MO2 questions

[Indio21]

the rest of it........

The Better Windhelm Ground Meshes Placement Correction.esp plugin is flagged as an esm and esl, BUT, after
investigation of the file dates for plugins in my LO that one has the newest date out of all the .esm, .esl,
and or ones flagged esm and or esl. This was verified across all the plugins towards the top of my LO, but
another example can be seen in the above screen shot of the Lux plugins.

MO2 put the Lux - Resources.esp plugin above the Lux Orbis - Master plugin.esm. Again, this was done because
the resource plugin has a newer date over Orbis. The Lux - Master plugin.esm has a newer file date compared
to the resources one, so it was placed before resources.

With the change note in LOOT, noted above, and the verification of file dates showing truth/logic, that was the
basis of why I began my research into if LOOT might be the issue. With that understood, I have tested ALL
combinations of the following versions:

MO2 versions: 2.5.1rc2; 2.5.1rc1; 2.5.0; and 2.4.4
LOOT versions: 0.22.3; 0.21.0; 0.18.6; and 0.18.3

I skipped LOOT v0.22.0 because that is where the change log note, posted above, took affect. My reason for testing
ALL the possible combinations was out of hope that if I got to an earlier LOOT version, before the LO change noted,
'maybe' one would work. All the test ended up doing was confirming it is NOT anything to do with LOOT, but
solely with MO2.

Testing would involve the following steps:
    1.  Install MO2 & LOOT version
    2.  Launch game to start menu & exit (actually going in game is not required for MO2 show the issue)
    3.  Verify LO change
    4.  Run LOOT from MO2
    5.  Update masterlist
    6.  Sort LO & accept changes (LOOT NEVER changed my LO doing this even using much older versions. It still
        knew the groups I made for plugins in the latest version....IDK how, lol, as I overwrote the
        entire folder for every version installed)
    7.  Repeat step 2 of launching game to menu & exiting
    8.  Verify LO change
    9.  Close MO2 & change versions between MO2 and or LOOT
    10. Open MO2 & repeat process

Now I took screen shots all the way through the process to be able to show with X older version of LOOT and X
version on MO2 it all worked, but as I stated, LOOT is not at fault, so showing that documentation here is
pointless.

Ending conclusion is, MO2 versions 2.5.0 to 2.5.1rc2 ALL rearrange LO no matter which version of LOOT is installed.
As I tested LOOT versions pre the LO change noted in version 0.22.0, and skipped back over any that mentioned LO
changes (is why versions went from 0.21.0 to 0.18.6 to 0.18.3 as changes were noted in the newer version before
them), I have to conclude MO2 has some sorting capabilities integrated into it beyond utilizing LOOT...OR, I have
not gone back far enough in LOOT versions to find the change afflicting MO2.

As those test versions put me close to a year and a half back on LOOT versions, I figured that was enough data.
Plus seen LOTS of error messages using newer MO2 and older LOOT versions. But, somehow, MO2 is using that same
kind of logic with the file dates as noted in the LOOT changes. The test clearly proves that, and, is causing
the issues I, and others, are seeing.

The only version I got to successfully work is MO2 v2.4.4. It worked just fine with the latest LOOT v0.22.3, as
far as I could tell. Because it was mention to me about using that version of MO2 with xedit, I verified mine is
working. IIRC, I think it was mentioned the latest version of xedit is required. IDK if there is a newer version
out yet, as I have not checked, but mine is SSEEdit v4.1.5 EXPERIMENTAL. All I did was launch it from
MO2 (v2.4.4) and look at record headers, so I have no idea if other issues exist....as of yet ;).

Also, the MO2 2.5.1rc1 & 2 versions did remove the strike through on empty plugins, but version 2.4.4 does the same,
just to note for those interested.

As I am writing this all out to post on the MO2 discord, so hopefully someone on the team finds it or someone
points them to it, below here I am just going to recap on the other issues I noted in MO2 v2.5.0. These issues
were not tested in the newer beta versions.

