Yogogamer

That would be great, Mr.Courier, let me know if you're still interested :)

That'll work! :)

Welcome to the modding community, then! Great! We do need a world designer if you're interested.

Ah YES! That's GREAT! Hey if you need any help when I'm not working on my project I can help out. I apologize for the late reply and I appreciate the offer! What is your area of skill? :)

It is indeed not dead! I'm still working on it but I am working on a few other projects and I need a few more team members before heavy development can kick in, I certainly appreciate your interest!

Why haven't you shared with us? You have been able to put only its link to lazy gamers like me :smile: This is the mod you're looking for :cool: http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/21778/?

Nevermind, Found out DFB does this, Sorry, feel free to lock this!

Hello, so I absolutely love the dawnguard crossbow and was wondering if anyone could add it to the normal leveled lists (Guards,Random NPCs etc.) I've been looking for a mod that does this for a while. Thanks!

I apologize for the lack of acknowledgement in the past few months/weeks. Been really busy. The mod is still in development, but is temporarily on hold as our worldspace designer has moved on, however, the mod has made some great progress and I do plan to post more updates once we can get the worldspace back in order. Thanks, See you in The Big Easy!

Only legal if the assets are all from the same game and its DLCs. You can't exactly load Skyrim in the load order for FNV. Didn't the NCR ride horses in "All Roads" the comic that was made to hype the release of Fallout New Vegas? Yes but it was also mentioned by Chris Avellone that horses did not survive: http://fallout.gamepedia.com/Horse#cite_note-6 The above also explains the possible reasons why horses showed up in Chance's flashback. It is against the rules. Yeah, totally didn't survive, I guess that's why they directly appeared in the comic... It is against the rules. *Slow clap* Congratulations, you just repeated what he said..... Conformations aside, I too would be interested in a horse mod, HUGE problem is modeling without using meshes from other games, That proof of concept does however look intresting No he said "apparently" which, to me, sounded like he wasn't quiet sure about the legality of it. As for the horse,there were a few other inconsistencies between the comic and the game itself. So the comic itself isn't 100% canon. Either way, I don't really care about the horse mod not being canon or non-canon since it's not coming to FNV. Well in widespread release anyway. Apparently means the person is sure, no? We're talking about horses and not major story elements, It is likely cannon So why try to discourage people? If not, whatever, but don't hassle people over liking the idea, as I said in another thread. no every mod needs to be lore friendly, if you don't like it, just find mods you like rather than hounding those who do enjoy these types of mods.

Only legal if the assets are all from the same game and its DLCs. You can't exactly load Skyrim in the load order for FNV. Didn't the NCR ride horses in "All Roads" the comic that was made to hype the release of Fallout New Vegas? Yes but it was also mentioned by Chris Avellone that horses did not survive: http://fallout.gamepedia.com/Horse#cite_note-6 The above also explains the possible reasons why horses showed up in Chance's flashback. It is against the rules. Yeah, totally didn't survive, I guess that's why they directly appeared in the comic... It is against the rules. *Slow clap* Congratulations, you just repeated what he said..... Conformations aside, I too would be interested in a horse mod, HUGE problem is modeling without using meshes from other games, That proof of concept does however look intresting

There are officially produced variants however, You are arguing, we clearly aren't' going to agree and you keep dragging this out, For goodness sake just let me enjoy the M16 and you enjoy whatever. The AK isn't perfect either so your point? He never said the AK is perfect... Also when I said "stock" I mean the butt, buttstock, what ever you want to call it. Will you stop it? Obviously not, It was an exaggeration, the same way you tell me the M16 isn't perfect when I say it, You know what? Just stop, I like the M16, you don't, just shut up about it already, we've been going at this for three pages, Hell, I almost forgot what this topic was about, you aren't going to convince me any different and vice versa, so just shut up for goodness sake I'm not forcing you to respond to my comments, I'm not holding an AK to your head (bah dum tss), you responding is YOUR choice. This entire time you've acted like I've committed a crime against humanity by simply saying "M16s aren't the greatest". And You've acted like I've commited a crime for liking the M16, You're the one who turned this into a debate when you could have simply not responded, that was YOUR choice

I am using facts, I'm just saying the things that bother you so much don't bother me, Seriously, why is it such a problem that I like the M16 and the M4 series rifles? If I knew You and Sgt would whine about it this long I wouldn't have said anything

