[Bralsa Andaren won't train me.]

I just looked at her GREETINGS (in both vanilla and the UOBP ver3.5.6)

 

For her to ask "What do you want yadda yadda..." the destruction training quest needs to be >=20

 

huh? That's numb nuts, given that the stage is set to 10 when you're sent to find her.

 

Ima edit the GREETING requirement from 20 to >=10 and try it out in my next playthrough. I might even remember to report back! :D

 

 

 

 

 

EDITED: 8th Nov 2018.

 

Yup... that worked, as in, I changed the GREETING requirement to >=10 (as mentioned above) and started a new toon to play test it. Don't ya just love it when things go to plan? :D

[Vanquisher of Bugs - Arthmoor]

Whenever I stumble across, or read, the fabled words "Bugsoft QA dept." or any mention of it: my brain immediately translates that to Arthmoor & the U##P Team. I don't always agree with him, but I can't bring myself to argue with the man, either. Because, having observed (over on AFK) the sheer depth to which he delves into things, the time he devotes to, and the trouble he goes to to make the Bugsoft games more hassle free and playable; within the limitations of the "DinoBryo game engine" of course, the man's a flippin' hero in my book. I hope he continues to enjoy gaming, and his other pastimes, for many years to come. Thank you, Arthmoor. :)

 

Edit: Yeah, I'm late to the party. But my "News" didn't update until I got logged out for some reason and then I logged back in. Ugh...

[Static Items Request]

 

<snip>

save the NIF file in Oblivion\Data\meshes\your_mod_name (or sth like that) and close the NifSkope

open CS, load your plugin, make a new Static and as a model choose the NIF file that was just created in NifSkope

<snip>

 

 

That's the bit I don't bother with,QQuix - thanks for the additional info btw re: not necessary actions. It's very interesting and much appreciated.

 

I generally always arrange my file structure, per mod, with the necessary where they would be if I were to actually upload. So, in the case of the static items, I already have meshes\ aaron\ ICWShack2018\ lowerclass, upperclass, food, alcohol, utensils etc. etc. in place.

 

Once the CS is open, and the current mod is active, in this instance all I do is click on "static" in the object window then open my file structure in a seperate window, select for example everything inside "upperclass" and just drag it into the CS window and the CS takes care of everything for me/you path wise. No messing about needed. You can drag your new items into the render window immediately. Fun, fun, fun. Yeah, okay, and the occassional headache, too. :D

 

Laters....

[Static Items Request]

Ahah... Just put my first static object into my most recent player home and attacked it with an iron dagger. Then I punched it because, erm, I hit it so many times that my weapon broke - lol :P

 

I haven't actually been to bed since 7 o'clock Saturday morning while trying to solve this for myself.

 

What the hell is up with search engines these days? I gave up searching for strings like "make static object for Oblivion" hours and hours ago. Just a few minutes ago I was searching for "best Nifskope version for Oblivion" and up pops, on the first page:

 

http://wiki.tesnexus.com/index.php/Removing_havoc_on_an_object

 

Sigh.... talk about relief, and it's a piece of cake to do, too. I don't bother with half of the guide because I drag and drop my own file structure straight into the creation kit - which is much simpler than all that faffing about :smile:

 

Thank you tesnexus. 11/10

 

Note: I dropped the link in incase anyone else makes a similar request. Just might save them hours of searching :D

[Static Items Request]

Pretty please, wiv a cherry on top!

 

Gah... my new player house exploded for the umpteenth time yesterday, and I'm (we're) all sick of it?

I've spent an age trying to find out how to create statics myself for Oblivion. FO3, FNV, FO4, TES V ... is np at all and I do it all the time - except when I'm playing Oblivion, duh! :D

 

The static items I'd like are listed below.

 

But.. what I'd "really" like is for someone to tell me how to do it for myself - specifically for Oblivion.

 

The links from the Github Nifscope page don't help, or lead anywhere, and all I've drawn is a headache. :sad:

 

Items Requested:

 

BeerBottle

BrandyBottle

WineBottle01

WineBottle02

WineBottle03

CheeseWedge

Tomato

Radish

BroomLower01

LowerClassLadel01

LowerClassSpoon01

LowerClassKnife01

UpperPitcherCeramic01

UpperPitcherCeramic02

UpperScales

UpperScaleWeight

Alembic

Calcinator

MortarPestle

Retort

 

Yes, I did read the pinned threads, and yes I did find a super duper looking static alchemy set. But I like living like a pauper when I'm role playing in Oblivion so plain ol' basic apparatus suits me just fine and is all I need.

 

God! If someone IS kind enough to help me out with this I'm going to be in their debt for a while, huh? :smile:

 

Thank you for reading my diatribe fellow gamers / modders.

 

[Navmeshing Exterior/Worldspace?]

Okay, no need to reply. Fed up with managing an ever growing folder structure and patching the darned things together every time I change or add a mod (Re: Precom, Previs, etc..) and after a month of searching for and not being able to find an answer to my Navmesh issue I've unistalled the game this morning. I've played it to its death anyway. I just thought, instead of trying to work it out for myself, I'd ask here as a last resort - to no avail. I'd run out of patience with the game anyway. Modding it was the only thing left but It just doesn't appear to be conducive with modding in general to me - unless you're simply "adding" a few bits and bobs like you would for, oh, wait, ... microtransactions!