Overwrite: If the folder structure is expanded, to see contents for placement, it cannot be dragged and dropped
    into the corresponding asset file. Yes, it was collapsed before trying. Overwrite has to be then closed,
    reopened, and then the folder can be dragged. If the folder is even clicked on without expanding before
    dragging, it still will not move.

Downloads: Downloading from nexus links sometimes works and others will stall saying "0.0 B/s" and never download.
    I have to pause the download, let it set like 10 seconds, and double click to restart. Sometimes it only
    takes once and other times over a half dozen times of doing it. Note also, I have not downloaded mods from
    other sites. I have noticed no issues with installing from a file after doing a manual download from Nexus.

I hope it helps and thank you for all your time on this great tool!

[IsharaMeradin]

Quote

Overwrite: If the folder structure is expanded, to see contents for placement, it cannot be dragged and dropped
    into the corresponding asset file. Yes, it was collapsed before trying. Overwrite has to be then closed,
    reopened, and then the folder can be dragged. If the folder is even clicked on without expanding before
    dragging, it still will not move.

I recall this behavior when working with any version of MO or MO2.  It may not be a v2.5.0 only thing.  It could be a thing that has only become more noticeable as you've done more work in the program.

[AaronOfMpls]

30 minutes ago, Indio21 said:

Overwrite: If the folder structure is expanded, to see contents for placement, it cannot be dragged and dropped
    into the corresponding asset file. Yes, it was collapsed before trying. Overwrite has to be then closed,
    reopened, and then the folder can be dragged. If the folder is even clicked on without expanding before
    dragging, it still will not move.

1 minute ago, IsharaMeradin said:

I recall this behavior when working with any version of MO or MO2.  It may not be a v2.5.0 only thing.

Oh yah, that was a thing even in MO1.  I had to work around that problem now and then.

[Indio21]

10 minutes ago, IsharaMeradin said:

I recall this behavior when working with any version of MO or MO2.  It may not be a v2.5.0 only thing.  It could be a thing that has only become more noticeable as you've done more work in the program.

Nope, it would be because I have not used any version of MO2 since 2020, and I just started to use it then. I don't have the exposure with the tool to know, lol. But you do so thanks for noting it! Hopefully the team finds my posts and fixes it for us.

[Indio21]

10 minutes ago, AaronOfMpls said:

Oh yah, that was a thing even in MO1.  I had to work around that problem now and then.

Good to know! I just figured if I was noting it all out I'd add it for them to see. Hopefully the next release will fix it all

[sattyre]

On 3/8/2024 at 6:12 PM, Indio21 said:

Would anyone know if what is shown in the video below is still an acceptable way to update MO2? Update section starts at 2:30 minutes into video. Thank you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DEzehXK1TA

yup that is still perfectly relevant. 

 

3 hours ago, Indio21 said:

This is why in my previous screen shot of my LO, see below, after running the game or adding a plugin, an esp plugin
(specifically in this case for reference, the Better Windhelm Ground Meshes Placement Correction.esp plugin)
is placed at the very top ahead of direct .esm plugins flagged as an esm.

So why does the priority number in the screenshot start at 79.  And the esl is the resource.esl which should be loading in the 9 or 10 slot, not the 79th.

USSEP and some of the other mods shown also should load at a much higher priority, certainly above BS Assets.esm and BS Heartland.esm, but in general, all of those mods should be at a higher priority.  To my knowledge, LOOT always sorts esm/esl mods to the top.  esp never go above an esm unless it is actually an esp flagged esm, in which case MO sorts it and displays it in Bold.

[sattyre]

3 hours ago, Indio21 said:

Overwrite: If the folder structure is expanded, to see contents for placement, it cannot be dragged and dropped
    into the corresponding asset file. Yes, it was collapsed before trying. Overwrite has to be then closed,
    reopened, and then the folder can be dragged. If the folder is even clicked on without expanding before
    dragging, it still will not move.

