Hanker109 Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 Hi!I starting a new Oblivion game and would like to know if the Stand Alone Wry Bash is just as good as the one that uses Python. In the past I remember instlling at least 3 Wrye Bash files plus Python to make it work. I'm using OBMM Extended but Wrye Bash doesn't show on the starting pane, is there a way to do this ? Thanks for whatever help you can give me. Best Regards, Hanker109 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caithe Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 I've been using the standalone for three weeks now and it's as good as the python one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaime74 Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 Does the standalone version support both CBash and "Python Bash", or does it force my to use CBash only? I am not really sure... @Hanker109: Be aware that a good part of the discussion around "Standalone vs. Python" goes about the "CBash vs. PBash" question.In general, WB offers two alternative methods for creating Bashed Patches:1. Python (I call it "PBash" here): This is the "old" method. It is considered less efficient, but still more reliable2. CBash (newer): Much more efficient, but still a bit "beta-like". I can speak only for WB up to version 292 (haven't upgraded to 295 yet), and in my case CBash with v292 is still very unreliable! That's why I am still using the PBash. I think I had to explicitely choose the Python version to have PBash support. And as that Python version supports choosing between PBash and CBash, I considered it the better choice. But I am not up to date with the most current WB developments, so I cannot tell for sure... you might want to check the most recent feature list in the current WB thread (if you haven't already done) [EDIT] I have to correct a bit, after having read the latest feature list:- I was wrong: The standalone version does NOT force you to use CBash, so it's probably a good idea to use it instead of the Python version- The feature list still claims the same as for previous versions: "At this stage CBash still has a few bugs, though, and is in BETA." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanker109 Posted October 11, 2011 Author Share Posted October 11, 2011 I've been using the standalone for three weeks now and it's as good as the python one. Thank you Caithe: I tried installing COBL with the Python and the Standalone upgraded versions but both give me errors. Have you installed Cobl? If you have, I will appreciate how you did it. When I used the WB version 292 the install went perfect. It seems as some old mods and utilities don't comform to the new standards, hence they will not install properly. This is a pain in the neck cause I don't have the know how as to how circumvent this problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanker109 Posted October 11, 2011 Author Share Posted October 11, 2011 Does the standalone version support both CBash and "Python Bash", or does it force my to use CBash only? I am not really sure... @Hanker109: Be aware that a good part of the discussion around "Standalone vs. Python" goes about the "CBash vs. PBash" question.In general, WB offers two alternative methods for creating Bashed Patches:1. Python (I call it "PBash" here): This is the "old" method. It is considered less efficient, but still more reliable2. CBash (newer): Much more efficient, but still a bit "beta-like". I can speak only for WB up to version 292 (haven't upgraded to 295 yet), and in my case CBash with v292 is still very unreliable! That's why I am still using the PBash. I think I had to explicitely choose the Python version to have PBash support. And as that Python version supports choosing between PBash and CBash, I considered it the better choice. But I am not up to date with the most current WB developments, so I cannot tell for sure... you might want to check the most recent feature list in the current WB thread (if you haven't already done) [EDIT] I have to correct a bit, after having read the latest feature list:- I was wrong: The standalone version does NOT force you to use CBash, so it's probably a good idea to use it instead of the Python version- The feature list still claims the same as for previous versions: "At this stage CBash still has a few bugs, though, and is in BETA." Hi! Jaime74: Many thanks for your reply. I'm having big problem trying to install mods and utilities with the new WB, my computer went down and I had to replace it with a new one. I installed a new Oblivion game and then went ahead and downloaded all the latest on mods that I love. I used the old 291 WB and installing mods was a piece of cake but with this new WB 295 things are diffenrent. I think I'm going back to the old version that really worked fine. Thanks again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Brasher Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 I couldn't get the new PBash to install and so I installed the CBash just fine on the first try. It seems to have all the features you would expect and I have experienced no bugs with it after running it for three weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaime74 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 I should mention that I've now upgraded to 295 (Standalone Version), and for the first time I managed to create a working Bashed Patch with CBash!I've been testing only very little so far, but from a first impression everything looks good. In earlier versions, there was always something wrong with the CBash patch, which was always visible within seconds (googly eyes, missing body meshes, crashes etc.).But this time I couldn't find anything wrong. It seems to me that with WB295, a lot of things have been sorted out well! BTW, with my new CBash patch, the number of used esp slots has been reduced by at least 25%, which is a really good thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bchick1 Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 After much use of Wrye Bash in OldRim and the new SE, I started running into an error in creating a bash patch ...I am not sure where to fix this <?> I simply run LOOT then Wrye Bash. I see no 'RED FLAGS' in Wrye Bash.Can anyone tell me what this means and where to fix it? STDOUT/STDERR skyforgedWeapons.esp: WEAP.CRDT: Expected size == 24, but got: 16Error loading 'WEAP' record and/or subrecord: 02004349 eid = u'SkyforgeDwemerDagger' subrecord = 'CRDT' subrecord size = 16 file pos = 4589Error in skyforgedWeapons.espRoyalElvenBow.esp: WEAP.CRDT: Expected size == 24, but got: 16Error loading 'WEAP' record and/or subrecord: 03007ECE eid = u'AARoyalElvenBowNamed' subrecord = 'CRDT' subrecord size = 16 file pos = 1257Error in RoyalElvenBow.espDragonCarvedArmorSet.esp: WEAP.CRDT: Expected size == 24, but got: 16Error loading 'WEAP' record and/or subrecord: 02001D90 eid = u'DragonCarvedGreatsword' subrecord = 'CRDT' subrecord size = 16 file pos = 3008Error in DragonCarvedArmorSet.espBosmerElderShadowArmor.esp: WEAP.CRDT: Expected size == 24, but got: 16Error loading 'WEAP' record and/or subrecord: 02002310 eid = u'BosmerElderShadowDaggerTwin' subrecord = 'CRDT' subrecord size = 16 file pos = 3501Error in BosmerElderShadowArmor.espNyhus.esp: WEAP.CRDT: Expected size == 24, but got: 16Error loading 'WEAP' record and/or subrecord: 0328F097 eid = u'UndeadSlayer' subrecord = 'CRDT' subrecord size = 16 file pos = 64759Error in Nyhus.esp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts