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

[Exoclyps]

In response to post #43232045.

prinyo wrote:

 

In response to post #43231020.

prinyo wrote:

In response to post #43228135. #43228440, #43228710, #43228800, #43229750 are all replies on the same post.

HadToRegister wrote: Having used both, I like MO, and I also like NMM, but only pre 0.62 NMM, as 0.62 and above just acted like malware and destroyed most of our mod lists

NOWHERE in this thread has it been said that the new NMM will have NONE of the features of NMM and/or ALL of the features of MO.

NOWHERE has the subject of "Forcing MO on everyone" even been discussed.

If you use NMM 56.1 (For whatever hipster anti-something reason), then keep using it, but stop complaining about something that you're not only NOT going to use, but are also so misinformed about, that you were unable to make even one factual statement about the plans for NMM/MO for the future.Mebantiza wrote: So will it be safe to say, this 'new' MM have will none of the features of NMM, and all the features of MO. IoW, just a reskinned and renamed MO? As bad as NMM 6x has been, there are things about NMM that make people want to use it, well, the pre- 6x versions anyhow. How is forcing MO and its structure on everyone, even those that don't really want it, a benefit?

I use NMM 56.1, and do NOT require virtual installs. Its a feature, for some, but not a REQUIRED one, and I dont want it forced on me. 56.1 is old, crashes constantly, and is not all that stable tbh. But its still far preferable to anything NMM 6x, and have no need to have MO forced upon me. Not going to argue which one is 'superior', that is pointless. NMM is straight-forward enough to do what it has to, and did it well enough, well at least untill they tried to steal some of MO thunder. Then it went to complete and utter $yht. Up until that point, it wasn't perfect, but it did the job. NMM 6x added a needless feature that no one asked for, and never worked properly. Had NMM retained its pre-VM structure and improved that, things would likely be fine with it even now.

So now, the 'solution' it seems, is make everyone use MO whether they like it or not...

xyon71 wrote: Why go right to negativity??
I think it is very UNsafe to say it is just going to be a "re-branded MO"
It appears to me that they are wanting to produce a simple, yet powerful NEW tool for everyone to use with varying degrees of complexity based on need.
I didn't read anywhere that they are "forcing" anything, I read that they are taking all of the feedback from BOTH tools to incorporate the best features into 1 "best" tool.
I switched from NMM to MO 2 years ago, and found it simply wonderful to be able to try out different mods in different orders without breaking my base game.
I will admit there was a learning curve, but not too steep, and I am far from an advanced modder.
I for 1 am excited to see what these talented minds can come up with.
For whatever this or that, I say all of them are in it because they want to give people the best modding experience possible, so lets give them a chance before we jump on our band-wagons and shoot harpoons because we "think" we already know what they are going to do...

archerarcher wrote: Same here. In times where disk space is cheaper than fuel I think this virtual install feature is completely obsolete. I don't like it and I don't like the problems it makes with certain mod installations.
I use NMM 56.1 for Skyrim too, it's very stable to me, no problems at all, really. Okay, I track all my (700~) mods and over the years my documentation has grown into a complex website but I know exactly what to overwrite and what not and I know where my files are and I don't care about some gigabytes disk space more or less for my favorite game that I am playing/ modding since Nov 2011.

So what should a future mod mager be like?

1. Manage mod files
That's the absolute priority. Everey feature that affects this should be removed or be avoided.

2. Simple to use, simple to manage
No need for virtual installs, no installation of mods directly by clicking on a button on a website. I need control! Everyone needs control. Is there anybody out there who installs mods via website button? I inspect EVERY file before I use a mod so you should too if you don't want to loose track of your installment.

That's what I want from a mod manager and that's why I use NMM 56.1 and not MO

moriador wrote: @archerarcher,

Control. Precisely.

The more lines of code that come between me and the stuff I want to use, the more difficult it becomes to fix what ought to be minor problems. Instead of simply locating the problem file or reference and fixing it, you have to contend with the installation software and all of its quirks. Instead of replacing a single bad mesh, for instance, you may end up having to uninstall an entire mod, create a new mod archive with the new mesh, and install it all over again.

The more control you take away from users, the more those users have to rely on mod authors (and mod manager programmers) to fix every single little problem.

But there seems to be a trend in software to create bigger and bigger walls of code between the user and the actual assets/files that user wants to use. I see it in 3D render software, image editing software, anything that relies heavily on user created content really.

Which is completely backwards, IMO. The more imperfect the assets, the more DIRECT control the user needs to have in order to fix those imperfections. And the more an industry relies on user generated content, the more imperfections there will be.

The idea of creating code that allows a user to click a single magic button is great indeed! But only if that code depends on assets that have been through a very rigorous quality assessment process which requires very strict standardization. If those assets are potentially riddled with bugs, as any user created content will be, then you can't wall the user off from direct control or their only option when things go wrong will be to scream at the developers.

I see a lot of screaming at mod authors and mod manager programmers going on in Nexus comments (and the forums of many other industries). But I guess that's the price you pay when you try to make things *too* easy for the user.

It's no rebranded MO, it's a fresh start. "Controversial" MO features like the virtual filesystem may exist as options / extensions but they will not be defaults or requirements.

With MO I was happy to develop a tool that would only appeal to a small crowd. It was always intended to be complement the existing solutions like OBMM/NMM or wrye bash, not to replace them.

Now we're writing a modding tool for all Nexus users so obviously the approach will be different. I'm not ignorant of the problems with MO but with MO I had one target audience, now it's a different one.
We try to make the new mod manager attractive to advanced & MO users through extensibility, not by doing the same again and hoping the majority of users will suddenly like it better.

This sounded really good until I read the comments on the STEP forum where there is this: "The default setting will probably work similar to what NMM is doing currently, using symlinks or hardlinks into the game directory because this is simply more robust "

This is bad news. This is exactly what nobody wants. This is exactly what people want to get rid of.

When people talk about "the way NMM works" they mean pre-0.6. If the new manager uses the current NMM logic then everybody loses.

It was obvious that the choices you make about this will upset one of the two crowds. But upsetting both of them at the same time... hmm

Ok, can you explain what's so bad about the *link approach?

 

 

Even if we assume that the problems that now exist with half-install and half-removing of mods leaving stray files in the data directory are caused by old and un-optimized code, there are still enough reasons that turn such a system into a nightmare for the advanced users and are now forcing them to use 0.56.1 as the last version of NMM that is actually usable. And those reasons have nothing to do with the quality of the software itself but the problems the concept of linked virtual install creates. Having the files in one place is logical and easy to work with, having ghosts of files in more places makes the experience quite limiting, confusing and annoying.

 

1. Backups - it is not possible to make an usable backup independently of the manager. What do you copy - the files in the data folder or the files in the VirtualInstall? Or both? Whatever you do there is no meaningful way to use such a backup. You are forced to make a copy of the two as this is the only way to use it and that means - 2 times longer do make/apply the backup, 2 times more space for the backup, 2 directories to backup instead of one and most importantly - twice the size of the game folder after the backup is used. This is a huge deal as most players put those games on small SSD drives. If you have 50GB of mods and want to use a backup then your game will now consume a total of 100GB. And even if the drive space is not a big problem, having several games inflated like that is not really acceptable.

Because yes - when you install a mod and create links for all the files then you are not using twice the space - you have one and same file with two different addresses. So 1k file in data = 1k file in VI = 1k total. But when you copy the files and put them somewhere else the bond will break and you will end up with two independent "real" files. And yes - you need to make and use a backup of both data and VI folders. If you only use the data folder the game will work but the mod manager will not know what mods and installed so it becomes useless. If you only use a backup of the VI then there will be no mods in the game... So you are forced to endure the double backup and inflated drive space usage.