There are officially produced variants however, You are arguing, we clearly aren't' going to agree and you keep dragging this out, For goodness sake just let me enjoy the M16 and you enjoy whatever. The AK isn't perfect either so your point? He never said the AK is perfect... Also when I said "stock" I mean the butt, buttstock, what ever you want to call it. Will you stop it? Obviously not, It was an exaggeration, the same way you tell me the M16 isn't perfect when I say it, You know what? Just stop, I like the M16, you don't, just shut up about it already, we've been going at this for three pages, Hell, I almost forgot what this topic was about, you aren't going to convince me any different and vice versa, so just shut up for goodness sake

There are officially produced variants however, You are arguing, we clearly aren't' going to agree and you keep dragging this out, For goodness sake just let me enjoy the M16 and you enjoy whatever. The AK isn't perfect either so your point?

I call bull, no way they make separate configs for every model, stop trying to drag this out longer "Mr.Mediator"

...You do realized weapons are made outside of a battlefield? They're made in factories where the grip and the stock is treated so that the wood isn't affected by the weather. I'll admit I'm partly at fault for this pathetic argument but you were the one that got angry over me saying the "M16 isn't that great" They don't come treated stock, you'll have to get that custom done. I wasn't angry, it does however annoy me that you simply wouldn't let me think the M16 is good in peace, instead trying to fight me over my opinion

The wood would be treated so it wouldn't rot. I will agree that Russia's scorched earth tactic was very effective, but also keep in mind that the UK held off German attacks until the US entered the war. It was an ALLIED victory, one nation did not win that war by itself. They all played an equal role in it example being; 40% of the pork (it may be beef, I can't remember) eaten in Britain during WW2 was from Argentina, with out their contribution the UK would have starved, if the UK fell the USSR would have had to deal with even more troops and luftwaffe raids. Would be treated? It's a battlefield for goodness sake, you are disagreeing for the sake of it now.... Hhahahha, Yeah, let's see Russia win WWII alone.... Ahh, Yes, Blame me for this, when I am simply stating the M16 wasn't as bad as he was making it out to be, Before you start finger pointing, How about reading the fu..freaking conversation next time? Mediator? Don't even, it was over until he continued the argument. I didn't start this war, Kraig did when he refused to allow me to disagree

1. It's also a wooden rifle, Wouldn't hold up well at all in a rainy envoirment, 2. They are from around the same period basically! The newer rifles anyway 3. Minor improvements? I'm guessin you don't know the changes

LOL Calling the AK series the most reliable *Rollseyes* Also, the AUG isn't a new weapon. And I hope you are aware there a newer model M16 rifles, it's comptenet with the modern weapons...

*Facedesk* Oh my god.... I already addressed the jamming issue, you are going all out to start a flame war.. In any case, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, Stop trying to jam this "not an essay" bull down my throat

Yes, Wiki isn't evidence, I already explained my evidence and haven't once said the above Really? Because you haven't been doing much else besides making my day even crappier and trying to tell me I'm wrong with a wiki page

