After poking around in this, I suspect either a) the behavior for this is hard-coded based on base item type or b) somewhere there's a lookup/additional fields based on base item type that I can't find, but it's not in code or in the model or in any of the 2das I looked at. In particular, setting the armor type to "Armor - Massive - no boots" will cause a regular massive armor to force the boots not to display. This suggests that whatever is setting the boots to not display is NOT in the mmh/mao/phy files for the model, but is truly being driven, somehow, by the "Armor - Massive - no boots" (and "Clothing") base item types. Since this setting does not seem to be in the bitm_base.xls nor in the specific item variations' XLS, it suggest either a hard-coded flag for the base item type # by the engine or some other setting/variable/2da that I haven't found yet. I looked through the script files and didn't find anything there that would be triggering this as a script behavior based on these base item types. The bitm_base.xls also has a "bodyoverlay" being applied to both massive armor types (boots and no boots), but I can't find anywhere that would reference or use this in any way, and the clothing base item doesn't have an equivalent overlay anyway so I doubt this is being controlled by that. On a side note, something odd is that BioWare did NOT use the "Armor - Massive - no boots" armor type for the NPC templar armor. They instead use the regular "Armor - Massive" type which displays boots, and then equip those NPCs with special NPC templar boots that have no model. This is why trying to use the NPC templar armor UTI with regular boots causes the boots to show through. Weird that they would have added the "Armor - Massive - no boots" type for exactly this purpose, and then not use it...