HeyYou

We obviously have different philosophies on modding games. When XEdit was all we had, well, run what ya brung.... Easy. And then you have to consider possible consequences... What is the absolute worst thing that can happen? Your save gets borked, and/or you have to reinstall the game.... Something I do as a matter of course in any event. As for the "golden rule".... ANY mod has the POTENTIAL to bork your game/save. What's even worse, some COMBINATIONS of mods can do the same..... Safest course? Don't use mods. Yeah. RIght. OK. It's a beth game..... I AM going to mod it. I have seen folks using only mods from beths site, and still have their game, and their save trashed. And then consider some of the stuff that Beth themselves put out.... Mods with bad meshes, that cause crashes, and a fair few other fun issues. (Yeah, I'm lookin' at YOU Fallout 4) My take on it is, if I see a mod I would like to use, read the comments..... if there are problems, they will show up there FIRST. If folks that talk about issues get a response back from the author, and the author quickly addresses it, then that's a mod that is likely fairly safe to use. If you don't see folks having issues at all..... or just minor ones, that can be attributed elsewhere, then it is also likely safe. Modding in general is an exercise in risk management. How much are you willing to accept? That's different for everyone. Assigning 'good' or 'bad' to it, is just mental gymnastics. If you are willing to accept the risks, is it bad??? And if there AREN'T any problems? Is it STILL bad??? You are a smart cookie, I'll give ya that, but, there is such a thing as 'over-cautious'. Folks are avoiding perfectly working mods, because they trust you... (with good reason) This thread is a fine example of that. The mod linked above? I have been using it basically since release. Level 240 on one character, level 150 on my current character. Not a single issue I can attribute to that mod, or any other mod for that matter.... my games runs rather stable... kinda surprising for a low-version beth game. I may see a crash once a month, (and I play a LOT) and even then, its only after playing for several hours..... restart the game, play several more hours without an issue. And then we have the mods that the CK CAN'T make..... UI mods for instance.... Should folks not use them, since they weren't made in the CK???? Just for reference... I have been modding beth games since Morrowind.... I have even released a few mods myself. (co-authored a couple for Oblivion, released one for FO4, and half a dozen for Morrowind..... all the morrowind mods went away with the site they were hosted on though.... ) So, I do have some clue.

Yeah. Me too..... He was fun. Likely going to be one of those mysteries we never get an answer to.... Bummer. Hope he is OK.

I have been using this mod basically since it came out, and I have zero issues with it. SMR tends to err on the side of caution. I have zero issues with the mod, been using it for quite some time.

have a look here.

Yeah, I watched the video, and it does indeed appear to be the EXACT same bug...... That's an NVSE plugin though, so, need someone familiar with making plugins for the script extender..... I doubt the NV version would work in SF right out of the box.

Unless you can compress that down to an acceptable size, then Nope.

Here ya go.

Shouldn't be an issue in Starfield though. New Vegas was a 32 bit app, SF is 64 bit... so, there should be no excuse to run out of precision there.....

There was no cave though... In fact, there wasn't ANYTHING there would suggest I shouldn't build there. I'm in the middle of an open plain, no previous human habitation present, but fully a third of my 'build area' is not buildable. WTF????

If you see the same behavior on a vanilla game.... Gotta be something with your system. Drivers up to date? What vid card ya runnin'? Are you using its control panel to change any settings?

This is a good idea.... Reinstall the software with a fresh download..... See if it helps.

I like it. Placing beacons can be.... problematic.... Also, I have always wondered about the reasoning behind 'restricted areas'.... WHY can I not build there?????

Yeah, I think a 'flying' vehicle would have been more useful. On a lot of planets, rocks make navigation difficult, to say the least, and the vehicle is pretty much useless on low gravity worlds.....

Doing to much AMP...... That's odd.... New one on me. What mods ya running?

Post your load list.

Wonder if that is something baked into the save......

Yeah, especially scripts......

I gotta agree on that one. Even simply picking something up to put it back on the shelf it fell off of can get you killed.... At least it isn't like the other games, when EVERYONE IN SITE would pull a weapon, and come a'lookin' for ya.

I would suspect the various USU mods.... quest rewards in particular..... I have no idea what they all do though...

Did you 'enable modding'? Or whatever vortex calls it?? On my system, Edits to any of the ini's in the My Games\Starfield folder don't always work as they should, and I have to go in and edit the starfield.ini in the game install folder.... No idea what that's all about...

I suspect you installed it wrong..... I don't recall if Vortex does a proper job of it or not..... I *think* that's what I did though.... Otherwise, its just extract the appropriate files to the game install directory.... and start the game with SFSE_Loader.

Driving vehicles in town is 'frowned upon' in any event..... Might just make it a crime to be in a vehicle in town.

Using StarUI Shipbuilder as well? Read the comments for the mod, there is a link to a fix for that. I think it hides the empty habs......

What's this all about? Never had this problem before... Today though, about every third time I click a link to anywhere on the site, Cloudflare wants to verify... about every second or third time it does so, it makes me check the little box. More annoying than anything else, but, I really don't need the annoyance on a gaming forum......

Ok, that's pretty useless. Don't know what else to suggest though, that one was a (wild) shot in the dark.