 

2. Freedom, predictability and flexibility (and way less chaos) - it is surprisingly easy to break the link and end up with two different files. This limits your possibility to reuse self-modified mod assets on a new install, create confusion when you edit a file that you don't immediately realize is not tied to it's counterpart anymore, forcing you to constantly think about which files are tied and which not and which copy you are editing. The "schizophrenic" state an install like this exists in is extremely confusing and adds way more complications than it is worth.

 

3. For what? People would probably accept all this complications and problems if the would see the benefit such a system brings. However there is none. The predictability, usability and stability of the "one file" install logic is sacrificed for what... For profiles? Let's be honest, everybody who wanted profiles was already using MO. Now if you want to create the basic modding tool and with options to add modules and upgrade, are there Profiles in that very basic tool? There is no "greater good" here. It is complication for the sake of the complication.

 

I would suggest starting a new thread about this and letting all people that still use the old NMM versions tell their reasons. Because I'm pretty sure none of them would be using this new manager if uses the same logic that made them stay away from the new versions anyway. I understand from the point of view of the MO crowd the phrase "advanced NMM users" is an oxymoron, but in reality there are advanced users who have experience in both pre- and after- 0.6 NMM.

IMO, what I think would be best is to give two options. One where you can use a basic version like old NMM and one where you can create MO like profiles, using the system that is used there.

[Exoclyps]

In response to post #43213170. #43213650, #43214685, #43224605, #43231310, #43231435 are all replies on the same post.

stebo104 wrote: Mod Organizer is still a million times better then NMM.

renthal311 wrote: NMM is so made that without a tutorial, even a novice can install selected mods, I'm Modder, and I do complicated things, but I could not install even one mod MO no tutorial, a huge difference, NMM is very user-friendly, simple, fast, is the best and will continue :)

Thallassa wrote: To install a mod in MO is exactly the same as in NMM. Double click the download file, activate the mod. Play.

MO just has ton more power.

matortheeternal wrote: renthal: Installing a mod with Mod Organizer is no more difficult than with NMM. This talk about it being difficult to use is all just a bunch of mythology.

It's literally exactly the same. Click download with NMM link on Nexus Mods, double click download in the downloads list/tab, check mod in mod list. That's it. :|

EDIT: Didn't refresh page, Thalla beat me to it.

renthal311 wrote: I do not deny, my first encounter with MO was bad, I just had this feeling that I can not anything to install, now already to me unnecessary, does not install mods, only their own, to test the game, so enough for me NMM, otherwise I am a man, who reluctantly changed, something that is already good for me, that is, NMM :) :)

renthal311 wrote: Interestingly, my first encounter with NMM were that: 1. I downloaded a mod,, 2 installed, I had no idea about it, but as a '' green '' worked the first time, the application suggests itself, the design of NMM is perfect even for beginners and New urzytkowników, Modding communities, Nexus :)

Thallassa and matortheeternal, I think the problem might be the NXM thingy, gotta make sure it links to MO. And installing SKSE might be a bit more effort.

But if the MM would be able to use the NXM thingy out of the box (which it ofcourse will) and detect various things like SKSE, TES5Edit and the likes automatically I think it'd streamline things further.

I personally use MO and takes me just mere seconds to setup, no problem. But there is a few things to keep in mind when you set it up.

[prinyo]

 

In response to post #43232045.

 

 

 

prinyo wrote:

In response to post #43231020.

 

 

 

prinyo wrote:

In response to post #43228135. #43228440, #43228710, #43228800, #43229750 are all replies on the same post.

 

 

 

HadToRegister wrote: Having used both, I like MO, and I also like NMM, but only pre 0.62 NMM, as 0.62 and above just acted like malware and destroyed most of our mod lists

 

NOWHERE in this thread has it been said that the new NMM will have NONE of the features of NMM and/or ALL of the features of MO.

 

NOWHERE has the subject of "Forcing MO on everyone" even been discussed.

 

If you use NMM 56.1 (For whatever hipster anti-something reason), then keep using it, but stop complaining about something that you're not only NOT going to use, but are also so misinformed about, that you were unable to make even one factual statement about the plans for NMM/MO for the future.Mebantiza wrote: So will it be safe to say, this 'new' MM have will none of the features of NMM, and all the features of MO. IoW, just a reskinned and renamed MO? As bad as NMM 6x has been, there are things about NMM that make people want to use it, well, the pre- 6x versions anyhow. How is forcing MO and its structure on everyone, even those that don't really want it, a benefit?

 

I use NMM 56.1, and do NOT require virtual installs. Its a feature, for some, but not a REQUIRED one, and I dont want it forced on me. 56.1 is old, crashes constantly, and is not all that stable tbh. But its still far preferable to anything NMM 6x, and have no need to have MO forced upon me. Not going to argue which one is 'superior', that is pointless. NMM is straight-forward enough to do what it has to, and did it well enough, well at least untill they tried to steal some of MO thunder. Then it went to complete and utter $yht. Up until that point, it wasn't perfect, but it did the job. NMM 6x added a needless feature that no one asked for, and never worked properly. Had NMM retained its pre-VM structure and improved that, things would likely be fine with it even now.

 

So now, the 'solution' it seems, is make everyone use MO whether they like it or not...

xyon71 wrote: Why go right to negativity??

I think it is very UNsafe to say it is just going to be a "re-branded MO"

It appears to me that they are wanting to produce a simple, yet powerful NEW tool for everyone to use with varying degrees of complexity based on need.

I didn't read anywhere that they are "forcing" anything, I read that they are taking all of the feedback from BOTH tools to incorporate the best features into 1 "best" tool.

I switched from NMM to MO 2 years ago, and found it simply wonderful to be able to try out different mods in different orders without breaking my base game.

I will admit there was a learning curve, but not too steep, and I am far from an advanced modder.

I for 1 am excited to see what these talented minds can come up with.

For whatever this or that, I say all of them are in it because they want to give people the best modding experience possible, so lets give them a chance before we jump on our band-wagons and shoot harpoons because we "think" we already know what they are going to do...

archerarcher wrote: Same here. In times where disk space is cheaper than fuel I think this virtual install feature is completely obsolete. I don't like it and I don't like the problems it makes with certain mod installations.

I use NMM 56.1 for Skyrim too, it's very stable to me, no problems at all, really. Okay, I track all my (700~) mods and over the years my documentation has grown into a complex website but I know exactly what to overwrite and what not and I know where my files are and I don't care about some gigabytes disk space more or less for my favorite game that I am playing/ modding since Nov 2011.

 

So what should a future mod mager be like?

 

1. Manage mod files

That's the absolute priority. Everey feature that affects this should be removed or be avoided.

 

2. Simple to use, simple to manage

No need for virtual installs, no installation of mods directly by clicking on a button on a website. I need control! Everyone needs control. Is there anybody out there who installs mods via website button? I inspect EVERY file before I use a mod so you should too if you don't want to loose track of your installment.

 

That's what I want from a mod manager and that's why I use NMM 56.1 and not MO

moriador wrote: @archerarcher,

 

Control. Precisely.

 

The more lines of code that come between me and the stuff I want to use, the more difficult it becomes to fix what ought to be minor problems. Instead of simply locating the problem file or reference and fixing it, you have to contend with the installation software and all of its quirks. Instead of replacing a single bad mesh, for instance, you may end up having to uninstall an entire mod, create a new mod archive with the new mesh, and install it all over again.

 

The more control you take away from users, the more those users have to rely on mod authors (and mod manager programmers) to fix every single little problem.

 

But there seems to be a trend in software to create bigger and bigger walls of code between the user and the actual assets/files that user wants to use. I see it in 3D render software, image editing software, anything that relies heavily on user created content really.

 

Which is completely backwards, IMO. The more imperfect the assets, the more DIRECT control the user needs to have in order to fix those imperfections. And the more an industry relies on user generated content, the more imperfections there will be.

 

The idea of creating code that allows a user to click a single magic button is great indeed! But only if that code depends on assets that have been through a very rigorous quality assessment process which requires very strict standardization. If those assets are potentially riddled with bugs, as any user created content will be, then you can't wall the user off from direct control or their only option when things go wrong will be to scream at the developers.

