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

[HadToRegister]

In response to post #43222670. #43227380, #43227780, #43228265, #43228300, #43228380, #43228855, #43228880, #43229180 are all replies on the same post.

46GAPA wrote: I would like to see LOOT and Tes5edit incorporated in NMM.
That said NMM has been a God send for me as far as simplifing the download and install process.

Arthmoor wrote: No. Just no. Let's not start pushing to absorb everything into some kind of monolithic beast.

ColdHarmonics wrote: LOOT is already implemented very well into MO. Tes5Edit doesn't really belong IMO, though.

endgameaddiction wrote: No, TES5Edit does not belong in a mod manager. But the fact that you can already set it as a shortcut in your MO toolbar already makes it as close as possible to TES5Edit being implemented into MO. LOOT on the other hand does work perfectly fine in MO. And it's good that it was implemented for quick sorting after installing mods. But as a rule of thumb, never fully rely on LOOT to sort your plugins in the perfect order because it never will. So use it at your will and then use your own judgement for the rest.

HadToRegister wrote: No

Once you start incorporating other programs into the main program you limit how each thing can be upgraded.

Having grown up in the "all-in-one" stereo console fad, AND the "Separate component" non-console fad, it was the most expensive to buy a separate component system, but in the long run, the cheapest to replace ONE component, rather than having to replacing the entire system, when ONE thing broke.

Just like TVs today, that have DVD and/or VCR players built in.

When one of those Breaks, you're stuck with either

1. A TV that can play DVDs but not Video tapes
2. A TV that can play Video tapes but not DVDs
3. A TV that can play DVD & Video tapes, but you can't watch because the TV is broken
4. A TV that can play DVDs, but you can't watch, because the TV is broken
5. A TV that can play videos, but you can't watch because the TV is broken

Ultimately you're forced to replace THE ENTIRE THING, rather than just swap out ONE PIECE of the set-up.

Yea, that was a long way around talking about not incorporating everything into one program, but I felt I should give an example

RoyBatterian wrote: Please make things like LOOT optional modules too. Don't need or want it.

archerarcher wrote: Where is the problem to use XEdit, Bash, Loot etc. as independent sofware? I don't understand people who want to have an all-in-one application. Thats Frankenstein who wants to create the most perfect thing and you know what happened.

I more and more get the suspicion that some people don't want to use their brain and instead of that are looking for the perfect softwae that does it for them...

xyon71 wrote: Well I personally believe it's silly to NOT use LOOT, but in MO if you didn't want to check your order, just don't hit the "sort" button.
In MO the "sort" is a paired down version of LOOT without tag downloads, or you can install the full LOOT and use it as an shortcut from within MO.
I would hope it will be the same type of setup.

HadToRegister wrote:

RoyBatterian
Please make things like LOOT optional modules too. Don't need or want it.

I have to agree here.
I really haven't seen LOOT actually do anything worthwhile (for MY load order) for FO4 and it has even changed my load order to something I would never do, by putting mods above/below other mods that they shouldn't be above/below.
At the very most, I use LOOT (With FO4), to add Meta-Tags to some mods to ensure that some mods load after others, to basically avoid much of the tedious rearranging of the load order if I download a new mod.

archerarcher
Where is the problem to use XEdit, Bash, Loot etc. as independent sofware?

I agree wholeheartedly
There's NOTHING wrong with being able to add 3rd party programs to NMM and MO, the only thing I'd change, is if the NMM part of the upcoming Manager, could allow you to use ANY third party software, and not just a handful like the current version of NMM does (FO4Edit, LOOT, Bodyslide)

[xyon71]

In response to post #43223160. #43223235, #43225810, #43226065, #43226570, #43226580, #43226675, #43226930, #43227145, #43227835, #43229000 are all replies on the same post.

ContessaR wrote: Simple question: Will you be keeping MO's virtual installation/file system? That's all I want. Don't care what the name on the Mod Tool is as long as it has that.

JDM90 wrote: This

TehPikachuHat wrote: Thirded.

mfeile1974 wrote: Fourth....main reason I won't touch NMM is because I don't want my install folder touched

rcv wrote: me 5

The Vampire Dante wrote: @ mfeile1974

NMM has been using virtual installs for a while now.

bla08 wrote: NMM already offers a type of virtual installation system.

Arthmoor wrote: Personally I would hope not, or that it would be moved into an extension for those people who want that.

TehPikachuHat wrote: NMM virtualization system uses hardlinks, which clutter up your install folder. MO does it better.