[Fix for CK not starting since update]

My solution which never even existed for me in the first place was to simply delete the old short cut, update the CK software which I don't have set to auto update, and create a new short cut. I never trust any software to observe old school computing best practice - least of all, Bugsoft. I've also noticed, NOT launching via the launcher and now not having Steam running while I'm working in th CK not only uses fewer resources (obvious really - lol) but my installation is remarkably more stable than when previously I would leave Steam running in the background.

 

I hope you do eventually get your problem sorted, SMB92, and good luck. You'd think issues like yours wouldn't even exist in 2017. Sigh....

[Navmeshing Exterior/Worldspace?]

Sorry to dig this one up but I just don't get Navmesh in FO4, insofar as, even just "looking" at the Navmesh for a current cell seems to invoke the regeneration of the Navmesh for the entire commonwealth in some instances. Of course, because I haven't actually touched anything I just remove that branch using FO4Edit. It would however be nice to re-do a cell or cells properly, though, instead of building as I do to compliment the existing Navmesh. Nah, I'm not a complete noob at Navmesh - been dropping and replacing entire cells in Skyrim without issue, and of course in earlier games but Navmesh was more user friendly then. I "get" the pre-cuts, I get the precombines, I get the Previs, and (when I have to.) can make Roombounds and Portals work without issue, too. It's just that if I actually "do" alter an Existing Navmesh the CK goes on to regenerate the entire world. I realise that by altering just one triangle that any attached triangles will need updating, too, in order to be contigious (it that's even the right word.) BUT didn't this necessary activity previously stop at a cells boundary? And, what the hell then happens if there's more than one mod globally altering the entire world's Navmesh. Ughh.. I hate not knowing although, oddly, I've quite happily spent days manually Navmeshing in earlier games because I like things to be done properly. Okay, I get anal about it, sometimes, but whatever - lol. :-)

[Big changes for the Nexus Mod Manager and the introduction of Tannin42, our new head of NMM development]

In response to post #43224730. #43229715, #43231195, #43231225, #43234520, #43237900, #43238095, #43248580, #43248780, #43256345, #43256845, #43258870, #43261500, #43262515, #43262825, #43264055, #43264355, #43265250, #43265975 are all replies on the same post.

fgambler wrote: What will be the name of the new app? NMO (Nexus Mod Organizer)? :D

Tannin42 wrote: Suggestions are welcome... :D

GuardianAngel42 wrote: NNMM: New Nexus Mod Manager.

renthal311 wrote: hahaha Fgambler, I'm with tears in his eyes :D :D

pStyl3 wrote: NexMO = Nexus Mod Organizer

HadToRegister wrote: I like what someone previously suggested but without the 'x'

NeMO = Nexus Mod Organizer

Thallassa wrote: I think NeMO is the best one I've heard, but I'm still partial to "NOMM" (not quite sure how that acronym works out but it's cute).

fgambler wrote: NeMO kinda sounds nice but not so serious, it's a name either attached to a fish or a nintendo 8-bit game :P

HadToRegister wrote: I was thinking of a famous Submarine Captain from a book by Jules Verne ;)

FreeWare wrote: How about NMM v2.0? Or 1.0 could work too. The name doesn't really need to change, it's already as good as it can be.

spartanops101 wrote: NMUMMMO - Nexus Mod's Ultimate Mod Manager and Mod Organiser

}{ellKnight wrote: Voting for NeMO.

Optionally include images of sushi.

Warsadle wrote: NMO = Nexus Mod Organiser is a straight foreword combination of the names, okay.

NNMM = New Nexus Mod Manager, too many repeated letters in the acronym to be used as a short hand name.

NexMO = Nexus Mod Organiser, good name and it rolls of the tong easy.

NeMO = Nexus Mod Organiser, also a good name, and the acronym is good.

NOMM = Up to readers interpretation of how the acronym works, mine would be
Nexus Organising Mod Manager, funny name though!

What I would use?

Mod Library Organiser (MLO (pronunciation: EM-Low))

hex77x wrote: Gaming Extras Tool Designed As Totally Awesome Stuff Stuffer.

KeltecRFB wrote: I like NOMM, NexMO, NMO, or NEXT (no acronym, simply means the NEXT Nexus Mod Manager).

northtreker wrote: Nemo could also reference Ulysses (Odysseus) calling himself Nemo - nobody (Outis) to fool the cyclops and show that the Gods had looked away from him in the Illiad.

It sounds like this new organizer has gone on a long journey to come home.

pedantic wrote: MOLE - Mod organiser legendary edition.

Edit: Avogadro Number, anyone? Not to mention burrowing :D

chrislm wrote: NUMM: Nexus Ultimate Mod Manager

HadToRegister wrote:

pedantic

Edit: Avogadro Number, anyone? Not to mention burrowing

Not to be confused with Avocado's Number which shows the number of atoms in a guacamole

@HadToRegister

Lol - yeah. I was simply referring to the " chemistry " of the thing, plus a HUGE number! All encompassing. :D

[Big changes for the Nexus Mod Manager and the introduction of Tannin42, our new head of NMM development]

In response to post #43224730. #43229715, #43231195, #43231225, #43234520, #43237900, #43238095, #43248580, #43248780, #43256345, #43256845, #43258870, #43261500, #43262515, #43262825, #43264055 are all replies on the same post.

fgambler wrote: What will be the name of the new app? NMO (Nexus Mod Organizer)? :D

