TechAngel85

I like your mug.

Thanks Nexus and GOG!

Arizona Green Tea...it's just what was sitting next to me. ¯\_^.^_/¯

Anything I want... :P

^_^

In response to post #50032012. #50032057, #50032732, #50052427, #50054092, #50054512, #50055082, #50076857, #50077437, #50077572 are all replies on the same post. Proper mod versioning? OMG yes! I've always been a fan of Major.Minor.Hotfix. Major = introduce new functionality or assets, etc. (rarely changes) Minor - smaller changes such as expanding mod coverage, updating current assets, etc. Hotfix - fixes bugs or issues but changes nothing else. A standardized versioning scheme for mods on Nexus is severely needed! Though it would need to be well enough defined (with enough examples given) so anyone could understand it.

In response to post #49977347. #49977612, #49977627, #49977747, #49977772, #49978322, #49978412, #49978502, #49978607, #49978752, #49978832, #49978967, #49979042, #49980232, #49980267, #50066187 are all replies on the same post. What is being forced? Either use it or don't. That's your choice. If you like NMM and don't like Vortex once it's released, then there is nothing saying you can't still use NMM. Tannin even mentioned above they could be used together. If you don't like virtualization, I would say that WB is better than NMM. No offense to the Nexus staff, but NMM has never been a great manager for managing a heavily modded setup. There's several reasons why STEP was never able to use it to easily manage the Guide. WB worked, though. MO worked even better. I'm personally excited to get my hands on Vortex to test its' abilities. I refrain from passing judgement until I've actually used the software, because I have nothing to pass judgement on except words...which, when you get down to it, don't really tell us much toward usability. It's just assumption/hype/PR until the software is in hand and users get a chance to break it...*err*...I mean use it. ^_^

In response to post #50032012. #50032057, #50032732, #50052427, #50054092, #50054512 are all replies on the same post. Here's the news article discussing it: http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/news/12569/? As I mentioned, it just sort of died, so I don't know if they ever figured it out.

In response to post #50032012. #50032057, #50032732, #50052427 are all replies on the same post. "Profile sharing" has been planned for some time with Nexus. I'm not sure if it'll be implemented with Vortex, but that would be logical. The way I understood it is users would be able to save their setups and upload it to Nexus. Then users could download the setup and the manager would do most of the work of setting it up for the user. This is suppose to give an identical setup as the author. For example, if you wanted you have the exact same setup as Gopher, all you would have to do is download his shared setup. If this was ever worked out completely, I'm not sure. I haven't heard anything on it in a long time. To be honest, this sounded like a dream because I can't see how they would be able to work out all the small details that come with modding (FOMOD installers, hidden/deleted assets, load orders, patches, etc, etc). I could see it being possible on more simple setups, but not on advanced ones.

In response to post #50031637. #50032802, #50039597, #50040132, #50040682 are all replies on the same post. I know it's not proper coding and is why I mentioned it not being such. I was simply stating it nice that MO was able to bypass it if you missed a ">" in the 2000 lines of code somewhere. ^_^ I always validate my code when I remember to do so. Ganda wrote a nice program for this that is convenient ( http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/75140/? ). Vortex should follow the schema for the installer to the letter. Current schema: http://qconsulting.ca/gemm/ModConfig5.0.xsd (open with a text editor like Notepad++)

In response to post #50031637. #50032802, #50039597 are all replies on the same post. MO has some heuristics involved so if you left something out or forgot to close a tag it didn't really care. This wasn't proper, but it was nice for those creating my hand. Also NMM behaves differently with some of the options vs MO. I know in the last version of MO, flags were somewhat broken though and that never got fixed. ThosRTanner put in quite a bit of time working on improving MO's handling of FOMODs, as far as I am aware.

In response to post #50031637. I'd be interested to know this as well. MO's handling of FOMODs was far superior to NMM, imo. Having written dozens of FOMODs it was always NMM that was the pain in my backside. Not to mention that MO used the code more fully and accurately than NMM due to the work of ThosRTanner.

In response to post #50017357. #50023137, #50023837, #50026827 are all replies on the same post. 2) Will this solution be similar to that of MO's sort feature? The reason I ask is because you couldn't create any sort of meta rules with the sort feature alone, thus you were still required to have LOOT for any medium to heavily modded game unless you locked the plugins into place which wasn't the best solution for ease of management.

In response to post #50002592. Having vast experience with both MO and WB.... I advocate WB for Skyrim SE, atm, but admit it's not the best solution for a heavy modder/mod author. I'm often having to install and uninstall mods for testing while I'm working on building mods. The uninstallation is painful even on a SSD because of the things Tannin explained in the interview of extracting the mods, counting files, replacing files, etc. When mods like SMIM and texture overhauls are involved, I tend to walk away from the computer because it can take quite a while, whereas MO is instant; ultimately allowing me to get more work done because I'm not waiting around on the program to do its thing. WB is also forcing me to keep an additional 9GBs of mod archives on my drive (and I have a small mod list compared to others). So WB has it's negatives, but currently it's the most stable for modding Skyrim SE. For mod authoring, MO is far superior, imo, because its features allow me to work far easier and faster.

@Robin and Tannin, Thanks for the information! I've been wondering about this development. I don't know how the alpha candidates will be chosen, but keep the STEP Staff in mind. Being an admin of the project now, I'd love to get my hands on Vortex early to install the STEP Guide with it. We've been curious if we'll be able to replace MO with Vortex. I can provide my time to see how things run and suggest fixes/improvements. I'm sure a few of our moderators would be interested as well. Great to hear from you both!