 

I see a lot of screaming at mod authors and mod manager programmers going on in Nexus comments (and the forums of many other industries). But I guess that's the price you pay when you try to make things *too* easy for the user.

It's no rebranded MO, it's a fresh start. "Controversial" MO features like the virtual filesystem may exist as options / extensions but they will not be defaults or requirements.

 

With MO I was happy to develop a tool that would only appeal to a small crowd. It was always intended to be complement the existing solutions like OBMM/NMM or wrye bash, not to replace them.

 

Now we're writing a modding tool for all Nexus users so obviously the approach will be different. I'm not ignorant of the problems with MO but with MO I had one target audience, now it's a different one.

We try to make the new mod manager attractive to advanced & MO users through extensibility, not by doing the same again and hoping the majority of users will suddenly like it better.

This sounded really good until I read the comments on the STEP forum where there is this: "The default setting will probably work similar to what NMM is doing currently, using symlinks or hardlinks into the game directory because this is simply more robust "

This is bad news. This is exactly what nobody wants. This is exactly what people want to get rid of.

When people talk about "the way NMM works" they mean pre-0.6. If the new manager uses the current NMM logic then everybody loses.

It was obvious that the choices you make about this will upset one of the two crowds. But upsetting both of them at the same time... hmm

Ok, can you explain what's so bad about the *link approach?

Even if we assume that the problems that now exist with half-install and half-removing of mods leaving stray files in the data directory are caused by old and un-optimized code, there are still enough reasons that turn such a system into a nightmare for the advanced users and are now forcing them to use 0.56.1 as the last version of NMM that is actually usable. And those reasons have nothing to do with the quality of the software itself but the problems the concept of linked virtual install creates. Having the files in one place is logical and easy to work with, having ghosts of files in more places makes the experience quite limiting, confusing and annoying.

1. Backups - it is not possible to make an usable backup independently of the manager. What do you copy - the files in the data folder or the files in the VirtualInstall? Or both? Whatever you do there is no meaningful way to use such a backup. You are forced to make a copy of the two as this is the only way to use it and that means - 2 times longer do make/apply the backup, 2 times more space for the backup, 2 directories to backup instead of one and most importantly - twice the size of the game folder after the backup is used. This is a huge deal as most players put those games on small SSD drives. If you have 50GB of mods and want to use a backup then your game will now consume a total of 100GB. And even if the drive space is not a big problem, having several games inflated like that is not really acceptable.

Because yes - when you install a mod and create links for all the files then you are not using twice the space - you have one and same file with two different addresses. So 1k file in data = 1k file in VI = 1k total. But when you copy the files and put them somewhere else the bond will break and you will end up with two independent "real" files. And yes - you need to make and use a backup of both data and VI folders. If you only use the data folder the game will work but the mod manager will not know what mods and installed so it becomes useless. If you only use a backup of the VI then there will be no mods in the game... So you are forced to endure the double backup and inflated drive space usage.

2. Freedom, predictability and flexibility (and way less chaos) - it is surprisingly easy to break the link and end up with two different files. This limits your possibility to reuse self-modified mod assets on a new install, create confusion when you edit a file that you don't immediately realize is not tied to it's counterpart anymore, forcing you to constantly think about which files are tied and which not and which copy you are editing. The "schizophrenic" state an install like this exists in is extremely confusing and adds way more complications than it is worth.

3. For what? People would probably accept all this complications and problems if the would see the benefit such a system brings. However there is none. The predictability, usability and stability of the "one file" install logic is sacrificed for what... For profiles? Let's be honest, everybody who wanted profiles was already using MO. Now if you want to create the basic modding tool and with options to add modules and upgrade, are there Profiles in that very basic tool? There is no "greater good" here. It is complication for the sake of the complication.

I would suggest starting a new thread about this and letting all people that still use the old NMM versions tell their reasons. Because I'm pretty sure none of them would be using this new manager if uses the same logic that made them stay away from the new versions anyway. I understand from the point of view of the MO crowd the phrase "advanced NMM users" is an oxymoron, but in reality there are advanced users who have experience in both pre- and after- 0.6 NMM.

IMO, what I think would be best is to give two options. One where you can use a basic version like old NMM and one where you can create MO like profiles, using the system that is used there.

 

 

That's what I was expecting after reading the posts here but then after reading on the STEP forum I realized this is not what they are actually planning to do.

[archerarcher]

In response to post #43213170. #43213650, #43214685, #43224605, #43231310, #43231435, #43232450 are all replies on the same post.

stebo104 wrote: Mod Organizer is still a million times better then NMM.

renthal311 wrote: NMM is so made that without a tutorial, even a novice can install selected mods, I'm Modder, and I do complicated things, but I could not install even one mod MO no tutorial, a huge difference, NMM is very user-friendly, simple, fast, is the best and will continue :)

Thallassa wrote: To install a mod in MO is exactly the same as in NMM. Double click the download file, activate the mod. Play.

MO just has ton more power.

matortheeternal wrote: renthal: Installing a mod with Mod Organizer is no more difficult than with NMM. This talk about it being difficult to use is all just a bunch of mythology.

It's literally exactly the same. Click download with NMM link on Nexus Mods, double click download in the downloads list/tab, check mod in mod list. That's it. :|

EDIT: Didn't refresh page, Thalla beat me to it.

renthal311 wrote: I do not deny, my first encounter with MO was bad, I just had this feeling that I can not anything to install, now already to me unnecessary, does not install mods, only their own, to test the game, so enough for me NMM, otherwise I am a man, who reluctantly changed, something that is already good for me, that is, NMM :) :)

renthal311 wrote: Interestingly, my first encounter with NMM were that: 1. I downloaded a mod,, 2 installed, I had no idea about it, but as a '' green '' worked the first time, the application suggests itself, the design of NMM is perfect even for beginners and New urzytkowników, Modding communities, Nexus :)

Exoclyps wrote: Thallassa and matortheeternal, I think the problem might be the NXM thingy, gotta make sure it links to MO. And installing SKSE might be a bit more effort.

But if the MM would be able to use the NXM thingy out of the box (which it ofcourse will) and detect various things like SKSE, TES5Edit and the likes automatically I think it'd streamline things further.

I personally use MO and takes me just mere seconds to setup, no problem. But there is a few things to keep in mind when you set it up.

@ stebo104:
Your aren't seroius, are you? Edited October 14, 2016 by archerarcher

[archerarcher]

In response to post #43228135. #43228440, #43228710, #43228800, #43229750, #43229950, #43230240, #43231080, #43231240 are all replies on the same post.

Mebantiza wrote: So will it be safe to say, this 'new' MM have will none of the features of NMM, and all the features of MO. IoW, just a reskinned and renamed MO? As bad as NMM 6x has been, there are things about NMM that make people want to use it, well, the pre- 6x versions anyhow. How is forcing MO and its structure on everyone, even those that don't really want it, a benefit?

I use NMM 56.1, and do NOT require virtual installs. Its a feature, for some, but not a REQUIRED one, and I dont want it forced on me. 56.1 is old, crashes constantly, and is not all that stable tbh. But its still far preferable to anything NMM 6x, and have no need to have MO forced upon me. Not going to argue which one is 'superior', that is pointless. NMM is straight-forward enough to do what it has to, and did it well enough, well at least untill they tried to steal some of MO thunder. Then it went to complete and utter $yht. Up until that point, it wasn't perfect, but it did the job. NMM 6x added a needless feature that no one asked for, and never worked properly. Had NMM retained its pre-VM structure and improved that, things would likely be fine with it even now.

So now, the 'solution' it seems, is make everyone use MO whether they like it or not...

