csgators

Thanks, I'll do some more searching, just tired of selecting the wrong thing due to the UI being designed for a controller.

OK, So it works fine with survival mode? That is my only concern because I love SkyUI.

Hi eveyone, I've been away from Skyrim for a few years (at least 5) so I'm trying to catch up. I have myself a shiny new install of SE with survival mode. I forgot just how bad the interface on PC was. I used to use SkyUI but I saw on his mod page that it's not 100% compatible with hardcore. Can anyone tell me what the problem is? Can you live with it? Is there a better UI mod? Thanks for your patience.

Mine did the same thing, and it wasn't an antivirus. When I closed Vortex, Windows popped up with one of those "Do you want to allow Vortex.exe to make changes..." Like an idiot I said yes, next time I try to use Vortex, it's gone. Reinstall fixes it but it's rather strange.

OK, thanks. I'll definitely keep playing but FO3 had me laughing from the vault onward, I realize it's a new game but it seems to have changed it's nature a bit.

So after a meager 35 or so hours of game play I think I realize what's wrong. In FO3 I continually encountered little (and big) things that amused me or even made be laugh. I have yet to see anything even remotely like that in FO4, I actually think this might have been my problem with FONV. Am I the only one? I don't want any spoilers but does it get back to it's FO3 "roots" as you explore more areas? I guess there is nothing wrong with a serious, morbid, post apocalyptic game but the comedy in FO3 made it so much better.

*nevermind*

OK, I'm confused, try not to spoil too much but the first railway station I found had a dead woman with a note about a drop off at 12. I made sure I was there at the next 12PM in game. Nothing happened. Is this a problem? Should I try again?

Need some extra tunes, getting stale. I'm really hoping we don't need the GECK for this.

Same problem I'm having

OK, so rolling the drivers back a few more versions has fixed Skyrim, now shows my nVidia card and detects HIGH settings. Still no go with FO4, detects low and crashes. Unfortunatly it does not show what cards it sees. Edit: further proof FO4 is not seeing my Vidia card in the SkrimPrefs.ini sD3DDevice="NVIDIA GeForce GT 630M " in the Fallout4Prefs.ini sD3DDevice="Intel® HD Graphics 4000" Tried changing the setting and making read only. Didn't work

Thanks, It is a laptop, as I said the NV control panel is already set to use the NV card, I ran the GPU monitor as recommended and it always says NONE. I've read many threads with this problem through google searching but have yet to find the solution.

OK, so after not being able to run FO4 because it crashes when I try to start a new game I realized a few things. It was the Intel driver crashing. I also remembered that a few weeks ago I suddenly couldn't see underwater in Skyrim. So after much installing and uninstalling of drivers to no avail I ran Skyrim from Steam rather than SKSE. It detected settings as low and shows only my Intel card. The nVidia control panel shows that my nVidea card should be being used but it isn't. I've tried the newest and previous drivers for my card to no avail. Everthing in my system says my NV card is OK and set to work but niether Skyrim or FO4 seem to see it. Help please!

Taiwan is part of China? According to the PRC they are but the people of Taiwan beg to differ. Vietnam has been invaded by China multiple times. Do you really think Vietnam wanted war with China? The last time Vietnam was invaded by China it was because Vietnam invaded Cambodia to stop the Khmer Rouge. That was a favor to the world and Vietnam kicked the crap out of China to boot. The border disputes are all instigated by China to claim more land. If China ever once set foot in a place then they say they have a right to it. Sounds like a European country still less than 100 years ago.

Tell that to Tibet, Taiwan and Vietnam amongst others. You can maybe quibble with the word "random" but the USA's wars are not exactly "random" either.

Pretty much a dead heat then. You'll have to forgive my ignorance on the US electoral system, but in my own country if neither party won an outright majority of seats, there would be a possibility of a coalition government, in this case Republicans or Democrats with Libertarians, which actually sounds like a half way decent Presidency. I suppose the US system, doesn't have provison for a coalition government, at my understanding is whatever the percentage of votes, a party will win outright. Yeah, for President whomever wins the most electors gets the gig. The same goes for Congress except it's the percent vote like you said. The States are different though, some States have a runoff if no one gets 50% with only the top two eligible for voting. It's very hard for a third party to get into office although it has been done in Congress and President Lincoln won as a third party creating the Republican party.

Lagging behind in the polls? My link Seems pretty even to me.