Tannin42 wrote: Suggestions are welcome... :D

GuardianAngel42 wrote: NNMM: New Nexus Mod Manager.

renthal311 wrote: hahaha Fgambler, I'm with tears in his eyes :D :D

pStyl3 wrote: NexMO = Nexus Mod Organizer

HadToRegister wrote: I like what someone previously suggested but without the 'x'

NeMO = Nexus Mod Organizer

Thallassa wrote: I think NeMO is the best one I've heard, but I'm still partial to "NOMM" (not quite sure how that acronym works out but it's cute).

fgambler wrote: NeMO kinda sounds nice but not so serious, it's a name either attached to a fish or a nintendo 8-bit game :P

HadToRegister wrote: I was thinking of a famous Submarine Captain from a book by Jules Verne ;)

FreeWare wrote: How about NMM v2.0? Or 1.0 could work too. The name doesn't really need to change, it's already as good as it can be.

spartanops101 wrote: NMUMMMO - Nexus Mod's Ultimate Mod Manager and Mod Organiser

}{ellKnight wrote: Voting for NeMO.

Optionally include images of sushi.

Warsadle wrote: NMO = Nexus Mod Organiser is a straight foreword combination of the names, okay.

NNMM = New Nexus Mod Manager, too many repeated letters in the acronym to be used as a short hand name.

NexMO = Nexus Mod Organiser, good name and it rolls of the tong easy.

NeMO = Nexus Mod Organiser, also a good name, and the acronym is good.

NOMM = Up to readers interpretation of how the acronym works, mine would be
Nexus Organising Mod Manager, funny name though!

What I would use?

Mod Library Organiser (MLO (pronunciation: EM-Low))

hex77x wrote: Gaming Extras Tool Designed As Totally Awesome Stuff Stuffer.

KeltecRFB wrote: I like NOMM, NexMO, NMO, or NEXT (no acronym, simply means the NEXT Nexus Mod Manager).

northtreker wrote: Nemo could also reference Ulysses (Odysseus) calling himself Nemo - nobody (Outis) to fool the cyclops and show that the Gods had looked away from him in the Illiad.

It sounds like this new organizer has gone on a long journey to come home.

MOLE - Mod organiser legendary edition.

Edit: Avogadro Number, anyone? Not to mention burrowing :D

[Big changes for the Nexus Mod Manager and the introduction of Tannin42, our new head of NMM development]

In response to post #43223160. #43223235, #43225810, #43226065, #43226570, #43226580, #43226675, #43226930, #43227145, #43227835, #43229000, #43229600, #43229700, #43231180, #43250055, #43250125, #43252635, #43253770, #43254560, #43254880, #43255025, #43258040, #43258235 are all replies on the same post.

ContessaR wrote: Simple question: Will you be keeping MO's virtual installation/file system? That's all I want. Don't care what the name on the Mod Tool is as long as it has that.

JDM90 wrote: This

TehPikachuHat wrote: Thirded.

mfeile1974 wrote: Fourth....main reason I won't touch NMM is because I don't want my install folder touched

rcv wrote: me 5

The Vampire Dante wrote: @ mfeile1974

NMM has been using virtual installs for a while now.

bla08 wrote: NMM already offers a type of virtual installation system.

Arthmoor wrote: Personally I would hope not, or that it would be moved into an extension for those people who want that.

TehPikachuHat wrote: NMM virtualization system uses hardlinks, which clutter up your install folder. MO does it better.

ColdHarmonics wrote: The VFS of MO is second to none, let's hope the new NMM uses that. I may sound like a bit of a fanboy, but after grappling with a variety of virtual file systems, I just haven't found anything quite as nice as MO's.

moriador wrote: So, NMM uses "a type of virtualization system" already?

I don't know whether it does or not, or whether it's an option you have to enable in NMM.

All I *do* know is that when I install a mod with NMM: its assets are available when I load the CK to mod and when I load a game to play; moreover, I can easily locate those assets in my data folder, should I need to unpack/change/adjust/alter/move/rename/overwrite or delete them.

Last I checked, this was not the case with MO, since it was impossible to load a game without starting MO. And MO's file virtualization wasn't recognized by the CK.

With MO, if a mod had a single and simple problem, such as missing mipmaps for a few textures or an incorrect file path or even a single messed up mesh, it was not clear to me how to fix it. Whereas right now, I just fix them the straightforward and obvious way.

I have no idea if that's the case now -- or whether I'm simply totally wrong about MO -- because the description of the implementation was too confusing for me to really grasp fully. Forum threads and tutorials didn't help.

At the moment, with NMM, if I find that my data folder has unwanted stuff in it, I delete that stuff or manually shove it into a different folder. If I want a completely "clean" data folder, I unpack a backup archive of a vanilla install. I'm not sure what could be simpler than that.

Ultimately, for me, nothing beats actually looking at mod archives to see what's in them (and where) before installing anything into my data folder. I actually read the readme's. :D

xyon71 wrote: @ Moriador
While I can't speak to using the CK with MO, because I haven't used it, I can say that what you described is what I think most of the problem with MO.... people don't understand it so they don't like it.
How I came to understand it, was that MO "injects" a mods assets into the game's DATA folder when a mod is activated without actually writing it there, and possibly overwriting a file that is already there and permanently breaking a game.

You are ALWAYS using the clean backup of your DATA folder because you never change it..

