Sulhir
-
Posts
117 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Sulhir
-
-
Friend of mine has Skyrim LE but not SE and I saw they're back in stock in the DP store so I tossed 12,500 DP their way but they can't make the purchase. The points correctly display on their wallet and they can click on the purchase button in the DP store but it says "There has been an error" and that's it.
I have given 12,500 points to a lot of other users to get SE over the years and this is the first time it's ever given anybody problems. Anyone have any ideas? They tried another browser too. They're in Brazil with their trash economy (not an accurate reality but it's how the international banks list it so it's ruined their exchange rate) so DP is really the best way to go for them to finally get Skyrim SE. $40 USD is $204 Brazilian Real so... yeah.
-
If a mod is packaged as a FOMOD like so -
ModName.fomod.7z\fomod\ModuleConfig.xml
Vortex knows what to do
If a mod is packaged as a FOMOD like so -
ModName.fomod.7z\ModName.fomod\fomod\ModuleConfig.xml
Vortex claims the file isn't an archive and generates temporary junk files if you ask it to create a mod for it (which wouldn't work anyway since it's a FOMOD installer and cannot be installed like a regular mod).
My preferred mod manager has no such issues and even better, if it *detects* such issues it has a functionality to tell it where it *should* be looking for the information instead of seeing something unexpected and sitting on a rock and crying that it's not real.
I'm getting mighty tired of having to unpack and repackage every fomod *just* for Vortex and re-upload and update all the file versions on a mod for something that's *only* a problem for Vortex.
And yes, I already have done the easy solution and don't use Vortex. I have to deal with this every time I create a fomod and someone pipes up that it doesn't work.
-
There's a popular non-nexus Skyrim website that caters and distributes child pornography, typically using followers other users have made here and elsewhere and converting them into minors.
I was browsing for vampire mods and found a link to it in the comments section so I just reported it and kept browsing... and found another link, and another... and another... I mean I'm up to more than half a dozen, do I really have to report them all or can the moderators get the idea and go through the comments on this one unfortunately stolen mod and remove these external links that support both mod theft and child pornography?
-
Isn't code 193 implying you've installed the plugins on the wrong version of Skyrim?
You are my hero. You might never realize it. But you are.
-
Yeah, it seems that whatever the cause of the error, yoinking the missing actor back into play works just fine.
-
This is the exact mentality that has lead to "Nexus exclusive" files. You're not doing anyone any favors by stealing and saying that since you're sharing your ice cream with someone already obviously you're going to share with everyone you ever meet.
That's how we get no ice cream.
-
anything you want.
-
I'm all about that swag. T-shirts please, normal clothes are never as good as advertisement clothes and my stuff from highschool 10 years ago is starting to wear out.
-
anything you want
-
The GoG Summer sale also features a free game just for visiting.
-
In response to post #59763196. #59763441, #59763811, #59764041, #59764691, #59764826, #59765211, #59765316, #59765471, #59765496, #59771306 are all replies on the same post.Since you can only have one username per email... I'm not sure you speak English as your native language.fredlaus wrote: Still no verification by mail.
I am sending and receiving mails from other contacts though?
Have you added the prefix closed-?Dark0ne wrote: Yes, it happens when you ask for your account to be closed. You need to enter what your actual email address is, as you're asking for the wrong email address to be verified.fredlaus wrote: When I use my actual address I also get the message "that address is already in use"?
Edit: The notifications are turned off for e-mail btw.Dark0ne wrote: Yes, in 2016 you asked for your account to be closed and then made a new account a few days later on the sites using that email address.
We only allow one account per email address. If you want to know what account you made, logout of the site and use the password reset form on the forums and enter your email address. It will tell you the username you've used in that email.
If you want to "free" that email address up again, you should ask for that old account to be closed.fredlaus wrote: I don't get through with an email password recovery. Is this handled more difficult than necessary, Dark0ne?Dark0ne wrote: What do you mean by "I don't get through"? What do you mean?
It wouldn't be difficult if people followed our rules and stuck to one active account!fredlaus wrote: If you can't get this sorted out I am disappointed. It seems like I have hacked your precious site then - or?Dark0ne wrote: Eh? I asked you what problem you were facing and you haven't answered?
This problem has been caused by the fact you have more than one active account on the site, which is against our ToS. It's nothing to do with hacking.fredlaus wrote: Then I am standing down from nexusmods for the moment.Dark0ne wrote: Okie dokie.fredlaus wrote: Is this possible to solve the other way around that you search for duplicate usernames on my mail address? -
anything you want
-
anything you want
-
You installed the plugin for it?