HadToRegister wrote: Having used both, I like MO, and I also like NMM, but only pre 0.62 NMM, as 0.62 and above just acted like malware and destroyed most of our mod lists

NOWHERE in this thread has it been said that the new NMM will have NONE of the features of NMM and/or ALL of the features of MO.

NOWHERE has the subject of "Forcing MO on everyone" even been discussed.

If you use NMM 56.1 (For whatever hipster anti-something reason), then keep using it, but stop complaining about something that you're not only NOT going to use, but are also so misinformed about, that you were unable to make even one factual statement about the plans for NMM/MO for the future.

xyon71 wrote: Why go right to negativity??
I think it is very UNsafe to say it is just going to be a "re-branded MO"
It appears to me that they are wanting to produce a simple, yet powerful NEW tool for everyone to use with varying degrees of complexity based on need.
I didn't read anywhere that they are "forcing" anything, I read that they are taking all of the feedback from BOTH tools to incorporate the best features into 1 "best" tool.
I switched from NMM to MO 2 years ago, and found it simply wonderful to be able to try out different mods in different orders without breaking my base game.
I will admit there was a learning curve, but not too steep, and I am far from an advanced modder.
I for 1 am excited to see what these talented minds can come up with.
For whatever this or that, I say all of them are in it because they want to give people the best modding experience possible, so lets give them a chance before we jump on our band-wagons and shoot harpoons because we "think" we already know what they are going to do...

archerarcher wrote: Same here. In times where disk space is cheaper than fuel I think this virtual install feature is completely obsolete. I don't like it and I don't like the problems it makes with certain mod installations.
I use NMM 56.1 for Skyrim too, it's very stable to me, no problems at all, really. Okay, I track all my (700~) mods and over the years my documentation has grown into a complex website but I know exactly what to overwrite and what not and I know where my files are and I don't care about some gigabytes disk space more or less for my favorite game that I am playing/ modding since Nov 2011.

So what should a future mod mager be like?

1. Manage mod files
That's the absolute priority. Everey feature that affects this should be removed or be avoided.

2. Simple to use, simple to manage
No need for virtual installs, no installation of mods directly by clicking on a button on a website. I need control! Everyone needs control. Is there anybody out there who installs mods via website button? I inspect EVERY file before I use a mod so you should too if you don't want to loose track of your installment.

That's what I want from a mod manager and that's why I use NMM 56.1 and not MO

moriador wrote: @archerarcher,

Control. Precisely.

The more lines of code that come between me and the stuff I want to use, the more difficult it becomes to fix what ought to be minor problems. Instead of simply locating the problem file or reference and fixing it, you have to contend with the installation software and all of its quirks. Instead of replacing a single bad mesh, for instance, you may end up having to uninstall an entire mod, create a new mod archive with the new mesh, and install it all over again.

The more control you take away from users, the more those users have to rely on mod authors (and mod manager programmers) to fix every single little problem.

But there seems to be a trend in software to create bigger and bigger walls of code between the user and the actual assets/files that user wants to use. I see it in 3D render software, image editing software, anything that relies heavily on user created content really.

Which is completely backwards, IMO. The more imperfect the assets, the more DIRECT control the user needs to have in order to fix those imperfections. And the more an industry relies on user generated content, the more imperfections there will be.

The idea of creating code that allows a user to click a single magic button is great indeed! But only if that code depends on assets that have been through a very rigorous quality assessment process which requires very strict standardization. If those assets are potentially riddled with bugs, as any user created content will be, then you can't wall the user off from direct control or their only option when things go wrong will be to scream at the developers.

I see a lot of screaming at mod authors and mod manager programmers going on in Nexus comments (and the forums of many other industries). But I guess that's the price you pay when you try to make things *too* easy for the user.

Not too long ago, when you wouldn't even think of assembling a bookcase without having some basic tools on hand, if the predrilled holes didn't line up, you drilled new ones in the right place, and screwed the bits together. Now that you've been led to believe that everything you will ever need comes in one single box, you swear loudly, pack your Ikea shelves back into the torn up bits of cardboard, take the whole thing back to the store for a refund, and post a nasty product review on a website while sitting angrily among your still unshelved piles of books. Given how much incredibly detailed information is available about how to fix innumerable kinds of problems, it seems that people are becoming more personally helpless than ever.

Tannin42 wrote: It's no rebranded MO, it's a fresh start. "Controversial" MO features like the virtual filesystem may exist as options / extensions but they will not be defaults or requirements.

With MO I was happy to develop a tool that would only appeal to a small crowd. It was always intended to be complement the existing solutions like OBMM/NMM or wrye bash, not to replace them.

Now we're writing a modding tool for all Nexus users so obviously the approach will be different. I'm not ignorant of the problems with MO but with MO I had one target audience, now it's a different one.
We try to make the new mod manager attractive to advanced & MO users through extensibility, not by doing the same again and hoping the majority of users will suddenly like it better.

moriador wrote: Well, it is very refreshing to see that the developer is reading the comments!

We all know that there's an enormous divide between those who want the software to do it all (and who -- rightly, I note -- demand that such software work as perfectly as possible) and those who insist on getting their hands dirty and hate to have anything stand in their way.

If you can bridge that gap, you'll have done something very worthy indeed.

I look forward to what you can come up with.

Exoclyps wrote: I really really like the Virtual Folders that MO provides. It makes my life so much easier when it comes to modding. Especially when it comes to making my own mods.

I hope that such feature will be included in the new NMM if the goal is to stop giving MO future support. I don't mind if I have to activate it for my profile for it to work, as long as the option to do so is there.

DFX2K9 wrote: @tamreil42

Honestly? You've got the skillset to fix most of what's bugging people with NMM. Improving the reliability of large file installs would get you my vote by itself. Having the option to use an MO-style visualized install if you wanted/needed/could use it would just be icing on the cake.

That being said, I'd recommend (both for mo's case and NMM if it gets such an option) some way of manually going through the resulting 'game directory' after you've installed your mods, so you can, if needed, find and replace the odd burp.

MO looks like an excellent peice of software, even though I couldn't use it because the CK didn't like it for some odd reason (I'll blame the CK here)

Tannin42 says:
" "Controversial" MO features like the virtual filesystem may exist as options / extensions but they will not be defaults or requirements."

I REALLY hope so. As far as I know Fallout 4 for example needs the new (newer than 0.56.1 ) NMM and users are bound to use virtual installments. Is that correct? This is one reason I haven't installed any mod and haven't played FO4...

[prinyo]

 

In response to post #43228135. #43228440, #43228710, #43228800, #43229750, #43229950, #43230240, #43231080, #43231240 are all replies on the same post.

 

 

 

Mebantiza wrote: So will it be safe to say, this 'new' MM have will none of the features of NMM, and all the features of MO. IoW, just a reskinned and renamed MO? As bad as NMM 6x has been, there are things about NMM that make people want to use it, well, the pre- 6x versions anyhow. How is forcing MO and its structure on everyone, even those that don't really want it, a benefit?

 

I use NMM 56.1, and do NOT require virtual installs. Its a feature, for some, but not a REQUIRED one, and I dont want it forced on me. 56.1 is old, crashes constantly, and is not all that stable tbh. But its still far preferable to anything NMM 6x, and have no need to have MO forced upon me. Not going to argue which one is 'superior', that is pointless. NMM is straight-forward enough to do what it has to, and did it well enough, well at least untill they tried to steal some of MO thunder. Then it went to complete and utter $yht. Up until that point, it wasn't perfect, but it did the job. NMM 6x added a needless feature that no one asked for, and never worked properly. Had NMM retained its pre-VM structure and improved that, things would likely be fine with it even now.

 

So now, the 'solution' it seems, is make everyone use MO whether they like it or not...

HadToRegister wrote: Having used both, I like MO, and I also like NMM, but only pre 0.62 NMM, as 0.62 and above just acted like malware and destroyed most of our mod lists

 

NOWHERE in this thread has it been said that the new NMM will have NONE of the features of NMM and/or ALL of the features of MO.