The reality is, when you use MO, every mod you install creates a folder with the mod's name (e.g. Steamapps/Skyrim/ModOrganizer/mods/modxyz) and all of the assets are extracted there instead of your game's actual DATA folder. You then simply "activate" a mod when you want to use it, or deactivate it if you don't.
You have total freedom to go into the mod's folder and change or delete files at will if you please, either through MO or with Explorer. There is also a nifty function to "hide" a file in MO so it won't be used without deleting/destroying it.(great for texture/sound mods when you want to use some parts of 1 mod, and some parts of another mod)

While this all might be moot at this point, because who knows how the new tool is going to work, I hope I made the MO virtualization make a little more sense.

Yes, you launch your game from within MO, but I did the same with NMM, so it didn't bother me.

Tanker1985 wrote: @moriador, the CK works fine with MO, if you start it from within MO. It will see any plugins that are active in MO. The main issue is with MO's archive management, which allows it to see bsa assets as loose files. This might be the cause of inaccuracies with things like Xedit and CK.

Exoclyps wrote: Gotta voice my opinion here as well. The way MO does the Virtualization is just awesome. Separating everything by folder makes it so easy for me to keep track of it and the main reason why I love MO.

elezraita wrote: I don't understand why people can't figure out how to use MO. I get that it is different, but there are so many wonderful tutorials out there explaining how to get third party programs to work with MO. I install enbs through MO using Casmithy's EnbMan. I use TES5Edit, the CK, dyndolod, Bodyslide, Merge Plugins, FNIS, any and all Skyproc patchers, you name it. Through MO, I can see and manipulate my "Data Folder" as I could if my mods were installed my actual data folder. And guess what: my actual data folder is completely vanilla. I can edit my inis without actually editing my inis. What's even better is that I have another option as well: I can look at and manipulate my mods on an individual basis without having to search for assets in a mess of a regular data folder. I just go to the mods folder in the MO directory, and I can find the mod that contains the asset. Finally, I love that I can hide unnecessary plugins so they don't clutter my load order. I don't have to delete them. They are still contained in the mod folder in case I need them again.

I could go on and on, but people keep saying that NMM is better for people who make mods and do advanced things, and that NMM is more streamlined for beginners who want a simple process. Which is it? I'd say that those people just haven't taken the time to understand how smooth MO makes everything. It's perfect for beginners, because you install mods the same way you do with NMM: you click the download link and you click "install" from the installation tab. The difference is, that if you screw up the installation order, you simply change the mod's priority, as easily as you change your plugin load order instead of uninstalling all the out of order mods and reinstalling them in the correct order. Mod Organizer does not force its advanced features on amateur mod users. It's just that MO forces you to think a little differently than you might be used to. It has a slight learning curve that is really just a small paradigm shift curve.

Sorry for the rant. If people want use NMM because they think it's easier, more power to them. I just don't like all of the misinformation I've seen here regarding Mod Organizer in this thread.

UWShocks wrote: At least add an option for those that do want the files in the Data folders.. One of the reasons why I use NMM.
Makes tinkering around w/ CK and files (meshes, textures) much easier for me.

moriador wrote: @elezraita,

Thank you. That's a very full and descriptive answer! :)

I don't know why finding the information I need on how to get MO to work for me is so hard for me, but I read a lot of forum threads and watched more than a few tutorials. Almost all of them repeated the same information -- and not a single one explained how to use MO and the CK together. On the contrary, everything I read indicated that they didn't work together at all. To be sure, I couldn't find much anyway because almost all threads and tutorials seemed to assume that all you wanted to do was download and install mods. I found nothing specifically by or for mod authors EXCEPT the posts that said how using MO in conjunction with the CK was a royal PITA.

If the problem is that the info about MO is just disorganized and mostly outdated and sometimes simply incorrect, then the software is definitely worth looking into!

But -- seriously -- I've installed and used thousands of complex programs over the last four decades, so it's not as though I give up on software that easily.

I shall definitely give it another try!! (While waiting for the new mod manager to be developed.)

Arthmoor wrote: @elezraita: The mere fact that I'd even need to go through all that for every external tool I might want to use is one reason I don't like virtualized systems like that. Not everyone thinks it's such a great idea, which is why it belongs in an extension module for those who want it.

lithiumfox wrote: And I don't mind going through MO for every application. In fact, it's the least pain-in-the-butt system I've had to use for all of that.

Keep the VFS.

elezraita wrote: @moriador

You are probably right. There aren't really a whole lot of tutorials for using the CK and MO. I just learned how to use other third party programs and did the same thing for the CK. When I make a new plugin, it comes out in the overwrite mod and I just move it to its own mod at that point. I'll admit that getting scripts to compile from notepad++ while using MO was a royal pain. I had to download a mod to get it to work and then I had to write my own compile.bat. But after that, it was perfect. I honestly can see how people would get frustrated with that. I did, but I saw too many other advantages to MO to give up. My love of MO and all the misinformation I kept seeing led me too hyperbole. MO has its challenges, but I like it enough to spend time finding solutions. Not everyone is willing to do that. It depends on what one values. anyway, I made a tutorial a while ago about how I made a certain compatibility patch (because it was getting way more endorsements than it deserved). I wanted people to see how easy it was to make. In that tutorial, I used MO to open the CK, but that is about the extent of direct CK/MO tutorialage I know of. It's just that, except for setting up papyrus to compile from a text editor, it's basically the same as installing any other tool and launching it from MO.