Fellow pissed off paint.net user here
this is really bugging me, I've been having this issue for about a week now, and narrowed it down to this issue, and now that I am here the bloody .dds2 thing isn't working for me for whatever reason, I still get the damn " System.FormatException: File is not a supported DDS format " error, anything I might've missed?
-
In response to post #55297103. #55305533 is also a reply to the same post.twowolves80 wrote:
If it's a bad link, screen shots of the link and the button leading you there, along with the link address would help. What were you doing at the time?
Remember, the more detail, the better.
Hmm...that's not a bad gif, actually...*yoink*
Here's another example of good feedback:
Guys, I think you should update the NMM runtime button at the top of the splash page (it still says 0.63.14, not the final version of 0.63.17). That would be helpful so we don't have to dig for 0.63.17. Thanks for the work you do behind the scenes. :)
pacfish wrote: Why isn't this fixed yet?! It's been three and a half hours for a typo that was pointed out. And still during believable working hours!
-
In response to post #54930308. #54930478, #54930773, #54930833, #54930843, #54930848, #54930913, #54931018, #54931133, #54931298, #54931363, #54931473, #54931588, #54932243 are all replies on the same post.In Mod Organizer, if ModA and ModB both have a copy of the same file and ModB is winning, you can move ModB above ModA and now ModA is winning. In NMM on the other hand, you have to uninstall and reinstall ModA.Kevin843 wrote: Like I said before no REAL virtual data=no using Vortex, I dont want my data folder messed up and ability to reorder mods is what makes MO2 the best mod manager. I am disappointed it is highly anticipated it will not have a virtual data like MO2. Hopefully there will still be community builds of MO2 for future Bethesda games. No way I can go back to installing mods to data folder now. I wont even bother using it if it dosent have these "Essential" MO2 features.Zora wrote: I agree, not using a virtual file system is a step-back from what could be a huge improvement to mod managers we've seen so far. I still have high hopes for Vortex and will probably use it either way.SarahTheMascara wrote: I agree. Keeping the data folder clean is essential for me as well. I have so many different builds for Skyrim and I'm jumping back and forth between profiles regularly.BlueGunk wrote: From the interview with Tannin, 10 May 2017:
Robin: I think we both know the biggest questions we've received around Vortex have been in regards to virtualisation and how Vortex will handle and store files on people's hard-drives. Is Vortex going to use virtualisation?
Tannin: Yes it does.
I know people have - often very strong - opinions on the topic so I ask that you please read my reasons before you go to the comments and vent.
In the initial release of Vortex, virtualisation will be implemented using links (symbolic or hard links), similar to NMM v0.6. We've left the door open so we can implement different approaches (i.e. the usvfs library from Mod Organizer) but at this point I don't think there will be a "no virtualisation" option.
Dark0ne wrote: Thanks for your feedback.If you're not interested in a mod manager that doesn't use MO's functionality VFS, that's fine. But this is about Vortex, not MO.
I'll be deleting any more comments that follow this line of thought as it's completely irrelevant to what I've talked about in this news article.
Yggdrasil7557 wrote: There are many reasons for this, Tannin is the original developer of mod organizer, and he was one of the people who decided not to use virtual filing. the new program will feature mod managing methods similar to how mod organizer currently works, the file managing will be able to work in many the same ways that mo does, the only difference is that it will actually place the files in the correct locations, this is for the same reason that el presidente gave up on mo2, the crashes due to virtual filing, especially in 64 bit are far too complex. for more info go read all previous posts about vortex, including the post where tannin said he was discontinuing development of mo1Valyn81 wrote:Remember that it is not the same thing as the old NMM did, corrupting your data folder easily.TanninOne is helping them make the new Vortex, so you know Vortex will have some aspect of MO2 in order to help minimize data folder corruption.
*EDIT*
Seems BlueGunk, Yggdrasil7557, and I all have the same thought at about the same time, lol.
:wub:
Here is the link to help the people with Facts about Vortex and its Virtualization:
Qrygg wrote: I'm confused... where does it say there will be no virtualization?Dark0ne wrote:They're getting confused (which is kind of telling), there is virtualisation, it's just not the same as MO's virtualisation, which is what they are actually taking issue with.