Yup that's always been a minor issue.  You can open the folder and drag and drop into another folder.  It will put them into the same path.  example:  SKSE opens to plugins you can then drag and drop an .ini file into another mod and it will create the plugins folder so the .ini file stays in the proper folder structure.  That may be the trade-off.

[Indio21]

12 minutes ago, sattyre said:

Yup that's always been a minor issue.  You can open the folder and drag and drop into another folder.  It will put them into the same path.  example:  SKSE opens to plugins you can then drag and drop an .ini file into another mod and it will create the plugins folder so the .ini file stays in the proper folder structure.  That may be the trade-off.

All great to know people, keep it coming. I'll probably just attach a link to this thread in the discord post.

 

Got some new info I just edited in over there for them. I just realized it admiring how much I like the way v2.4.4 displays plugins with extensions and flags........and then noticed it does not work correctly, or as I see,  intended. I'll paste it below for reference when using MO2.

**EDIT: I started this edit to comment about how the identifying of esm and esl extension and flagged pluggins is better in v2.4.4, as with the italic and bold use to identify them. The problem now is I have made the conclusion SINCE v2.4.4 to v2.5.0, because I didn't know to look for it when testing the latest rc versions, is NOT working correctly. I 'think', as someone intended, a .esl flagged esl should be just italic; a .esl flagged esl & esm would be bold and italic; a .esp flagged esm would be bold and with esl flag both bold and italic; a .esm flagged esm bold and with esl flag both bold and italic.

This can be proven in the screen shot above, in initial post. The USSEP.esp is flagged an esm/esl but displays only bold. Yet the USSEF.esp is flagged esm/esl and displays correctly both bold and italic. In v2.4.4 the USMP.esp is flagged only as an esm but is shown bold and italic. I can make more examples to the screen shot, etc but that makes the point the way plugins are identified has not worked as intended since v2.4.4

Edited March 10, 2024 by Indio21

[sattyre]

Ussep isn't flagged esl, it has too many records.  The esm are displayed as they always have been in MO2 as well as the esl.  Esm as well as esl really only need the bold designation as it tells you it belongs at the top. the italic is really only useful to identify the esl or esl flagged, though of course the esl also go to the top, but not the flagged esp.  The esl and esl flagged esps also have the yellow circle flag to denote their status, so while you may be correct, you'll find it's kind of moot.

[Indio21]

2 hours ago, sattyre said:

Ussep isn't flagged esl, it has too many records.  The esm are displayed as they always have been in MO2 as well as the esl.  Esm as well as esl really only need the bold designation as it tells you it belongs at the top. the italic is really only useful to identify the esl or esl flagged, though of course the esl also go to the top, but not the flagged esp.  The esl and esl flagged esps also have the yellow circle flag to denote their status, so while you may be correct, you'll find it's kind of moot.

Oops, my bad on the USSEP. I think I grabbed the USSEP Pie Fix I use, IDK. Got way too much info in my head after doing the test and working out using a new MM over the last couple days, on top of all the mod problems worked through. Oh well, I'm sure newbs have said dumber things on the discords they can bypass that one from me, lol.

I honestly had no idea what any of the flag symbols meant. I've never even come across mention of them in ALL my research or vid watching. Now that I look at it quick, I'm going to see if I can figure out what the rest stand for. Which hopefully does not lead me to discovering they are not working correctly.

With the way I believe the bold and italic identification is intended to work, I personally like it better, and thought it easier to identify on a first glance, when a .esl flagged esl is not bold, as in v2.4.4. If it is not bold and among the bold, it's easy to know what is going on without looking any farther. Just my opinion. In v2.5.0 they are bold and among bold all one has is the slight tilt to tell. Can make it hard to read, as in v2.4.4 I notice it has more in italic shown wrong. In a group of them I am like is that normal or italic. That version seems to be italic happy.