@Arthmoor

I understand that not everyone thinks it's a good idea. I do; it works for me, as I explained. I understand that you like Wrye Bash. I like Wrye too, but I like MO more. I agree with you that virtualization a la MO should be an extension for NMO (as I'll call it for now). My purpose wasn't to tell people that their choice not to use MO is wrong. I'm perfectly fine with people using whatever tool they want. I just felt that I'd explain that MO isn't actually that hard to learn. I've seen quite a few comments expressing frustration about how certain tools don't work with MO at all, and I wanted to explain that they actually do. You understand that the way to get those tools to work in MO is the same way one gets the game to run in MO. If you don't like how those two things are accomplished, I'm fine with it. I just want people who don't understand the concept to get why those tools weren't working for them.

pedantic wrote: All that? All that what, Arthmoor.

You click on the executable ( The gears ) Type a name then click on the [ ... ] to navigate to the .exe and, well, that's all there is to it.

The external programs run from within MO aren't virtual at all, they simply read from the virtual .esm and .esp files and write back the result, from the CK as an example, to the overwrite folder with no harm done. If you're happy with what you've accomplished just drag and drop the thing onto the existing mod to update it or simply rename it and create a replacement mod. It's how I keep different versions of the self same mod. Childs play.

Edit: Yep, I even run Wrye from MO and it dumps the bashed patch in the overwrite, too.

UhuruNUru wrote: NMM DOES NOT use a virtual file system.

It uses Hard Links/Symbolic Links, to move files in and out, there's nothing Virtual about it,simply naming a folder "Virtual", doesn't make it so

The big problem is that NMM needs 100% control, of everything.

It simply doesn't work properly with any 3rd party tools (FNIS, Bodyslide, etc), that changes, or adds new files.
These can, and will simply replace the links NMM relies on, with standard files

The result is, all these altered files remain in the data folder, when you switch profiles.

This is why Tannin rejected this linking method for MO, at the start, and went to the fully virtual system.

Even then it took MO years to iron out all the issues, that using 3rd party tools introduces. The "Overwrite" mod is not ideal, but it does work.

Basically it's not profile specific, which is why manual action is required.
Anything file that a 3rd party tool puts in the Data folder, with no mod linked to it, gets put in "Overwrite", for the user to move.

That's the big difference, MO works with 3rd party tools, and manual intervention.
NMM ignores it, and leaves the resulting mess in the data folder, but it only affects users who use multiple profiles, and the vast majority of multi-profile modders, use MO instead.

I've only discovered these issues with non Bethesda games, as MO is my choice for those.

Multi-profiles work in NMM, if you only use NMM on the Data folder files, it's a basic system, and not designed for advanced modding.

MO is Virtual file system, NMM is Hard/Sym Link file system.

Arthmoor wrote: @pedantic:

You click on the executable ( The gears ) Type a name then click on the [ ... ] to navigate to the .exe and, well, that's all there is to it.

For everything needed to mod the game. At some point one has to concede that needing to do this special for MO vs not having to do it at all is "all that" and it's seen as an inconvenience to more people than you seem to realize.

@Arthmoor

For everything needed to mod the game. At some point one has to concede that needing to do this special for MO vs not having to do it at all is "all that" and it's seen as an inconvenience to more people than you seem to realize.

Hmm.. are you talking about actually " creating " a mod? ( I know you're PDG at that - I love your mods ). If so, yes! I concede, when I make my own unpublished mods, I do NOT run the CK or any other utility, through MO - nor do I play-test through MO. When I'm done I drag the results out of the Data folder and zip 'em up ready for MO install, thus, reverting my Data folder to pristine Vanilla. Suffice to say, MO is pure simplicity for modding your game but there are better utilities for actually creating mods.

[Big changes for the Nexus Mod Manager and the introduction of Tannin42, our new head of NMM development]

In response to post #43223160. #43223235, #43225810, #43226065, #43226570, #43226580, #43226675, #43226930, #43227145, #43227835, #43229000, #43229600, #43229700, #43231180, #43250055, #43250125, #43252635, #43253770, #43254560, #43254880 are all replies on the same post.

ContessaR wrote: Simple question: Will you be keeping MO's virtual installation/file system? That's all I want. Don't care what the name on the Mod Tool is as long as it has that.

JDM90 wrote: This

TehPikachuHat wrote: Thirded.

mfeile1974 wrote: Fourth....main reason I won't touch NMM is because I don't want my install folder touched

rcv wrote: me 5

The Vampire Dante wrote: @ mfeile1974

NMM has been using virtual installs for a while now.

bla08 wrote: NMM already offers a type of virtual installation system.

Arthmoor wrote: Personally I would hope not, or that it would be moved into an extension for those people who want that.

TehPikachuHat wrote: NMM virtualization system uses hardlinks, which clutter up your install folder. MO does it better.

ColdHarmonics wrote: The VFS of MO is second to none, let's hope the new NMM uses that. I may sound like a bit of a fanboy, but after grappling with a variety of virtual file systems, I just haven't found anything quite as nice as MO's.

moriador wrote: So, NMM uses "a type of virtualization system" already?

I don't know whether it does or not, or whether it's an option you have to enable in NMM.

All I *do* know is that when I install a mod with NMM: its assets are available when I load the CK to mod and when I load a game to play; moreover, I can easily locate those assets in my data folder, should I need to unpack/change/adjust/alter/move/rename/overwrite or delete them.

