throttlekitty

You really don't want to unpack the textures into your game directory.

did you extract all the texture acrhives?

I'd say this afternoon.

I'm told there's a separate file that holds texture/shader info now. I don't have the game yet, so I can't do any checking for now. (hint hint beg beg)

Looks like some of the reflections are just too strong and/or need masks. Those wine bottles are technically right if not a little strong in that lighting and in need of a little dirtying.

This suggests Bethesda wrote the AI.

You were doing pretty well up until this paragraph. BSA was also a proprietary format that you could not operate without custom software, same with ESM/ESP NIF, TRI, EGM files contained within. The community has written tools to work with these files. It's not DRM, it's simply file formatting, that's how computers work. In your first paragraph you reason that the move to 64 bit being a likely reason for the change, then call it DRM? Surely you're a troll. @jet4571, no clue, sorry.

I VOLUNTEER TO GET DRUNK AS s#*! AND RECORD THINGS FOR YOUR MODS.

From what I have read the Russians (who know these things) cannot decipher the encryption. They are saying they have never seen it before. It is not a known Valve or STEAM code to keep people from viewing the contents. This is what I get from their on line conversations. Edit: I cannot link the site here. What they discuss is against the Nexus rules. Now that's interesting. I presume they're not looking at steam preload files then. Just might have to hunt around a bit, I'm curious now.

The game isn't out yet, the people playing are presumably on advance copies and/or pirated versions of that. The only thing I've seen so far is a screenshot of files from the Steam preload, but those files are encrypted until the game is released. edit: apparently legal in Germany. I don't think anyone thinks that .ba2 format is the result of Valve's compression? It doesn't change filenames, just the encrypts the contents as with any previous steam preload. It's just that most people don't have access to the real deal just yet.

Headless dogmeat so we don't have to look at his big dumb dog face cuz dogs r dum.

I really don't think FO4 modding will be that restricted because of the potential of console mods. Here's my thoughts on this. I'm really curious if they plan on monetizing on that end, however. Logistically, Bethesda would have to pick viable mods for the consoles; ones that don't rely on external things like FOSE, amp out graphics, or very **hungry scripting, doesn't break ratings/performance/company image/etc. Then they'd need to QA it and likely get approval from Microsoft and Sony. I don't know much about how Sony does things, but MS charges publishers for patches (or at least used to), and are very concerned with the performance of their console. Bethesda would have an agreement not to do/allow certain things to happen with their game, so they'd need to have control over what mods get published and retain that control post-release. Can't have someone sneaking in a patch that draws dicks on everything, it may be more sensible for Bethesda to handle mod updates, or need to QA each release every time. That said, It's a fair bit of work on their part, and I wouldn't be surprised to see some amount of monetization happen for console mods. On PC, we have the choice to make or download our own mods at our own risk, and as such, we turn to the community and authors for support if a mod is misbehaving. They simply wouldn't be able to fully support the users for both the game and any given mod-break situation. **Remember that they previously ran into all kinds of memory issues with Skyrim for long-term players; I remember they asked people for lots of save games to help fix the situation. I don't recall if they did or not, but this also may limit what things too, hard to say. quick edit: Cheers Dark0ne

Yeah, Script extenders and the like don't modify the .exe, they modify what's in memory. I'm curious if .nif mods/custom models would make it onto the consoles, IIRC the formatting is a little different, but don't quote me on that. I'm also skeptical about the game, maybe I'm just getting old and tired of eating the same meal, or maybe there's some special sauce on this one. But I do know that the charm of the games, bugginess and all has worn off for me at least. What gets me is this undying chant of "Modders will fix it", as if it's the expected norm now. There's no question in people that (other people) are somehow looking forward to 'fixing' whatever needs to be fixed. Or the notion that the games are somehow not enjoyable simply because someone who doesn't work at Bethesda made their mark on it, no matter what that mark may be. Hell, now people who even fell for a preorder on digital goods show this expectation. What if there aren't any good mods? To be honest, I'd like to see how things pan out if none of the community tool writers contributed to Fallout 4. It used to be that we'd fall in love with the game enough to want to make mods. Nowadays if your mod isn't compatible with every other mod and works flawlessly all the time, hoo boy that inbox! I've watched this community grow more toxic with each new installation, it's no wonder the games are getting more dumbed down with each new release.

Did The Conformulator give you any errors when you generated a new tri and egm? The problem may be in the nif, try setting the head up as a helmet or something to see if it crashes then, just for the sake of taking the tri/egm out of the picture.

Sadly, no SSS. Specular color can be set in the material properties in the nif files, but we're also limited to a greyscale specular map as well.

Send me your video card, I can take a look.

Right click any bone in the Block List view, and Transform>Edit.

For actually using Blender, try reading the documentation, or looking for blender-specific tutorials. LHammonds has a nice roundup already in the 3D\Blender subforums: http://forums.nexusmods.com/index.php?/topic/234818-blender-read-this-1st/

I haven't touched tintmasks, but that looks more like a really low-res one rather than a compression issue. What's the resolution on the lips there?

dDo only, like a noob. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/13576177/3DStuff/ESWAT%20Rifle%20dDo.jpg

A T shape is when a face joins an object much like the shape of a capital T. This is a form of nonmanifold geometry. I will upload and link a few variants of the file to you because I do not know what information is carried over in a OBJ file vs say a maya binary file. Ah, right. don't weld those :P Y'know, come to think of it, a .mb or .ma would work just fine.

What do you mean by T-shapes? I know little about Mudbox, but speaking generically about export processes, verts might be split because of: materials, faces facing the wrong way, uv seams and hard edges. None of those really make sense for going into sculpting except inverted faces. There's a few specific cases where Maya will create "bad" vertices, like when using bridge, one fix is to unweld problem areas, then re-select all the new verts and weld. So, I guess try that? If you'd like, PM me a copy of the mesh and I can take a look. edit: looking again at your first pictures, splits seem to happen at hard edges, try setting them all to smooth before sending them over.

When using Maya's clean function, do it step by step, don't check all the boxes at once. It's best to understand what's actually wrong with the mesh, cleanup isn't perfect either, especially if you opt to re-weld all the vertices afterwards. This won't really work in this case, since the mesh is down so low. It doesn't have the topology to fully support a sculpt-friendly model.

You may need to use an older version of NifSkope for obj files, current version(s) have an issue with UVs. Sounds like 1.1.0 RC6 works for this task. Jennifur68 posts that RC7 works as well, here's the download link for that: http://sourceforge.net/projects/niftools/files/nifskope/1.1.0c2-c7/

We don't have full support for Havok Behavior animations, something I've been toying around with a little bit lately. I've no real answer as to how to actually do it, sorry. The only thing I can suggest is looking into the Havok Content Tools. Via Havok, extra skeletons+animations can be attached to an actor (see beast tails, bows and creature addons), but I don't think the HCT will export the info needed to actually do the attach/blend.