 

NOWHERE has the subject of "Forcing MO on everyone" even been discussed.

 

If you use NMM 56.1 (For whatever hipster anti-something reason), then keep using it, but stop complaining about something that you're not only NOT going to use, but are also so misinformed about, that you were unable to make even one factual statement about the plans for NMM/MO for the future.

xyon71 wrote: Why go right to negativity??

I think it is very UNsafe to say it is just going to be a "re-branded MO"

It appears to me that they are wanting to produce a simple, yet powerful NEW tool for everyone to use with varying degrees of complexity based on need.

I didn't read anywhere that they are "forcing" anything, I read that they are taking all of the feedback from BOTH tools to incorporate the best features into 1 "best" tool.

I switched from NMM to MO 2 years ago, and found it simply wonderful to be able to try out different mods in different orders without breaking my base game.

I will admit there was a learning curve, but not too steep, and I am far from an advanced modder.

I for 1 am excited to see what these talented minds can come up with.

For whatever this or that, I say all of them are in it because they want to give people the best modding experience possible, so lets give them a chance before we jump on our band-wagons and shoot harpoons because we "think" we already know what they are going to do...

archerarcher wrote: Same here. In times where disk space is cheaper than fuel I think this virtual install feature is completely obsolete. I don't like it and I don't like the problems it makes with certain mod installations.

I use NMM 56.1 for Skyrim too, it's very stable to me, no problems at all, really. Okay, I track all my (700~) mods and over the years my documentation has grown into a complex website but I know exactly what to overwrite and what not and I know where my files are and I don't care about some gigabytes disk space more or less for my favorite game that I am playing/ modding since Nov 2011.

 

So what should a future mod mager be like?

 

1. Manage mod files

That's the absolute priority. Everey feature that affects this should be removed or be avoided.

 

2. Simple to use, simple to manage

No need for virtual installs, no installation of mods directly by clicking on a button on a website. I need control! Everyone needs control. Is there anybody out there who installs mods via website button? I inspect EVERY file before I use a mod so you should too if you don't want to loose track of your installment.

 

That's what I want from a mod manager and that's why I use NMM 56.1 and not MO

moriador wrote: @archerarcher,

 

Control. Precisely.

 

The more lines of code that come between me and the stuff I want to use, the more difficult it becomes to fix what ought to be minor problems. Instead of simply locating the problem file or reference and fixing it, you have to contend with the installation software and all of its quirks. Instead of replacing a single bad mesh, for instance, you may end up having to uninstall an entire mod, create a new mod archive with the new mesh, and install it all over again.

 

The more control you take away from users, the more those users have to rely on mod authors (and mod manager programmers) to fix every single little problem.

 

But there seems to be a trend in software to create bigger and bigger walls of code between the user and the actual assets/files that user wants to use. I see it in 3D render software, image editing software, anything that relies heavily on user created content really.

 

Which is completely backwards, IMO. The more imperfect the assets, the more DIRECT control the user needs to have in order to fix those imperfections. And the more an industry relies on user generated content, the more imperfections there will be.

 

The idea of creating code that allows a user to click a single magic button is great indeed! But only if that code depends on assets that have been through a very rigorous quality assessment process which requires very strict standardization. If those assets are potentially riddled with bugs, as any user created content will be, then you can't wall the user off from direct control or their only option when things go wrong will be to scream at the developers.

 

I see a lot of screaming at mod authors and mod manager programmers going on in Nexus comments (and the forums of many other industries). But I guess that's the price you pay when you try to make things *too* easy for the user.

 

Not too long ago, when you wouldn't even think of assembling a bookcase without having some basic tools on hand, if the predrilled holes didn't line up, you drilled new ones in the right place, and screwed the bits together. Now that you've been led to believe that everything you will ever need comes in one single box, you swear loudly, pack your Ikea shelves back into the torn up bits of cardboard, take the whole thing back to the store for a refund, and post a nasty product review on a website while sitting angrily among your still unshelved piles of books. Given how much incredibly detailed information is available about how to fix innumerable kinds of problems, it seems that people are becoming more personally helpless than ever.

Tannin42 wrote: It's no rebranded MO, it's a fresh start. "Controversial" MO features like the virtual filesystem may exist as options / extensions but they will not be defaults or requirements.

 

With MO I was happy to develop a tool that would only appeal to a small crowd. It was always intended to be complement the existing solutions like OBMM/NMM or wrye bash, not to replace them.

 

Now we're writing a modding tool for all Nexus users so obviously the approach will be different. I'm not ignorant of the problems with MO but with MO I had one target audience, now it's a different one.

We try to make the new mod manager attractive to advanced & MO users through extensibility, not by doing the same again and hoping the majority of users will suddenly like it better.

moriador wrote: Well, it is very refreshing to see that the developer is reading the comments!

 

We all know that there's an enormous divide between those who want the software to do it all (and who -- rightly, I note -- demand that such software work as perfectly as possible) and those who insist on getting their hands dirty and hate to have anything stand in their way.

 

If you can bridge that gap, you'll have done something very worthy indeed.

 

I look forward to what you can come up with.

Exoclyps wrote: I really really like the Virtual Folders that MO provides. It makes my life so much easier when it comes to modding. Especially when it comes to making my own mods.

 

I hope that such feature will be included in the new NMM if the goal is to stop giving MO future support. I don't mind if I have to activate it for my profile for it to work, as long as the option to do so is there.

DFX2K9 wrote: @tamreil42

 

Honestly? You've got the skillset to fix most of what's bugging people with NMM. Improving the reliability of large file installs would get you my vote by itself. Having the option to use an MO-style visualized install if you wanted/needed/could use it would just be icing on the cake.

 

That being said, I'd recommend (both for mo's case and NMM if it gets such an option) some way of manually going through the resulting 'game directory' after you've installed your mods, so you can, if needed, find and replace the odd burp.

 

MO looks like an excellent peice of software, even though I couldn't use it because the CK didn't like it for some odd reason (I'll blame the CK here)

Tannin42 says:

" "Controversial" MO features like the virtual filesystem may exist as options / extensions but they will not be defaults or requirements."

 

I REALLY hope so. As far as I know Fallout 4 for example needs the new (newer than 0.56.1 ) NMM and users are bound to use virtual installments. Is that correct? This is one reason I haven't installed any mod and haven't played FO4...

 

 

 

This will only escalate with Skyrim SE. I have asked here on this forum if they would be willing to add support for it to NMM 0.56.1 but got only silence as an reply. The only good thing in this regard is that it will take some time before SKSE/SkyUI and other fundamental mods are available for it (as well as for FO4) and by then I guess the dust will settle and the big picture in regards to mod organizers will be more clear.

Seems to me that the possibility that someone will fork NMM 0.56 and start working on updating it is getting more and more real.

Edited October 14, 2016 by prinyo

[elezraita]

In response to post #43231060. #43231150 is also a reply to the same post.

lxndr wrote:

What the heck! People who don't like MO, what are you talking about? Download, double-click, click, run the game - how easier can it be?

 

If you love dump your game folder with bunch of files, do everything manually, spend hours of your life searching for errors and reinstalling, and pray Steam won't mess it up - then go do it, nobody makes you to use any mod manager.

 

The only way to leave a game folder untouched is to trick the system into think the files are there - hence a virtual filesystem. Yes, it is a hack! So what? Everything is a hack if game is close-sourced.

 

MO has been ingenious and a bliss for players who needed to manage massive mod collection and all these little mod patches.

 

Tannin, and other devs, don't listen to anyone. It is really hard to please everybody's taste, do what you think is right. I wish you best of luck.

 

DFX2K9 wrote: the issues lots of people have with MO aren't how it does what it does, but the fact that manually editing files (which, if you're running old mods, is basically unavoidable) is without fighting the mod manager. And groups of folks who plan out the mods they'll use from the get-go and don't change anything. The whole point of leaving the game folder untouched doesn't exist so much then.