Last I checked, this was not the case with MO, since it was impossible to load a game without starting MO. And MO's file virtualization wasn't recognized by the CK.

With MO, if a mod had a single and simple problem, such as missing mipmaps for a few textures or an incorrect file path or even a single messed up mesh, it was not clear to me how to fix it. Whereas right now, I just fix them the straightforward and obvious way.

I have no idea if that's the case now -- or whether I'm simply totally wrong about MO -- because the description of the implementation was too confusing for me to really grasp fully. Forum threads and tutorials didn't help.

At the moment, with NMM, if I find that my data folder has unwanted stuff in it, I delete that stuff or manually shove it into a different folder. If I want a completely "clean" data folder, I unpack a backup archive of a vanilla install. I'm not sure what could be simpler than that.

Ultimately, for me, nothing beats actually looking at mod archives to see what's in them (and where) before installing anything into my data folder. I actually read the readme's. :D

xyon71 wrote: @ Moriador
While I can't speak to using the CK with MO, because I haven't used it, I can say that what you described is what I think most of the problem with MO.... people don't understand it so they don't like it.
How I came to understand it, was that MO "injects" a mods assets into the game's DATA folder when a mod is activated without actually writing it there, and possibly overwriting a file that is already there and permanently breaking a game.

You are ALWAYS using the clean backup of your DATA folder because you never change it..

The reality is, when you use MO, every mod you install creates a folder with the mod's name (e.g. Steamapps/Skyrim/ModOrganizer/mods/modxyz) and all of the assets are extracted there instead of your game's actual DATA folder. You then simply "activate" a mod when you want to use it, or deactivate it if you don't.
You have total freedom to go into the mod's folder and change or delete files at will if you please, either through MO or with Explorer. There is also a nifty function to "hide" a file in MO so it won't be used without deleting/destroying it.(great for texture/sound mods when you want to use some parts of 1 mod, and some parts of another mod)

While this all might be moot at this point, because who knows how the new tool is going to work, I hope I made the MO virtualization make a little more sense.

Yes, you launch your game from within MO, but I did the same with NMM, so it didn't bother me.

Tanker1985 wrote: @moriador, the CK works fine with MO, if you start it from within MO. It will see any plugins that are active in MO. The main issue is with MO's archive management, which allows it to see bsa assets as loose files. This might be the cause of inaccuracies with things like Xedit and CK.

Exoclyps wrote: Gotta voice my opinion here as well. The way MO does the Virtualization is just awesome. Separating everything by folder makes it so easy for me to keep track of it and the main reason why I love MO.

elezraita wrote: I don't understand why people can't figure out how to use MO. I get that it is different, but there are so many wonderful tutorials out there explaining how to get third party programs to work with MO. I install enbs through MO using Casmithy's EnbMan. I use TES5Edit, the CK, dyndolod, Bodyslide, Merge Plugins, FNIS, any and all Skyproc patchers, you name it. Through MO, I can see and manipulate my "Data Folder" as I could if my mods were installed my actual data folder. And guess what: my actual data folder is completely vanilla. I can edit my inis without actually editing my inis. What's even better is that I have another option as well: I can look at and manipulate my mods on an individual basis without having to search for assets in a mess of a regular data folder. I just go to the mods folder in the MO directory, and I can find the mod that contains the asset. Finally, I love that I can hide unnecessary plugins so they don't clutter my load order. I don't have to delete them. They are still contained in the mod folder in case I need them again.

I could go on and on, but people keep saying that NMM is better for people who make mods and do advanced things, and that NMM is more streamlined for beginners who want a simple process. Which is it? I'd say that those people just haven't taken the time to understand how smooth MO makes everything. It's perfect for beginners, because you install mods the same way you do with NMM: you click the download link and you click "install" from the installation tab. The difference is, that if you screw up the installation order, you simply change the mod's priority, as easily as you change your plugin load order instead of uninstalling all the out of order mods and reinstalling them in the correct order. Mod Organizer does not force its advanced features on amateur mod users. It's just that MO forces you to think a little differently than you might be used to. It has a slight learning curve that is really just a small paradigm shift curve.

Sorry for the rant. If people want use NMM because they think it's easier, more power to them. I just don't like all of the misinformation I've seen here regarding Mod Organizer in this thread.

UWShocks wrote: At least add an option for those that do want the files in the Data folders.. One of the reasons why I use NMM.
Makes tinkering around w/ CK and files (meshes, textures) much easier for me.

moriador wrote: @elezraita,

Thank you. That's a very full and descriptive answer! :)

I don't know why finding the information I need on how to get MO to work for me is so hard for me, but I read a lot of forum threads and watched more than a few tutorials. Almost all of them repeated the same information -- and not a single one explained how to use MO and the CK together. On the contrary, everything I read indicated that they didn't work together at all. To be sure, I couldn't find much anyway because almost all threads and tutorials seemed to assume that all you wanted to do was download and install mods. I found nothing specifically by or for mod authors EXCEPT the posts that said how using MO in conjunction with the CK was a royal PITA.

If the problem is that the info about MO is just disorganized and mostly outdated and sometimes simply incorrect, then the software is definitely worth looking into!

But -- seriously -- I've installed and used thousands of complex programs over the last four decades, so it's not as though I give up on software that easily.

I shall definitely give it another try!! (While waiting for the new mod manager to be developed.)