A voters personal opinion doesn't matter either because they gave consent for a 3rd party to speak for them. Giving your voice away so some idiot can speak for you is the way of it though it seems. How that works, the Electoral College, is the people go vote in a sector. The majority winner is what that person is supposed to vote for. Then after all the sectors are done in a state, the person with the most Electoral votes gets all the electoral votes. In some states, it works differently, but thats how it is usually done. Not if the republican party has their way. They want to be able to cherry pick the folks that get sent to "represent" their areas...... Considering we vote for our representatives? Impressive. Maybe you missed this little tidbit: The delegates are supposed to pledge for for the candidate, what's so shocking? They are only there to prevent complete catastrophe and give smaller states more power. They are not there to just pick someone on a whim. Correct, and, depending on what state they come from..... they are all supposed to pledge for the over-all 'winner' in that state, or, pledge per candidate based on what percentage of the vote they got. Mitt and company are trying to ensure that they can cherry pick which delegates show up, so they can be sure that their choice of candidate, is the one that gets the delegates, regardless of what state they are from. Both parties have electors...if Romney wins an outright state, his electors get to vote. If Obama wins it then his electors vote. If the state spits then some from Romney and some from Obama will vote. The ones that are chosen to vote have almost always voted the way they pledged. A total of 158 have been faithless electors, it has never changed the outcome. This new rule makes the odds even smaller than a elector will vote in a way he is not prescribed to.

A voters personal opinion doesn't matter either because they gave consent for a 3rd party to speak for them. Giving your voice away so some idiot can speak for you is the way of it though it seems. How that works, the Electoral College, is the people go vote in a sector. The majority winner is what that person is supposed to vote for. Then after all the sectors are done in a state, the person with the most Electoral votes gets all the electoral votes. In some states, it works differently, but thats how it is usually done. Not if the republican party has their way. They want to be able to cherry pick the folks that get sent to "represent" their areas...... Considering we vote for our representatives? Impressive. Maybe you missed this little tidbit: The delegates are supposed to pledge for for the candidate, what's so shocking? They are only there to prevent complete catastrophe and give smaller states more power. They are not there to just pick someone on a whim.

Totally agree with you. I love my Samsung Galaxy and was able to unlock and use a sim card in another country easily.

So you would advocate the the 8 dollar an hour jobs the economy has been coming up with were instead 4 dollar an hour jobs? Or 4 dollars a day? Remove environmental protections so that corporate america can poison our environment? I will grant that some of the laws are over-the-top, but, just eliminating them indiscriminately would pretty much assure a return to the days when breathing in certain cities would be bad for your health..... I would be more inclined to advocate FAIR trade. Imports to this country would be taxed at the exact same rate as similar exports to the country of origin. (where similar products were available for comparison... otherwise... pick something close....) In all reality, american workers CAN'T compete in the global economy...... we got used to a reasonable standard of living, and the folks that sell products here got used to their pricing. Eliminate minimum wage, without also doing something about product pricing, and you will quickly have some serious civil unrest.... Pricing would (in a free market) automatically adjust. The problem with the US is that is very, very far from being a free market. We have interference all over the place. The standard of living is up to the people to earn. In he past, without massive government, the people of the USA have proven to be able to beat anyone in productivity and innovation. As the government noose tightened we have begun to falter. We have propped up our deficiencies with massive borrowing and currency manipulation but those things we can only go so far. The fact that we have stretched them so far only shows how good we once were that we can still profit from the hard work that came before us. Time is up, people are turning away from the dollar and realizing lending us more money is a bad idea, making it harder and harder to use that to maintain our advantage.

Neither of the two major candidates with do what they say they will while out campaigning. Not only because they are opportunistic liars but also because reality, political and otherwise will not allow it. Sadly one of them will win this election. Obama has been worse than I thought he would but better than I feared he might be. I thought he might, after a couple of years, grasp reality and move to the center economically like Clinton did. He has not and he will not. He continues to view government spending as the answer and that is just a proven economic fallacy. For an economy to flourish as the US markets have for nearly a century it needs freedom from government taxes and regulations. Every tax and law put in place reduces freedom and opportunity. There are few candidates that understand this fact, at least that are willing to campaign for and follow through with the policies that will unleash the US economy again. I see a lot of complaining about outsourced jobs but what do you expect when we use regulations and minimum wadge to increase the cost of labor in our country while we allow free access to our markets to countries that don't. There are two possible solutions. 1) We remove minimum wage laws and reduce regulations to allow American companies to compete. 2) We adopt protectionist policies and only allow 'free' trade with countries with similar labor laws. Others like China we would allow no trade or trade only with high tariffs. I'll take option 1, option 2 ofter leads to very bad results. The above ignores the myriad of other things that need to be done to restore liberty to the US.

They are both doing it. I would hope they have to prove the money is coming from actual US citizens. If memory serves they only have to do so if the amount of money is over a certain amount since there was rampant speculation in the last election that much of the record number of micro donations Obama got were coming from overseas.

You will not see a "POW, BOP, BAM" change in anyone on a forum. It might have happened but pride will prevent them for admitting it. It is a very rare thing anyway, more likely you will cause someone to do more research and refine there ideas and possibly over time to change them. Yes it does work but it's not like a football game where one side clearly wins. I have over the course of many, many years of debating changed my ideas on many things. Often from input from people on the other side and the research I did to defend my own position. Political debate is a long term thing, thus the reason us Ron Paul fans are not insane after all. His world view (Libertarianism) is growing in the US due to logic slowly winning over rhetoric. Keep fighting the good fight.

The right to own and bear arms is granted so that we may overthrow a tyrannical government, not to go hunting. Obviously assault weapons would be helpful in such an endeavor. What is hard to get about that? If you ask me it's past time we got started.