple mirrors. (Maybe other JP Software would work okay if there wasn't the 512 byte command line limit.)
    I ran the batch file, and it seemed to extract/copy files, but I don't see any changes in game.
    Under the WoW directory, try looking under Data\AlNudPat\. If you see anything there, move the folders to the Data\ directory under WoW (so that Data\AlNudPat\Creature\ would become Data\Creature\).