Arthmoor wrote: @elezraita: The mere fact that I'd even need to go through all that for every external tool I might want to use is one reason I don't like virtualized systems like that. Not everyone thinks it's such a great idea, which is why it belongs in an extension module for those who want it.

lithiumfox wrote: And I don't mind going through MO for every application. In fact, it's the least pain-in-the-butt system I've had to use for all of that.

Keep the VFS.

elezraita wrote: @moriador

You are probably right. There aren't really a whole lot of tutorials for using the CK and MO. I just learned how to use other third party programs and did the same thing for the CK. When I make a new plugin, it comes out in the overwrite mod and I just move it to its own mod at that point. I'll admit that getting scripts to compile from notepad++ while using MO was a royal pain. I had to download a mod to get it to work and then I had to write my own compile.bat. But after that, it was perfect. I honestly can see how people would get frustrated with that. I did, but I saw too many other advantages to MO to give up. My love of MO and all the misinformation I kept seeing led me too hyperbole. MO has its challenges, but I like it enough to spend time finding solutions. Not everyone is willing to do that. It depends on what one values. anyway, I made a tutorial a while ago about how I made a certain compatibility patch (because it was getting way more endorsements than it deserved). I wanted people to see how easy it was to make. In that tutorial, I used MO to open the CK, but that is about the extent of direct CK/MO tutorialage I know of. It's just that, except for setting up papyrus to compile from a text editor, it's basically the same as installing any other tool and launching it from MO.

@Arthmoor

I understand that not everyone thinks it's a good idea. I do; it works for me, as I explained. I understand that you like Wrye Bash. I like Wrye too, but I like MO more. I agree with you that virtualization a la MO should be an extension for NMO (as I'll call it for now). My purpose wasn't to tell people that their choice not to use MO is wrong. I'm perfectly fine with people using whatever tool they want. I just felt that I'd explain that MO isn't actually that hard to learn. I've seen quite a few comments expressing frustration about how certain tools don't work with MO at all, and I wanted to explain that they actually do. You understand that the way to get those tools to work in MO is the same way one gets the game to run in MO. If you don't like how those two things are accomplished, I'm fine with it. I just want people who don't understand the concept to get why those tools weren't working for them.

All that? All that what, Arthmoor.

You click on the executable ( The gears ) Type a name then click on the [ ... ] to navigate to the .exe and, well, that's all there is to it.

The external programs run from within MO aren't virtual at all, they simply read from the virtual .esm and .esp files and write back the result, from the CK as an example, to the overwrite folder with no harm done. If you're happy with what you've accomplished just drag and drop the thing onto the existing mod to update it or simply rename it and create a replacement mod. It's how I keep different versions of the self same mod. Childs play.

Edit: Yep, I even run Wrye from MO and it dumps the bashed patch in the overwrite, too.

[Big changes for the Nexus Mod Manager and the introduction of Tannin42, our new head of NMM development]

Well, if it isn't a virtual file system I ain't touching it with a barge pole. Yes, I used FOMM and OBMM etc. - even tried NMM for a while - and each one was unreliable and ultimately messed up my Data folder resulting in many hours of searching for remnants of mods which were supposedly uninstalled but, in fact, were not properly uninstalled at all and even " lost " files and assets. To be fair, all is fine until you start swapping out your load order for a new game or character.

 

MO, on the other hand, hasn't ever let me down. Oh well, I/we still have that I guess. I originally had high hopes when I first read about this new venture on the Steam forum but now I'm not so sure. It implied Tannin was going to be in control and I'm not so sure about that either now. Whatever....

[Site redesign - sneak peek - part 1]

In response to post #41331365. #41336080 is also a reply to the same post.

pewpewcachu4 wrote: comments are disabled on youtube lmao thats probably because the nexus staff has enough people that hate them to make a new country

Dark0ne wrote: Or we just like to keep things in one place. YouTube comments have always been a cesspit, so we're following TotalBiscuit's lead and keeping things in one place.

If what you want to say can only be said on YouTube, it likely wasn't constructive in any way, shape or form. So naturally, we couldn't care less about that.

Yeah - and enough people that love them to make an entire new continent :)

[Site redesign - sneak peek - part 1]

In response to post #41318050.

andreitabacaru wrote: I don't really get why people complain about the proposed tile layout. The current Browse files section of the site is exactly that, but in a really bad and out-dated version, where almost one third of the screen's witdh is occupied by mod tiles, and the rest is search bar (which would be way better on top of the page) and the background image...both of which take up almost 2/3s... two damn thirds of useless space, that could be used to showcase this site's exact purpose: mods. So the new layout is really perfect!! you get to see bigger preview images to get a really quick idea about what's what... and it looks a lot more tidy which I always prefer.
On the flip side, I also don't agree with the quick download feature... I get it, faster access to great content and what not, but if you think about it, yeah, you remove one (crucial) step... but if the mod doesn't work because it had special requirements or installation processes, you're just adding OTHER tedious and unnecessary steps that could have been easily avoided. Of course, allowing authors to activate it optionally if the mods are simple and don't require extra attention would be good I guess. I would never use that feature but I can definitely see how other people would.

Personally I LIKE the current layout because it DOESN'T use full width. It's a boon when using a split screen - App. on the right, Nexus on the left. Cool beans all round in my book.