I couldn't use it because I'm trying to use the creation kit, and couldn't get it and MO to play nice.

NMM, with the option to use MO's virtualized installs or not (as per case use or preference), will be fantastic. I know MO handles large files better then NMM, even as far back as .5, so that aught to improve, too.

How could you not get the CK and MO to play nice? You add the CK as an executable. Done. The only thing I ever had trouble with was getting editing fragments to work in notepad++ while using MO (other scripts were fine). But who cares about that? I usually edit write fragments in the CK anyway. I have yet to have a legitimate problem with any third party executable in MO...

[marksbg]

Best news I've seen since first hearing about NexusMods, can't think of a better person to fit this task then Tannin, I see a bright future for this new mod manager. Well done, and good luck ;-)

[Tannin42]

In response to post #43232045. #43232355 is also a reply to the same post.

prinyo wrote:

 

In response to post #43231020.

prinyo wrote:

In response to post #43228135. #43228440, #43228710, #43228800, #43229750 are all replies on the same post.

HadToRegister wrote: Having used both, I like MO, and I also like NMM, but only pre 0.62 NMM, as 0.62 and above just acted like malware and destroyed most of our mod lists

NOWHERE in this thread has it been said that the new NMM will have NONE of the features of NMM and/or ALL of the features of MO.

NOWHERE has the subject of "Forcing MO on everyone" even been discussed.

If you use NMM 56.1 (For whatever hipster anti-something reason), then keep using it, but stop complaining about something that you're not only NOT going to use, but are also so misinformed about, that you were unable to make even one factual statement about the plans for NMM/MO for the future.Mebantiza wrote: So will it be safe to say, this 'new' MM have will none of the features of NMM, and all the features of MO. IoW, just a reskinned and renamed MO? As bad as NMM 6x has been, there are things about NMM that make people want to use it, well, the pre- 6x versions anyhow. How is forcing MO and its structure on everyone, even those that don't really want it, a benefit?

I use NMM 56.1, and do NOT require virtual installs. Its a feature, for some, but not a REQUIRED one, and I dont want it forced on me. 56.1 is old, crashes constantly, and is not all that stable tbh. But its still far preferable to anything NMM 6x, and have no need to have MO forced upon me. Not going to argue which one is 'superior', that is pointless. NMM is straight-forward enough to do what it has to, and did it well enough, well at least untill they tried to steal some of MO thunder. Then it went to complete and utter $yht. Up until that point, it wasn't perfect, but it did the job. NMM 6x added a needless feature that no one asked for, and never worked properly. Had NMM retained its pre-VM structure and improved that, things would likely be fine with it even now.

So now, the 'solution' it seems, is make everyone use MO whether they like it or not...

xyon71 wrote: Why go right to negativity??
I think it is very UNsafe to say it is just going to be a "re-branded MO"
It appears to me that they are wanting to produce a simple, yet powerful NEW tool for everyone to use with varying degrees of complexity based on need.
I didn't read anywhere that they are "forcing" anything, I read that they are taking all of the feedback from BOTH tools to incorporate the best features into 1 "best" tool.
I switched from NMM to MO 2 years ago, and found it simply wonderful to be able to try out different mods in different orders without breaking my base game.
I will admit there was a learning curve, but not too steep, and I am far from an advanced modder.
I for 1 am excited to see what these talented minds can come up with.
For whatever this or that, I say all of them are in it because they want to give people the best modding experience possible, so lets give them a chance before we jump on our band-wagons and shoot harpoons because we "think" we already know what they are going to do...

archerarcher wrote: Same here. In times where disk space is cheaper than fuel I think this virtual install feature is completely obsolete. I don't like it and I don't like the problems it makes with certain mod installations.
I use NMM 56.1 for Skyrim too, it's very stable to me, no problems at all, really. Okay, I track all my (700~) mods and over the years my documentation has grown into a complex website but I know exactly what to overwrite and what not and I know where my files are and I don't care about some gigabytes disk space more or less for my favorite game that I am playing/ modding since Nov 2011.

So what should a future mod mager be like?

1. Manage mod files
That's the absolute priority. Everey feature that affects this should be removed or be avoided.

2. Simple to use, simple to manage
No need for virtual installs, no installation of mods directly by clicking on a button on a website. I need control! Everyone needs control. Is there anybody out there who installs mods via website button? I inspect EVERY file before I use a mod so you should too if you don't want to loose track of your installment.

That's what I want from a mod manager and that's why I use NMM 56.1 and not MO

moriador wrote: @archerarcher,

Control. Precisely.

The more lines of code that come between me and the stuff I want to use, the more difficult it becomes to fix what ought to be minor problems. Instead of simply locating the problem file or reference and fixing it, you have to contend with the installation software and all of its quirks. Instead of replacing a single bad mesh, for instance, you may end up having to uninstall an entire mod, create a new mod archive with the new mesh, and install it all over again.

The more control you take away from users, the more those users have to rely on mod authors (and mod manager programmers) to fix every single little problem.

But there seems to be a trend in software to create bigger and bigger walls of code between the user and the actual assets/files that user wants to use. I see it in 3D render software, image editing software, anything that relies heavily on user created content really.

Which is completely backwards, IMO. The more imperfect the assets, the more DIRECT control the user needs to have in order to fix those imperfections. And the more an industry relies on user generated content, the more imperfections there will be.

The idea of creating code that allows a user to click a single magic button is great indeed! But only if that code depends on assets that have been through a very rigorous quality assessment process which requires very strict standardization. If those assets are potentially riddled with bugs, as any user created content will be, then you can't wall the user off from direct control or their only option when things go wrong will be to scream at the developers.

I see a lot of screaming at mod authors and mod manager programmers going on in Nexus comments (and the forums of many other industries). But I guess that's the price you pay when you try to make things *too* easy for the user.

It's no rebranded MO, it's a fresh start. "Controversial" MO features like the virtual filesystem may exist as options / extensions but they will not be defaults or requirements.

With MO I was happy to develop a tool that would only appeal to a small crowd. It was always intended to be complement the existing solutions like OBMM/NMM or wrye bash, not to replace them.

Now we're writing a modding tool for all Nexus users so obviously the approach will be different. I'm not ignorant of the problems with MO but with MO I had one target audience, now it's a different one.
We try to make the new mod manager attractive to advanced & MO users through extensibility, not by doing the same again and hoping the majority of users will suddenly like it better.

This sounded really good until I read the comments on the STEP forum where there is this: "The default setting will probably work similar to what NMM is doing currently, using symlinks or hardlinks into the game directory because this is simply more robust "

This is bad news. This is exactly what nobody wants. This is exactly what people want to get rid of.

When people talk about "the way NMM works" they mean pre-0.6. If the new manager uses the current NMM logic then everybody loses.

It was obvious that the choices you make about this will upset one of the two crowds. But upsetting both of them at the same time... hmm

Ok, can you explain what's so bad about the *link approach?

 

 

Even if we assume that the problems that now exist with half-install and half-removing of mods leaving stray files in the data directory are caused by old and un-optimized code, there are still enough reasons that turn such a system into a nightmare for the advanced users and are now forcing them to use 0.56.1 as the last version of NMM that is actually usable. And those reasons have nothing to do with the quality of the software itself but the problems the concept of linked virtual install creates. Having the files in one place is logical and easy to work with (like MO and the old NMM), having ghosts of files in more places makes the experience quite limiting, confusing and annoying.

 

1. Backups - it is not possible to make an usable backup independently of the manager. What do you copy - the files in the data folder or the files in the VirtualInstall? Or both? Whatever you do there is no meaningful way to use such a backup. You are forced to make a copy of the two as this is the only way to use it and that means - 2 times longer do make/apply the backup, 2 times more space for the backup, 2 directories to backup instead of one and most importantly - twice the size of the game folder after the backup is used. This is a huge deal as most players put those games on small SSD drives. If you have 50GB of mods and want to use a backup then your game will now consume a total of 100GB. And even if the drive space is not a big problem, having several games inflated like that is not really acceptable.