Again, It's very much a matter of opinion, there are multiple winning sides, and if you wish to reduce derailment, why do you keep dragging this out? contradiction much? Not sure what you mean by "multiple winning sides"... there was only one side that won, the Allies. Also Yogo you're equally at fault for dragging it off topic. Never denied I wasn't, you did however start this "M16 is weak" bull. and I'm not talking about sides as a whole, rather countries And you're the one that took it to heart for some odd reason and even after showing you facts you just stuck to your observational bias judgement. Also true that the allies won on multiple fronts but that doesn't take away from them all winning. Keep in mind when the US fought along side the Brits, Canucks, and French resistance movement, so claiming that the US won but ignoring those facts is arrogant. Bias? Not even fully American -_- I didn't say that at all, it seems you are putting words in my keyboard now, because I even stated that they all won. I honestly think you just keep replying to spite me as I already discountinued the PM for this very reason "You harass me for proof yet you haven't any proof yourself, as an owner of several M16's I will say personally I haven't had any trouble with them, just have to keep them clean (As with any firearm)" Ring a bell? That was literally nothing to do with the topic at hand, I'm really starting to lose my patience (Already been having a crappy week), Firearms have nothing to do with the war's victor Not for WW2 but we're talking about how you're bias view on the M16 makes you believe it's better than what it really is. Bias? Are you kidding me? I simply stated it's a nicely performing rifle, if you don't think so, fine. But don't harass me because I prefer it, and don't make the ridiculous claim the performance killed the user. You use your guns in a clean and controlled area, the soldiers in the Vietnam war used them in jungles. The difference being you are much less likely to get your gun dirty than the soldier. I first stated that the gun isn't that great because of it's reliability in combat and that it has less stopping power compared to other guns it went up against. I've shown you evidence backing it up, I've explained how the gun has not won a single war like you have claimed, and I have even asked you to name ONE but you refuse to do so and only state that I should brush up on my history, mean while I named off every war the US has been a part of after the Vietnam war and not one was won due to the M16 out performing the enemies rifles. As for a bias judgement, I don't think you understand what that means so I'll give you an example. Let's say you give a dog a grape, turns out your dog enjoys grapes. When ever you're eating grapes you toss one or two towards your dog and (s)he eats them. After a while you hear that grapes are bad for dogs and that you shouldn't be feeding them grapes. You have been feeding dog grapes for so long with no visual side effects that you disagree with the study(s) and continue to feed your dogs grape. What ever happens to the dog doesn't matter in this case, you have made a bias judgement based solely on your experience. The M16 when first introduced to soldiers in Vietnam jammed, it was unreliable in a firefight. I have shown you the evidence. The only evidence you have shown me is you telling me I'm wrong and a wiki page, might as well be nothing. As for conditions, maybe, but you still shouldn't be getting your gun dirty unless you are slamming it in the mud or laying it in the sand, and again, the M16 greatly improved the allies armory not only in Vietnam but current wars as well and your condescending manner is frustrating to say the least. it's not bias! Now I'm convinced you really are carrying this on to spite me.

Again, It's very much a matter of opinion, there are multiple winning sides, and if you wish to reduce derailment, why do you keep dragging this out? contradiction much? Not sure what you mean by "multiple winning sides"... there was only one side that won, the Allies. Also Yogo you're equally at fault for dragging it off topic. Never denied I wasn't, you did however start this "M16 is weak" bull. and I'm not talking about sides as a whole, rather countries And you're the one that took it to heart for some odd reason and even after showing you facts you just stuck to your observational bias judgement. Also true that the allies won on multiple fronts but that doesn't take away from them all winning. Keep in mind when the US fought along side the Brits, Canucks, and French resistance movement, so claiming that the US won but ignoring those facts is arrogant. Bias? Not even fully American -_- I didn't say that at all, it seems you are putting words in my keyboard now, because I even stated that they all won. I honestly think you just keep replying to spite me as I already discountinued the PM for this very reason "You harass me for proof yet you haven't any proof yourself, as an owner of several M16's I will say personally I haven't had any trouble with them, just have to keep them clean (As with any firearm)" Ring a bell? That was literally nothing to do with the topic at hand, I'm really starting to lose my patience (Already been having a crappy week), Firearms have nothing to do with the war's victor Not for WW2 but we're talking about how you're bias view on the M16 makes you believe it's better than what it really is. Bias? Are you kidding me? I simply stated it's a nicely performing rifle, if you don't think so, fine. But don't harass me because I prefer it, and don't make the ridiculous claim the performance killed the user.

Again, It's very much a matter of opinion, there are multiple winning sides, and if you wish to reduce derailment, why do you keep dragging this out? contradiction much? Not sure what you mean by "multiple winning sides"... there was only one side that won, the Allies. Also Yogo you're equally at fault for dragging it off topic. Never denied I wasn't, you did however start this "M16 is weak" bull. and I'm not talking about sides as a whole, rather countries And you're the one that took it to heart for some odd reason and even after showing you facts you just stuck to your observational bias judgement. Also true that the allies won on multiple fronts but that doesn't take away from them all winning. Keep in mind when the US fought along side the Brits, Canucks, and French resistance movement, so claiming that the US won but ignoring those facts is arrogant. Bias? Not even fully American -_- I didn't say that at all, it seems you are putting words in my keyboard now, because I even stated that they all won. I honestly think you just keep replying to spite me as I already discountinued the PM for this very reason "You harass me for proof yet you haven't any proof yourself, as an owner of several M16's I will say personally I haven't had any trouble with them, just have to keep them clean (As with any firearm)" Ring a bell? That was literally nothing to do with the topic at hand, I'm really starting to lose my patience (Already been having a crappy week), Firearms have nothing to do with the war's victor