[Site redesign - sneak peek - part 1]

In response to post #41272325. #41274465, #41275065, #41275135, #41275585, #41276745, #41277095, #41278320, #41278875, #41281935, #41282870, #41282905, #41302665 are all replies on the same post.

J Allin wrote: If it aint broke, don't fix it... ;)

pedantic wrote: Sage advice :)

sonogu wrote: Which must have been told more than a year ago, before the hundreds of hours hard work :)

HadToRegister wrote:

sonogu
Which must have been told more than a year ago, before the hundreds of hours hard work

This is the first I've heard about it?

sonogu wrote: http://www.nexusmods.com/games/news/12539/?
http://www.nexusmods.com/games/news/12620/?
http://www.nexusmods.com/games/news/12630/?

These are the news I found about the redesing of the site... It's been a while and have been announced in every step.

piotrmil wrote: That is very, very true. I do hope that the authors will give us options instead of shoving the new design down our throats.

michaelspicer16 wrote: Agreed

graymaybe wrote: Compared to what it could be, it's pretty broke tho.

Thallassa wrote: Luckily nexus was pretty broke. I'm looking forward to the fix.

HadToRegister wrote:

sonogu
http://www.nexusmods.com/games/news/12539/?
http://www.nexusmods.com/games/news/12620/?
http://www.nexusmods.com/games/news/12630/?

These are the news I found about the redesing of the site... It's been a while and have been announced in every step.

I missed all of those, I was busy doing clinicals at a hospital all that time

janishewski wrote: Advice for the weak. Everything is broken because nothing is perfect, therefore everything can always be improved. This look far superior to the old site design.

janishewski wrote: Terrible advice that applies only to the timid and those that achieve nothing.

EnaiSiaion wrote:

Terrible advice that applies only to the timid and those that achieve nothing.

So how's Windows 10 treating you?

Nothing to do with being timid, weak, or an under achiever. Neither is it how it "looks" that's important to me (The same can be said for a good game). It's how it functions for everyone which should be a sites' primary concern. Fix what's broken by all means, adopt new technology by all means. But it seems to me, in this day and age, that actions are taken simply because they can be taken and for no other practical reason. So, instead of fixing what's broken a little at a time, we're plunged into months of constant change while the little necessary changes are incorporated into a premature overhaul to make the Nexus look like every other site. I love the Nexus because it isn't like every other site. The new "random" mod idea smacks of PSN and the rest looks just like, as others have said, (ugh..) Bethesda. The download shortcut might cause issues, too, for mod makers. It's a great idea but poorly thought through imho. However, if the shortcut were to take folk to the mod description page, similar to the current preview, then maybe the install instructions, requirements, and README.TXT (which so many don't) would be adhered to more often, leaving our brilliant mod makers to do what they do best. I can see the benefit of the shortcut if, for whatever reason, I'm re-downloading a mod. Hey, there's an idea: The shortcut only goes live if you've previously downloaded said mod - the same way you're not able to endorse a mod prior to download. Me? I love change but not simply for the sake of it.

[Site redesign - sneak peek - part 1]

In response to post #41272325.

J Allin wrote: If it aint broke, don't fix it... ;)

Sage advice :)

[Skywind is coming to Nexus Mods]

Sounds good to me. It's been years since I played Morrowind and yet I can still hear those darned guards saying "move along" Now it seems there's a chance I might actually be able to move 'them' along - and in short order, with something pointy. I wish the Skywind team every success :)

[A pay system and free model must coexist]

There's an old saying "if it ain't broke don't fix it"

[Magic mines (?) and how to avoid them]

I usually get my luggage (follower) to "Wait Here" making them walk over and set the things off. Then use 'healing hands' on them for the exp :-)

[Well, that's just typical isn't it...]

Who's talking about the workshop? I'm not subscribed to any workshop mods. My Load Order isn't on display so I doubt you know which modders I wished to donate to anyway. I was merely saying thank you to the Nexus community at large.

[Well, that's just typical isn't it...]

Now that the donate button has been repositioned I logged in today with the express intention of donating to a few of those mods I use 'every' play-through. Guess what - each and every one of them hasn't opted in. It made me smile even though, I must admit, I was a little disappointed. Impressed by such a display of honour from those individual contributors, not to mention the Dark0ne forfeiting his entire planned weekend, I decided to invest my birthday money in a lifetime Premium subscription instead. Yeah, about flippin' time I hear you say but, well.. okay.. no excuse, it IS about flippin' time after all. Thank you Nexus :-)

[Endorsement reminder bugs, site activity history deleted]

Just thought I'd add, in addition to what the team is already aware of, I am being asked to endorse mods I have only browsed and haven't downloaded at all. I 've already re-endorsed those that I have used but it bugs me having a list pop up, insofar as I don't want to appear to be ignorant and unappreciative. Well, I hope the last bit makes sense. :P

[Oblivion Slow FPS - Is this normal? Help.]

I disabled threaded optimization in nv control panel and it got a little better, still, around 15 fps with 3 or more NPCs in front of me.

 

 

What bben said is spot on and sage advice. I'm sorry, but I'd missed the fact you are using x64 PC. I guess a memory upgrade is in order. Good luck now. :yes:

[Oblivion Slow FPS - Is this normal? Help.]

You shouldn't be experiencing those problems. If I were you I'd check out your graphic card settings. I have a lessor card than you, albeit with 1GB video mem, and I'm maxed at 60 FPS according to FRAPS. Most of my settings are on - let application decide - if that's any help.