We already did a Q&A with Tannin where it was explained why Tannin had decided to choose a different method, so the fact this needs to be brought up in a different news article about a different topic is...odd...to say the least.
If not using MO's virtualisation is a "no deal" for you, I just don't really understand why you're here, posting it as a comment in a completely unrelated article about Vortex.
Ethreon wrote: You expect rando user who doesn't know what's in his data folder to remember previous discussions?Valyn81 wrote: *Delete this comment, content moved to my first reply.*AnyOldName3 wrote: Mod Organizer 2 doesn't seem to actually be abandoned anymore. There were commits today, for example, which doesn't suggest to me that it's abandoned.Valyn81 wrote: They said MO1 not MO2.*Replying from the forum is annoying*
ousnius wrote: A clean data folder is really not an argument for using or not using Vortex. It really isn't.You're saying you're switching profiles all the time, but these are all things that are still possible (just as easily and quickly) as with NMM or MO. Just instead of doing it at runtime, the hard links are handling it within seconds. This was all explained in the previous news post already.
I just wanted to add that how the mod is packaged can eliminate that little snafu right there. That problem exclusively exists, not for NMM or MO, but for LOOSE files vs ARCHIVED files. MO may be able to compensate for mods that are packaged loose vs in an archive but a conscientious mod author can do the same from their end. A knowledgeable user can even do it in a pinch.
-
In response to post #54943263. #54946513, #54952193, #54952693 are all replies on the same post.I dislike all mod managers for the reasons you've listed. Having multiple profiles doesn't do me any good because not only do I need different profiles - I need those different profiles to link to different installation folders.Levionte wrote: As a relatively competent mod user, I have been pretty indifferent towards the NMM vs MO debate. I recognize MO has more features built in, plus it's definitely faster and more responsive. But it wasn't enough to make me switch from NMM until I was in a position of needing to reinstall Skyrim anyway. I did make the switch a few months ago and, having used MO since then, I stand by my original assessment. It's an upgrade, but doesn't offer anything I couldn't do myself with my previous NMM setup and good modding practices.
However, as a mod creator, I've found the difference to be gigantic. When I'm making mods, I'm not following good modding practices; it's not practical. I'm dropping things into my data folder manually, then I'm constantly adding, removing, or otherwise tweaking things throughout development. When I am finally in a position to create a mod package, I have to dig through my data folder for things I've put there.
And while I try my best to keep things organized, assets are required to be separated by type. My meshes folder has base assets, face geometry stuff, and outfit stuff someone else made that I'm using. Textures are in a similar situation. Animation files, behavior files, FNIS stuff go somewhere else. Sound is split into voice, effects and music files. And don't get me started on the scripts being lumped into the same folder as every other script for the game. There's a lot of stuff to keep track of, sometimes weeks and months after putting them there. Heaven forbid I work on more than one mod at a time.
I know not all mods are so encompassing, but for some of us, having everything thrown into one folder I can change on the fly like MO does is a tremendous time-saver when it comes to development. Not to mention trying to create an environment suitable for testing the mod. With NMM, I end up having multiple "mod installations" of a release build and loose files I can still modify. Then I am constantly on the verge of forgetting a file and then having NMM uninstall it and erasing all of my changes for the old version still in the archive.
I make this long, and somewhat dramatic, rant because all I hear about is how the new mod manager can serve the average mod user. And that's fair; they're the majority. But mod creators are pretty important to the community, so it'd be nice to make some features for us, too. It's not like MO is the perfect solution. It really is inconvenient to get lip files to generate, scripts to compile, preview things in nifskope, etc.. Can we borrow just a thought or two from the "which data folder is cleanest" debate and spend it on the mod creator's experience?lobotomy0 wrote: +1PeterMartyr wrote: So your looking for a Wrye Project type setup to implement into Vortex, with the ability to detect manual drops, & reverse sync from the data folder?anub1s15 wrote: not sure if wrye can do it (Mod organizer cant but it happens to be the way it does things) but what he wants is to be able to show all files associated with a mod.
as MO keeps its mods separated at all times virtually building a folder as NMM does by defaut it means you can easely see every single file a mod has instead of NMM where it gets blended in the ocean of mods. another side effect/side feature is that you can see which individual files are conflicting and prioritise accordingly on the fly even going as far as to have a mod overwrite another but have it hide specific textures you might want from the or a overwritten mod. just allows you to quickly and easily make changes at any time while knowing what file from what mod your actually changing.