ColdHarmonics wrote: The VFS of MO is second to none, let's hope the new NMM uses that. I may sound like a bit of a fanboy, but after grappling with a variety of virtual file systems, I just haven't found anything quite as nice as MO's.

moriador wrote: So, NMM uses "a type of virtualization system" already?

I don't know whether it does or not, or whether it's an option you have to enable in NMM.

All I *do* know is that when I install a mod with NMM: its assets are available when I load the CK to mod and when I load a game to play; moreover, I can easily locate those assets in my data folder, should I need to unpack/change/adjust/alter/move/rename/overwrite or delete them.

Last I checked, this was not the case with MO, since it was impossible to load a game without starting MO. And MO's file virtualization wasn't recognized by the CK.

With MO, if a mod had a single and simple problem, such as missing mipmaps for a few textures or an incorrect file path or even a single messed up mesh, it was not clear to me how to fix it. Whereas right now, I just fix them the straightforward and obvious way.

I have no idea if that's the case now -- or whether I'm simply totally wrong about MO -- because the description of the implementation was too confusing for me to really grasp fully. Forum threads and tutorials didn't help.

At the moment, with NMM, if I find that my data folder has unwanted stuff in it, I delete that stuff or manually shove it into a different folder. If I want a completely "clean" data folder, I unpack a backup archive of a vanilla install. I'm not sure what could be simpler than that.

Ultimately, for me, nothing beats actually looking at mod archives to see what's in them (and where) before installing anything into my data folder. I actually read the readme's. :D

@ Moriador
While I can't speak to using the CK with MO, because I haven't used it, I can say that what you described is what I think most of the problem with MO.... people don't understand it so they don't like it.
How I came to understand it, was that MO "injects" a mods assets into the game's DATA folder when a mod is activated without actually writing it there, and possibly overwriting a file that is already there and permanently breaking a game.

You are ALWAYS using the clean backup of your DATA folder because you never change it..

The reality is, when you use MO, every mod you install creates a folder with the mod's name (e.g. Steamapps/Skyrim/ModOrganizer/mods/modxyz) and all of the assets are extracted there instead of your game's actual DATA folder. You then simply "activate" a mod when you want to use it, or deactivate it if you don't.
You have total freedom to go into the mod's folder and change or delete files at will if you please, either through MO or with Explorer. There is also a nifty function to "hide" a file in MO so it won't be used without deleting/destroying it.(great for texture/sound mods when you want to use some parts of 1 mod, and some parts of another mod)

While this all might be moot at this point, because who knows how the new tool is going to work, I hope I made the MO virtualization make a little more sense.

Yes, you launch your game from within MO, but I did the same with NMM, so it didn't bother me.

[Deleted3593260User]

In response to post #43223160. #43223235, #43225810, #43226065, #43226570, #43226580, #43226675, #43226930, #43227145, #43227835, #43229000, #43229600 are all replies on the same post.

ContessaR wrote: Simple question: Will you be keeping MO's virtual installation/file system? That's all I want. Don't care what the name on the Mod Tool is as long as it has that.

JDM90 wrote: This

TehPikachuHat wrote: Thirded.

mfeile1974 wrote: Fourth....main reason I won't touch NMM is because I don't want my install folder touched

rcv wrote: me 5

The Vampire Dante wrote: @ mfeile1974

NMM has been using virtual installs for a while now.

bla08 wrote: NMM already offers a type of virtual installation system.

Arthmoor wrote: Personally I would hope not, or that it would be moved into an extension for those people who want that.

TehPikachuHat wrote: NMM virtualization system uses hardlinks, which clutter up your install folder. MO does it better.

ColdHarmonics wrote: The VFS of MO is second to none, let's hope the new NMM uses that. I may sound like a bit of a fanboy, but after grappling with a variety of virtual file systems, I just haven't found anything quite as nice as MO's.

moriador wrote: So, NMM uses "a type of virtualization system" already?

I don't know whether it does or not, or whether it's an option you have to enable in NMM.

All I *do* know is that when I install a mod with NMM: its assets are available when I load the CK to mod and when I load a game to play; moreover, I can easily locate those assets in my data folder, should I need to unpack/change/adjust/alter/move/rename/overwrite or delete them.

Last I checked, this was not the case with MO, since it was impossible to load a game without starting MO. And MO's file virtualization wasn't recognized by the CK.

With MO, if a mod had a single and simple problem, such as missing mipmaps for a few textures or an incorrect file path or even a single messed up mesh, it was not clear to me how to fix it. Whereas right now, I just fix them the straightforward and obvious way.

I have no idea if that's the case now -- or whether I'm simply totally wrong about MO -- because the description of the implementation was too confusing for me to really grasp fully. Forum threads and tutorials didn't help.

At the moment, with NMM, if I find that my data folder has unwanted stuff in it, I delete that stuff or manually shove it into a different folder. If I want a completely "clean" data folder, I unpack a backup archive of a vanilla install. I'm not sure what could be simpler than that.

Ultimately, for me, nothing beats actually looking at mod archives to see what's in them (and where) before installing anything into my data folder. I actually read the readme's. :D

xyon71 wrote: @ Moriador
While I can't speak to using the CK with MO, because I haven't used it, I can say that what you described is what I think most of the problem with MO.... people don't understand it so they don't like it.
How I came to understand it, was that MO "injects" a mods assets into the game's DATA folder when a mod is activated without actually writing it there, and possibly overwriting a file that is already there and permanently breaking a game.

You are ALWAYS using the clean backup of your DATA folder because you never change it..

The reality is, when you use MO, every mod you install creates a folder with the mod's name (e.g. Steamapps/Skyrim/ModOrganizer/mods/modxyz) and all of the assets are extracted there instead of your game's actual DATA folder. You then simply "activate" a mod when you want to use it, or deactivate it if you don't.
You have total freedom to go into the mod's folder and change or delete files at will if you please, either through MO or with Explorer. There is also a nifty function to "hide" a file in MO so it won't be used without deleting/destroying it.(great for texture/sound mods when you want to use some parts of 1 mod, and some parts of another mod)

While this all might be moot at this point, because who knows how the new tool is going to work, I hope I made the MO virtualization make a little more sense.

Yes, you launch your game from within MO, but I did the same with NMM, so it didn't bother me.

@moriador, the CK works fine with MO, if you start it from within MO. It will see any plugins that are active in MO. The main issue is with MO's archive management, which allows it to see bsa assets as loose files. This might be the cause of inaccuracies with things like Xedit and CK.

[Tannin42]

In response to post #43224730.

fgambler wrote: What will be the name of the new app? NMO (Nexus Mod Organizer)? :D

Suggestions are welcome... :D

[Sharlikran]

In response to post #43222670. #43227380, #43227780, #43228265, #43228300, #43228380, #43228855, #43228880, #43229180, #43229215 are all replies on the same post.

46GAPA wrote: I would like to see LOOT and Tes5edit incorporated in NMM.
That said NMM has been a God send for me as far as simplifing the download and install process.

Arthmoor wrote: No. Just no. Let's not start pushing to absorb everything into some kind of monolithic beast.

ColdHarmonics wrote: LOOT is already implemented very well into MO. Tes5Edit doesn't really belong IMO, though.

endgameaddiction wrote: No, TES5Edit does not belong in a mod manager. But the fact that you can already set it as a shortcut in your MO toolbar already makes it as close as possible to TES5Edit being implemented into MO. LOOT on the other hand does work perfectly fine in MO. And it's good that it was implemented for quick sorting after installing mods. But as a rule of thumb, never fully rely on LOOT to sort your plugins in the perfect order because it never will. So use it at your will and then use your own judgement for the rest.

HadToRegister wrote: No

Once you start incorporating other programs into the main program you limit how each thing can be upgraded.

Having grown up in the "all-in-one" stereo console fad, AND the "Separate component" non-console fad, it was the most expensive to buy a separate component system, but in the long run, the cheapest to replace ONE component, rather than having to replacing the entire system, when ONE thing broke.

Just like TVs today, that have DVD and/or VCR players built in.

When one of those Breaks, you're stuck with either

1. A TV that can play DVDs but not Video tapes
2. A TV that can play Video tapes but not DVDs
3. A TV that can play DVD & Video tapes, but you can't watch because the TV is broken
4. A TV that can play DVDs, but you can't watch, because the TV is broken
5. A TV that can play videos, but you can't watch because the TV is broken

Ultimately you're forced to replace THE ENTIRE THING, rather than just swap out ONE PIECE of the set-up.

Yea, that was a long way around talking about not incorporating everything into one program, but I felt I should give an example

RoyBatterian wrote: Please make things like LOOT optional modules too. Don't need or want it.

archerarcher wrote: Where is the problem to use XEdit, Bash, Loot etc. as independent sofware? I don't understand people who want to have an all-in-one application. Thats Frankenstein who wants to create the most perfect thing and you know what happened.

I more and more get the suspicion that some people don't want to use their brain and instead of that are looking for the perfect softwae that does it for them...

xyon71 wrote: Well I personally believe it's silly to NOT use LOOT, but in MO if you didn't want to check your order, just don't hit the "sort" button.
In MO the "sort" is a paired down version of LOOT without tag downloads, or you can install the full LOOT and use it as an shortcut from within MO.
I would hope it will be the same type of setup.