Because yes - when you install a mod and create links for all the files then you are not using twice the space - you have one and same file with two different addresses. So 1k file in data = 1k file in VI = 1k total. But when you copy the files and put them somewhere else the bond will break and you will end up with two independent "real" files. And yes - you need to make and use a backup of both data and VI folders. If you only use the data folder the game will work but the mod manager will become useless. If you only use a backup of the VI then there will be no mods in the game... So you are forced to endure the double backup and inflated drive space usage.

 

2. Freedom, predictability and flexibility (and way less chaos) - it is surprisingly easy to break the link and end up with two different files. This limits your possibility to reuse self-modified mod assets on a new install, create confusion when you edit a file that you don't immediately realize is not tied to it's counterpart anymore, forcing you to constantly think about which files are tied and which not and which copy you are editing. The "schizophrenic" state an install like this exists in is extremely confusing and adds way more complications than it is worth.

 

3. Learning curve. It is been mentioned many time on the forums that the learning curve for NMM 0.6* is steeper than MO. And it is true. Introducing this to the "basic" variation of the software seems strange.

 

4. For what? People would probably accept all this complications and problems if the would see the benefit such a system brings. However there is none. The predictability, usability and stability of the "one file" install logic is sacrificed for what... For profiles? Let's be honest, everybody who wanted profiles was already using MO. Now if you want to create the basic modding tool and with options to add modules and upgrade, are there Profiles in that very basic tool? There is no "greater good" here. It is complication for the sake of the complication. None of the potential benefits of the virtualization are realized by the linked virtual install, only the negatives.

 

I would suggest starting a new thread about this and letting all people that still use the old NMM versions tell their reasons. Because I'm pretty sure none of them would be using this new manager if uses the same logic that made them stay away from the new versions anyway. I understand from the point of view of the MO crowd the phrase "advanced NMM users" is an oxymoron, but in reality there are advanced users who have experience in both pre- and after- 0.6 NMM.

Exoclyps wrote: IMO, what I think would be best is to give two options. One where you can use a basic version like old NMM and one where you can create MO like profiles, using the system that is used there.

Thanks for the detailed answer. half-installations / half-removals are of course a problem of the implementation not of the concept. There is no reason to assume the same problems would appear in a fresh implementation

1) I can't speak too much about NMM 0.6x but the way I intend to implement it you would only ever have to backup the mod directories managed by the mod manager and you will then be able to restore your mods on a different system or after reinstalling the game.

2) I agree. If you run, say TESVEdit on a file that belongs to a mod, afterwards you have a real file in the data directory with no way of telling if it once belonged to a mod. But I don't see how this is different from a regular file install? Unless you have a "manifest" of which file belongs to which mod you can't keep track and this works the same for links and real files.
Even MO has problems with that which resulted in the "overwrite" directory.
I have two possible alternative approaches for virtual installs in my head that might solve this problem but I'd rather not go into too much detail getting hopes up before having verified it can be implemented.

3) Again, this is an implementation detail that I don't intend to repeat. With the new manager the intended behaviour is that things just work and you are only confronted with profiles when you actually start using them.

4) I disagree, the virtual install stuff makes a lot of things easier especially when dealing with file conflicts: If you do a regular file install, mods overwrite each other. When you now remove / disable a mod that, upon installation, overwrote a file from another one, you have to restore that file. A mod manager has to keep track of which files exist in which mod in a "manifest" (the InstallLog in NMM) and it has to keep the archives around so it can restore the files.
This is massively error prone because if this manifest gets damaged you're screwed, the mod manager completely loses its knowledge of previous installs.
MO had far fewer problems with stuff like this - not because it used vfs magic but because it kept mods in separate directories from the very beginning. It never tried to keep a "manifest" valid and up-to-date between versions - it simply didn't need one.
"Virtual Installs" make the mod management way more robust no matter how they are implemented.

I agree that this is something that needs to be discussed in detail. There are multiple points I don't want to just decide without having heard opinions.
But my impression is that your gripe with the VirtualInstalls stuff in NMM 0.6x is more with how it was implemented than the underlying idea.

[Gruftlord]

In response to post #43232045. #43232355, #43233385 are all replies on the same post.

prinyo wrote:

 

In response to post #43231020.

prinyo wrote:

In response to post #43228135. #43228440, #43228710, #43228800, #43229750 are all replies on the same post.

HadToRegister wrote: Having used both, I like MO, and I also like NMM, but only pre 0.62 NMM, as 0.62 and above just acted like malware and destroyed most of our mod lists

NOWHERE in this thread has it been said that the new NMM will have NONE of the features of NMM and/or ALL of the features of MO.

NOWHERE has the subject of "Forcing MO on everyone" even been discussed.

If you use NMM 56.1 (For whatever hipster anti-something reason), then keep using it, but stop complaining about something that you're not only NOT going to use, but are also so misinformed about, that you were unable to make even one factual statement about the plans for NMM/MO for the future.Mebantiza wrote: So will it be safe to say, this 'new' MM have will none of the features of NMM, and all the features of MO. IoW, just a reskinned and renamed MO? As bad as NMM 6x has been, there are things about NMM that make people want to use it, well, the pre- 6x versions anyhow. How is forcing MO and its structure on everyone, even those that don't really want it, a benefit?

I use NMM 56.1, and do NOT require virtual installs. Its a feature, for some, but not a REQUIRED one, and I dont want it forced on me. 56.1 is old, crashes constantly, and is not all that stable tbh. But its still far preferable to anything NMM 6x, and have no need to have MO forced upon me. Not going to argue which one is 'superior', that is pointless. NMM is straight-forward enough to do what it has to, and did it well enough, well at least untill they tried to steal some of MO thunder. Then it went to complete and utter $yht. Up until that point, it wasn't perfect, but it did the job. NMM 6x added a needless feature that no one asked for, and never worked properly. Had NMM retained its pre-VM structure and improved that, things would likely be fine with it even now.

So now, the 'solution' it seems, is make everyone use MO whether they like it or not...

xyon71 wrote: Why go right to negativity??
I think it is very UNsafe to say it is just going to be a "re-branded MO"
It appears to me that they are wanting to produce a simple, yet powerful NEW tool for everyone to use with varying degrees of complexity based on need.
I didn't read anywhere that they are "forcing" anything, I read that they are taking all of the feedback from BOTH tools to incorporate the best features into 1 "best" tool.
I switched from NMM to MO 2 years ago, and found it simply wonderful to be able to try out different mods in different orders without breaking my base game.
I will admit there was a learning curve, but not too steep, and I am far from an advanced modder.
I for 1 am excited to see what these talented minds can come up with.
For whatever this or that, I say all of them are in it because they want to give people the best modding experience possible, so lets give them a chance before we jump on our band-wagons and shoot harpoons because we "think" we already know what they are going to do...

archerarcher wrote: Same here. In times where disk space is cheaper than fuel I think this virtual install feature is completely obsolete. I don't like it and I don't like the problems it makes with certain mod installations.
I use NMM 56.1 for Skyrim too, it's very stable to me, no problems at all, really. Okay, I track all my (700~) mods and over the years my documentation has grown into a complex website but I know exactly what to overwrite and what not and I know where my files are and I don't care about some gigabytes disk space more or less for my favorite game that I am playing/ modding since Nov 2011.

So what should a future mod mager be like?

1. Manage mod files
That's the absolute priority. Everey feature that affects this should be removed or be avoided.

2. Simple to use, simple to manage
No need for virtual installs, no installation of mods directly by clicking on a button on a website. I need control! Everyone needs control. Is there anybody out there who installs mods via website button? I inspect EVERY file before I use a mod so you should too if you don't want to loose track of your installment.