cannot wait for vortex though, been using NMM for FO4 and MO for SSE (it didn't play nice with FO4 for unknown reasons. I like both and can use both but the control and insight MO gave you in to your mod load order (as in the actual order in which mods get loaded in to MO's virtual whatdoyoucallit) makes it my favorite though NMM's categories make keeping track of how many mods you have per category much easier, I know MO can do it to but I've always been too lazy to make sure all mods have the correct categories, in MO I have had 4 lighting mods installed side by side I just lost track of 2 over time >.>
also, Mod organizer allows you to get rid of the mod's archives saving some space which when your Skyrim is 57gb (MO data + sse folder) and your fallout 4 is 114gb (fo4 folder + NMM fallout 4 folder) it makes quite a difference, in essense fallout 4 is only 52gb there's just 62gb of stuff beeing horded by NMM (and i have accidently deleted it before, NMM was not amused) size wise NMM's folder is more optimal but since it gets upset when you remove it's backup's it ends up taking more space, mo keeps all the files from the mods uncompressed, which if your stacking texture packs can result in a lot of duplicates that just sit there getting overwritten but you can get rid of the archives and if you have to much free time attempt to pick out obsolete textextures to make it smaller. but i ocd hard on keeping my mods up to date so it just takes as much space as it takes.
I use three different Skyrim installs. One for testing, one for playing, and one for modding. No mod manager, or even most tools, has been able to conveniently accommodate that need.
I keep one untouched install for testing. No modifications, no alterations, no cleaning of the masterfiles, as vanilla as vanilla gets.
I keep one that I build mods with. This one suffers a lot and requires restoration from backups occasionally when somehow modifying a texture file manages to corrupt my sounds archive (I don't know how it happened, all I can say is it did).
I keep one that I play with. Clean the master files, mod, actually play the game with. Rarely any problems with that directory.
Setting up all the different tools - xEdit, NMM, everything is a pain except for the Creation Kit which seems to actually only look for the files in the directory its installed into! Who would have thought Bethesda's tool would be the only tool to behave the way I want it to with actually no set up at all! -
Just a random oldrim mod that used some of its hairdos (which is why I find it so odd that the XB1 port is set up to make it nearly impossible for using as a masterfile - if it's possible at all).
-
The XB1 port claims to be him. My question is actually best answered by another user since its a question of if anyone else has noticed or had a similar problem. Right now it's an academic question as a different mod is now being called as a masterfile for the port.
Message boxes get full and I avoid direct contact with any author especially those who I've heard negative things about. Keeps me safe, keeps them less angry, wins all around.
-
Because of the negative experience of the guy I'm helping who already spoke to Apachii, my policy of not communicating through mod comments, and the high probability that it was intentional.
-
I just use the mod manager or you could just download the file and install it manually
-
Only the original author, or someone with their explicit permission, can legitimately port a mod. The permissions on ApachiiSkyHair explicitly forbid porting to other sites or other platforms. Draw your own conclusions.
How does this have anything to do with anything? Apachii has already been ported. Have you been able to get it to work as a masterfile for any mods whatsoever because it seems, if I can get someone else to confirm, as though the author ported his own mod improperly.
Falskaar has no issues being used as a masterfile, the unofficial patch has no issues, so either I'm doing something wrong or Apachii Sky Hair was ported improperly and is breaking any mod that requires it as a dependency.
-
Anyone else having issues with this? I was working on a port for an Oldrim mod to XB1 and... apparently the XB1 version of Apachii Sky Hair isn't Apachii Sky Hair? Just checking to make sure I'm not crazy... it sure looks like it's ported by the same guy but the fellow who requested me to port this random Oldrim mod and got the permissions said he spoke briefly with the author of Apachii (I don't know on what platform) and did not enjoy the response he got when asking for permission for something or other... It was rather disillusioning for the poor guy. Get banned if you port without asking for permission and get treated like the scum of the earth if you do ask... Although, if Apachii Sky Hair was properly ported for XB1 no permission is needed since none of the assets will be included.
Just need confirmation that the Apachii Sky Hair mod was indeed ported properly and I am indeed off my rocker. Yes, I could go ask the author but I'd rather get a third party confirmation.
-
I think the FB page has shared it four times... so I did too. MADNESS
Cannot Purchase with Donation Points
in Site Support
Posted
They were able to redeem their points! Thanks for fixing whatever weirdness was going on!