Jump to content

1000101

Premium Member
  • Posts

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Nexus Mods Profile

About 1000101

Profile Fields

  • Country
    Canada
  • Currently Playing
    Fallout 4, Factorio, Ark, Bloons TD
  • Favourite Game
    Anything I can sandbox in.

1000101's Achievements

Apprentice

Apprentice (3/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. That is not at all what the OP meant or was referring to. Yeah, the in-game landscape of Earth does not match the extremely accurate laser scans of the Earths surface that exist today at all. Land at London, expect to see the dried up Thames River - nope. Just a virtually flat plane with some rocks and sand dunes. Land at the St. Louis Arch, expect to see the dried up Mississippi River - nope. Just a virtually flat plane with some rocks and sand dunes. etc. So much for "working with NASA" - on what, exactly? No attempt was made for accuracy and it's obviously pure procgen which is kind of dumb/lazy as New Atlantis and several other worlds have hand generated planet surfaces at specific landing sites.
  2. That is pure supposition and you have no proof to backup that claim. Wishing it were so certainly does not make it true. By the sheer number of reports from people who do have reported issues with mods breaking previs and/or precombines I would say that it is either a lie or ignorance. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are just not well educated on the subject since you haven't made a single mod. Breaking precombines and previs will and does cause issues for a lot of people. Whether you believe it to be true or not or whether you have a massively beefy rig that takes longer for the problems to become apparent is irrelevant.
  3. This is all answered in the ATC read me and FAQ. Please seek answers for ATC there first and join our discord if you something isn't covered. The tl;dr is - Annex the subdivisions surrounding the settlement to reclaim that land. While ATC doesn't have subdivisions covering 100% of the Commonwealth, what it does provide more coverage than any other mod currently (by several factors) and you will have to readjust your thinking meat for a different game play mechanic using ATC. Edit: Reading the "Build High - Expanded Settlements" description, there are many things it is doing that would cause me to not recommend it as an alternative to ATC. Not specific to "Build High - Expanded Settlements", but generally... Breaking precombines/previs for any reason is a huge no-no unless they are being rebuilt in the effected areas for the specific changes. Huge walls of text for caveats and install instructions makes me leery of the mod in question - it shows either an overly complex scheme or a lack of confidence in the mod author to produce a production quality mod. Finally, any mod that says "do not install before you exit vault 111" should simply never be installed ever. That is a direct and overt admission by the mod author that they did things wrong and the mod is broken.
  4. fwiw, it turns out there were two minor deviations in the xml from the schema however, neither of which was what Vortex complained about and what Vortex complained about wasn't an issue or incorrect at all. Anyway, fixing the two actual deviations stopped Vortex from throwing the incorrect error.
  5. As the mod author I can tell you the issue isn't the xml, it's Vortex - it's looking for the wrong element names. He already brought the issue up to me, I told him to post it here because it's strictly a Vortex issue. MO2 handles it correctly, the FOMOD Creation Tool actually wrote the XML (so it's machine generated). The issue is definitely Vortex.
  6. @Niston I know Buffout 4 has a different memory allocator for the engine, but I was unaware that the game wasn't using the system allocators. While system allocators aren't very fast and, some development environments implement their own heap to facilitate that, I would have assumed that they would use one that isn't a PoS. "This is done on purpose and it's considered good programming practice" I've been programming for over 30 years and have never heard that. Use as little resources as possible, yes, but "limit yourself to some arbitrary amount" is just dumb. If you can do the job in 1GB then great, but trying to faff about to make your code only use 1GB is wasted time. Having done programming in assembly for many years on systems were every bit counted and every cycle matters, it's laughable that a high level coder should think that they need to limit their memory usage like that on 64-bit systems (or even 32-bit systems "back in the day"). Not that one should waste memory, of course, but from experience - high level programmers are the most wasteful people on the planet and have no standing on the subject. "We need to conserve memory!" Says someone who uses 32-bits to store a boolean (1-bit).
  7. "At zero cost?" "For free?" Sorry, but I paid for my copy, I didn't pirate it. So now what's their excuse for releasing a broken product seemingly without any QA? I'll grant you that we need to work within the limitations of the system, as we always do regardless of what we are talking about, but trying to say "we got it for free so shut up" is stupid since we didn't get it for free so we have every right to complain about a defective product. Being blasé about being sold a lemon just makes you spineless and your opinion worthless. Fallout 4 is not limited to 4GB of RAM, I routinely see the game itself using upwards of 6GB. As far as "support legacy 32-bit processors" - it doesn't. At all. The neither the game nor the CK will run on a 32-bit platform. It requires a 64-bit OS and a 64-bit x86 CPU, if you have anything else it won't run. Now, as far as targeting a 64-bit platform, the development tools wouldn't and couldn't impose an artificial memory barrier like that, if the developer used a memory allocator library (instead of calling the native system allocators directly) that library could impose a limit but as already stated, they don't. Further, if the developer refused to update their tools then they couldn't develop. The end-user doesn't have anything to update other than having the system requirements which are a 64-Bit OS on a 64-bit x86 CPU with the minimum installed RAM (which, I think, is 8GB for Fallout 4). Of course now you're going to say, "what about the .Net runtime vX.Y.Z? REEEEE!" Well, yes. You got me there. Sometimes you need to do platform updates. But we both know that isn't what you meant when you said "development environment" or if it is, then you don't know what a "development environment" is. Lot's of misinformation on these forums, no wonder I never bother with them and I'm not sure why I did now.