That's what I want from a mod manager and that's why I use NMM 56.1 and not MO

moriador wrote: @archerarcher,

Control. Precisely.

The more lines of code that come between me and the stuff I want to use, the more difficult it becomes to fix what ought to be minor problems. Instead of simply locating the problem file or reference and fixing it, you have to contend with the installation software and all of its quirks. Instead of replacing a single bad mesh, for instance, you may end up having to uninstall an entire mod, create a new mod archive with the new mesh, and install it all over again.

The more control you take away from users, the more those users have to rely on mod authors (and mod manager programmers) to fix every single little problem.

But there seems to be a trend in software to create bigger and bigger walls of code between the user and the actual assets/files that user wants to use. I see it in 3D render software, image editing software, anything that relies heavily on user created content really.

Which is completely backwards, IMO. The more imperfect the assets, the more DIRECT control the user needs to have in order to fix those imperfections. And the more an industry relies on user generated content, the more imperfections there will be.

The idea of creating code that allows a user to click a single magic button is great indeed! But only if that code depends on assets that have been through a very rigorous quality assessment process which requires very strict standardization. If those assets are potentially riddled with bugs, as any user created content will be, then you can't wall the user off from direct control or their only option when things go wrong will be to scream at the developers.

I see a lot of screaming at mod authors and mod manager programmers going on in Nexus comments (and the forums of many other industries). But I guess that's the price you pay when you try to make things *too* easy for the user.

It's no rebranded MO, it's a fresh start. "Controversial" MO features like the virtual filesystem may exist as options / extensions but they will not be defaults or requirements.

With MO I was happy to develop a tool that would only appeal to a small crowd. It was always intended to be complement the existing solutions like OBMM/NMM or wrye bash, not to replace them.

Now we're writing a modding tool for all Nexus users so obviously the approach will be different. I'm not ignorant of the problems with MO but with MO I had one target audience, now it's a different one.
We try to make the new mod manager attractive to advanced & MO users through extensibility, not by doing the same again and hoping the majority of users will suddenly like it better.

This sounded really good until I read the comments on the STEP forum where there is this: "The default setting will probably work similar to what NMM is doing currently, using symlinks or hardlinks into the game directory because this is simply more robust "

This is bad news. This is exactly what nobody wants. This is exactly what people want to get rid of.

When people talk about "the way NMM works" they mean pre-0.6. If the new manager uses the current NMM logic then everybody loses.

It was obvious that the choices you make about this will upset one of the two crowds. But upsetting both of them at the same time... hmm

Ok, can you explain what's so bad about the *link approach?

 

 

Even if we assume that the problems that now exist with half-install and half-removing of mods leaving stray files in the data directory are caused by old and un-optimized code, there are still enough reasons that turn such a system into a nightmare for the advanced users and are now forcing them to use 0.56.1 as the last version of NMM that is actually usable. And those reasons have nothing to do with the quality of the software itself but the problems the concept of linked virtual install creates. Having the files in one place is logical and easy to work with (like MO and the old NMM), having ghosts of files in more places makes the experience quite limiting, confusing and annoying.

 

1. Backups - it is not possible to make an usable backup independently of the manager. What do you copy - the files in the data folder or the files in the VirtualInstall? Or both? Whatever you do there is no meaningful way to use such a backup. You are forced to make a copy of the two as this is the only way to use it and that means - 2 times longer do make/apply the backup, 2 times more space for the backup, 2 directories to backup instead of one and most importantly - twice the size of the game folder after the backup is used. This is a huge deal as most players put those games on small SSD drives. If you have 50GB of mods and want to use a backup then your game will now consume a total of 100GB. And even if the drive space is not a big problem, having several games inflated like that is not really acceptable.

Because yes - when you install a mod and create links for all the files then you are not using twice the space - you have one and same file with two different addresses. So 1k file in data = 1k file in VI = 1k total. But when you copy the files and put them somewhere else the bond will break and you will end up with two independent "real" files. And yes - you need to make and use a backup of both data and VI folders. If you only use the data folder the game will work but the mod manager will become useless. If you only use a backup of the VI then there will be no mods in the game... So you are forced to endure the double backup and inflated drive space usage.

 

2. Freedom, predictability and flexibility (and way less chaos) - it is surprisingly easy to break the link and end up with two different files. This limits your possibility to reuse self-modified mod assets on a new install, create confusion when you edit a file that you don't immediately realize is not tied to it's counterpart anymore, forcing you to constantly think about which files are tied and which not and which copy you are editing. The "schizophrenic" state an install like this exists in is extremely confusing and adds way more complications than it is worth.

 

3. Learning curve. It is been mentioned many time on the forums that the learning curve for NMM 0.6* is steeper than MO. And it is true. Introducing this to the "basic" variation of the software seems strange.

 

4. For what? People would probably accept all this complications and problems if the would see the benefit such a system brings. However there is none. The predictability, usability and stability of the "one file" install logic is sacrificed for what... For profiles? Let's be honest, everybody who wanted profiles was already using MO. Now if you want to create the basic modding tool and with options to add modules and upgrade, are there Profiles in that very basic tool? There is no "greater good" here. It is complication for the sake of the complication. None of the potential benefits of the virtualization are realized by the linked virtual install, only the negatives.

 

I would suggest starting a new thread about this and letting all people that still use the old NMM versions tell their reasons. Because I'm pretty sure none of them would be using this new manager if uses the same logic that made them stay away from the new versions anyway. I understand from the point of view of the MO crowd the phrase "advanced NMM users" is an oxymoron, but in reality there are advanced users who have experience in both pre- and after- 0.6 NMM.

Exoclyps wrote: IMO, what I think would be best is to give two options. One where you can use a basic version like old NMM and one where you can create MO like profiles, using the system that is used there.

Tannin42 wrote: Thanks for the detailed answer. half-installations / half-removals are of course a problem of the implementation not of the concept. There is no reason to assume the same problems would appear in a fresh implementation

1) I can't speak too much about NMM 0.6x but the way I intend to implement it you would only ever have to backup the mod directories managed by the mod manager and you will then be able to restore your mods on a different system or after reinstalling the game.

2) I agree. If you run, say TESVEdit on a file that belongs to a mod, afterwards you have a real file in the data directory with no way of telling if it once belonged to a mod. But I don't see how this is different from a regular file install? Unless you have a "manifest" of which file belongs to which mod you can't keep track and this works the same for links and real files.
Even MO has problems with that which resulted in the "overwrite" directory.
I have two possible alternative approaches for virtual installs in my head that might solve this problem but I'd rather not go into too much detail getting hopes up before having verified it can be implemented.

3) Again, this is an implementation detail that I don't intend to repeat. With the new manager the intended behaviour is that things just work and you are only confronted with profiles when you actually start using them.

4) I disagree, the virtual install stuff makes a lot of things easier especially when dealing with file conflicts: If you do a regular file install, mods overwrite each other. When you now remove / disable a mod that, upon installation, overwrote a file from another one, you have to restore that file. A mod manager has to keep track of which files exist in which mod in a "manifest" (the InstallLog in NMM) and it has to keep the archives around so it can restore the files.
This is massively error prone because if this manifest gets damaged you're screwed, the mod manager completely loses its knowledge of previous installs.
MO had far fewer problems with stuff like this - not because it used vfs magic but because it kept mods in separate directories from the very beginning. It never tried to keep a "manifest" valid and up-to-date between versions - it simply didn't need one.
"Virtual Installs" make the mod management way more robust no matter how they are implemented.

I agree that this is something that needs to be discussed in detail. There are multiple points I don't want to just decide without having heard opinions.
But my impression is that your gripe with the VirtualInstalls stuff in NMM 0.6x is more with how it was implemented than the underlying idea.

I really like how you are handling the comments and criticism coming from both sides. Kudos to you! From what i read i get a strong feeling that your vision for the new manager is indeed one, that satisfies the needs of either side.