HadToRegister wrote:

RoyBatterian
Please make things like LOOT optional modules too. Don't need or want it.

I have to agree here.
I really haven't seen LOOT actually do anything worthwhile (for MY load order) for FO4 and it has even changed my load order to something I would never do, by putting mods above/below other mods that they shouldn't be above/below.
At the very most, I use LOOT (With FO4), to add Meta-Tags to some mods to ensure that some mods load after others, to basically avoid much of the tedious rearranging of the load order if I download a new mod.

HadToRegister wrote:

archerarcher
Where is the problem to use XEdit, Bash, Loot etc. as independent sofware?

I agree wholeheartedly
There's NOTHING wrong with being able to add 3rd party programs to NMM and MO, the only thing I'd change, is if the NMM part of the upcoming Manager, could allow you to use ANY third party software, and not just a handful like the current version of NMM does (FO4Edit, LOOT, Bodyslide)

Programs like LOOT and xEdit are tools not mod installing programs. Also they are updated frequently and you download them. Nobody would want to have NMM with an outdated version of a tool.

Now with that said though. Most people tell me in all the forums, can you make LOOT, Wrye Bash, or xEdit work with MO. They ask me that because they can't get the program working with MO. MO uses DLL files to create the virtual folders. Because of that it's in control of your windows file system. 3rd party tools are designed to work directly with the Data folder. So MO has to create the compatibility not the 3rd party tool. Another thing about 3rd party tools that probably makes it hard for MO is that they are all 32 bit programs and will not be upgraded to 64 bit programs. There would be too much to change for that to happen. Trust me I work on all of them, and I know. They just don't need to be 64 bit programs anyway.

I have never had anything against MO. I can't support it because I have never used it and I know very little about it. I like my files in the Data folder as personal preference. This was WrinklyNinja's last post in regards to MO support and I have taken that stance as well.

I do think Tannin makes very well written and well thought out programs. So if anyone were to carry the torch and improve on things to create a better Mod Manager he is a very good choice. Edited October 14, 2016 by Sharlikran

[moriador]

In response to post #43228135. #43228440, #43228710, #43228800, #43229950 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

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.

@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. Edited October 14, 2016 by moriador

[Tannin42]

In response to post #43223435. #43223890, #43223975, #43225595 are all replies on the same post.

turulo wrote: I use a customized version of the NMM (previous version) because I needed some UI related bugs that annoyed me.

So I have a little knowledge of the internals and I can tell you (although you probably miss this post) that the UI programming has way too many hands involved. Things are done multiple times differently because I bet that different people wanted something and didn't know that others had already implemented the same in another place.

All the UI code in NMM got too complex for what it is really (a few docking panes with grids and toolbars). So in my opinion, what you need is to switch to something more declarative like WPF to simplify your UI.

Please take that into consideration since WPF will allow to reuse the mod/omod/fomod related code that you already have (all that is not UI related) and also will be more simple to maintain. And should you feel the UI needs to be changed afterwards, well with WPF you can change it without changing the code most of the time.

Pazuzu156 wrote: I swapped to WPF mid development on my tool for Mass Effect. Safe to say, I've never gone back to WinForms. And with the ability to extend/create controls in an XML styled markup language, it's like web development..only for the desktop :D

turulo wrote: Exactly, it's less code and better code. And it forces you to think in model-view-controller, which keeps everything at bay when a project grows.

turulo wrote: Seems that MO uses Qt, I hope that the new NMM will not use Qt. That damn Qt5 SDK broke my Win10.

I don't want to go into a lengthy discussion about this, there may be a forum thread at a later time regarding technical details.
What I can say is: We considered Qt, WinForms, WPF and many other options but these didn't fit all our requirements. Instead we're going with an html-based UI.

[Tannin42]

In response to post #43228135. #43228440, #43228710, #43228800, #43229750 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.

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. Edited October 14, 2016 by Tannin42

[moriador]

In response to post #43228135. #43228440, #43228710, #43228800, #43229750, #43229950 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.

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.

[Surilindur]

That is absolutely awesome news! Mod Organizer has been the one and only mod manager for me for years, and if the new manager will be anything even close to that, then that will be great! Tannin definitely deserves to have a chance to work full-time on a mod manager. MO (and the USVFS) definitely beat any CV I could think of. Congratulations! Also my thanks to Dark0ne for taking this step.

 

Good luck to the whole dev team, looking forward to the new manager! :thumbsup:

Edited October 14, 2016 by Contrathetix