  8. Sorry to necro an old thread, but I am looking for actual proof of these claims. I'm not inclined to believe it "just cuz ya said it." Does anyone have a link to the source of where this all came from? Preferably a snippit from a decompile of the code that actually shows this so it's not just "well, based on some behaviours this is what I think happens."
  9. Removing is specifically stated as not supported by Bethesda. This means it is not supported. Changing your load order so a mod is in a different spot is technically removing and installing a mod at the same time. Since removing mods mid game is specifically stated as not supported by Bethesda it falls into the same as above. Never have Bethesda Fallout or Elder Scrolls titles supported removing mods or changing your load order (with the exception of adding new mods and only with the new mods loading after everything already existing staying in the same load order). No matter what anyone else on the planet tells you or what the underlying reason is. It's not supported. Period. As stated by the only authority that matters - the game developer themselves - Bethesda. That being said, you can try to live life dangerously but sometimes the parachute opens and sometimes it doesn't. In taking risks though, you take on all responsibilities associated with. Edit: Fixed typographical errors.
  10. In response to post #55344843. #55373403, #55373898, #55376993, #55378678, #55396798, #55413778, #55466973, #55486013, #55493168, #55568974, #55598894 are all replies on the same post. @pantyera 1) I never argued that change wasn't needed, the entire rest of your statement is purely subjective ("never as good") and therefore irrelevant. 2) So we both agree that install order and load order need to be separate, everything else is purely subjective and again, irrelevant. 3) A poor interface is a poor interface however a poor interface that uses 10% more space than the poor interface beside it is 10% worse. 4) Nobody was "harping" the same points, further there is only so many ways of saying "I agree with X about Y." That someone has already said, "I don't agree with X about Y," doesn't mean jack. If only one person agreed and one person disagreed then no decisions about anything would be make, it's about the collective quantity and quality of the points addressed - 10 people wanting a particular feature with reasonable expectations bears more weight than 10 people wanting the opposite only using "no that's dumb", no matter how big an arsehole those people make themselves because "they are bone tired of hearing it". As an aside, the reasonable people are "bone tired of hearing from arseholes". 4a) What "lack of understanding?" That I initially wasn't sure what "Vortex" was as it was mentioned without context? That's (a) hardly adding to your argument since in the same post I assumed it to be what it is - a mod manager - and therefore (b) a red herring only serving to distract from your lack of an actual argument. 4.1) Not sure how you make the leap from "disagreeing with people doesn't need to be done rudely" to "I can be as big an arsehole as I like". Seriously, I have no idea why you'd argue for making yourself an arsehole, but you are free to be one if you like.
  11. In response to post #55344843. #55373403, #55373898, #55376993, #55378678, #55396798, #55413778, #55466973, #55486013 are all replies on the same post. @tajetaje: We all know that others and myself are the "people" in question. Not sure why you felt the need to point out what we all knew. The point was there was no call for being passive aggressive or rude. Anyway, I said my piece and to make sure I am clear here's a simple point form list: + Change is good if it needed, if it's not needed (need != want) then it's a massive waste of resources; + Vortex would need similar functionality as Wyre Bash as far as separating install order and load order; + Although not previously stated, I'd like to mention that a minimalistic interface would be nice, I don't need massive buttons eating screen real estate like a fat kid with a chocolate cake (seems to be a popular thing in some programs these days to use oversized buttons with cyptic icons using a disproportionate amount of the programs screen space instead of a proper menu system); + Disagreeing with people doesn't need to be done rudely.
  12. In response to post #55344843. #55373403, #55373898, #55376993, #55378678, #55396798 are all replies on the same post. @Ethreon: I don't know why you are being caustic. There is certainly no need for it. Making comments like "were people willing to bother reading" assumes that "people" spend their time simply waiting or searching for information on the specific subject matter. Those incorrect assumptions are your problem, nobody else's. Given that those "people" do not spend large amounts of their time on this website and may have missed or not known to look up the specific thing there is no reason to be rude. That you think the change is good, well that's good, others don't - but there is never any call to be passive aggressiveness simply because someone expresses an opinion contrary to yours.
  13. In response to post #55066558. #55067438, #55083913, #55084763, #55092883, #55093178, #55112363, #55131808 are all replies on the same post. Wrye/Wyre/Whatever - not really the point, is it? Names are irrelevant compared to the substance of the stuff. "A rose by any other name", etc. As to "wouldn't hurt reading a bit", I read quite a lot. But given the pure volumes of things to read, keeping up with the development, and more specifically the name of, yet-another-mod-manager isn't high on the priority list. Anyway, to the team of people developing the project; I am looking forward to seeing what it delivers.
  14. In response to post #55344843. #55373403, #55373898 are all replies on the same post. Change for the sake of changing is dumb. If there is an inherent flaw in the existing system, that's a reason for change. But, if you can only think of one reason then you don't have enough reasons.
  15. wtf is "Vortex?" I'm guessing from the comments it's some sort of mod manager? And if so, unless it can do everything and give me all the power that Wyre Bash can, then I personally have no use for it. Perhaps a small aside at the beginning of articles to let people know what you are talking about - ie, "Vortex" means nothing to me however, "Vortex, the mod manager we've been working on" helps a lot. That being said, keep up the good work?
×
×
  • Create New...