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

[VeryNaughtyBoy]

WAIT WHAT? That blank cheque over 50k$ I send you so you could do this years ago never reached you? Guess I should not have put:

 

Robin Dark0ne

NexusMods

England

 

on the letter...

 

On a more serious note, I felt like I could here Dr. Farnsworth at the beginning of this article. Ye know...

"GOOD NEWS everyone!"

[prinyo]

 

In response to post #43231020. #43231160, #43234190, #43235645 are all replies on the same post.

 

 

 

prinyo wrote:

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.

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

Tannin42 wrote: Ok, can you explain what's so bad about the *link approach?

Gruftlord wrote: If I had to make a guess, I'm sorry to tell you, that I think it looks like quite a few of MO's users don't actually understand how the other mod managers work and how they do the things they glamour MO for. If anything, it's a testament to MO's more accessible documentation, direct advertisement of advanced features or user interface differences.

Exoclyps wrote: MO is simple. I can just open up the folder for my mod and mess with it without a second thought. I can even manually add mods by adding another folder.

 

Some link approach that seems to upset a lot of people does not sound promising to me. It sounds complicated and I get the impression I won't have the same simple accessibility I do today.

 

I'll still have MO on my harddrive so I'm not really losing anything atm, but yeah, I won't convert to any other virtual system when there is one already that is really clean and easy to use.

prinyo

 

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

 

Whoa, hold on there, I don't remember electing you to represent everybody, and you certainly don't represent me.

 

 

I'm confused now, after reading your next post. Do you want virtual install with links or not.

 

My point was this. The MO crowd wants the new manager to use virtualization of "pure nature" with "pristinely clean" data folder as MO does it. The NMM crowd wants direct mod installs as NMM 0.5* does it. (Almost) nobody wants it to handle the mod installs as the current NMM versions do - a mix of the two ways.

 

Now, I hate the virtual install with links and I believe that Talos himself can't create a mod manager that uses this way of installing mods that will not confuse me and that I would be able to use with pleasure. I, been a vocal NMM 0.5 fan on other forums for some time, recently started transitioning to MO with the idea to use it for the future games. The fact is the way MO deals with mods is easier to work with than the new NMM.

That said, I, been a programmer myself, have a pretty good idea why Tannin is pushing for this kind of system and I realize that if I was in his shoes I would go ahead and implement it exactly the way I believe is right.

This means that, as an user, I need to wait a month or two and see what happens. It seems there will be one mod manager able to handle Skyrim SE and we have no way of knowing what the response of community to this development will be.

[gromulos]

I would like to see an option in NMM where you can view the save file for a particular game and see what mods it uses, this was a feature of WRYE Bash / FLash up untill Fallout 4, Fallout New Vegas being the last version of WRYE that was fully implemented. The reason why I think it's important for this feature to be added is because it helps users trouble shoot mod problems by comparing load orders used for the save VS the present load order, which can be a HUGE time saver.

[Sixdd]

In response to post #43213170. #43213650, #43214685, #43224605, #43231310, #43231435, #43232450, #43232890, #43235755, #43237595 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.

archerarcher wrote: @ stebo104:
Your aren't seroius, are you?

Exoclyps wrote: archerarcher, but it is better than NMM. Waay better.

NCRForever wrote: Installing SKSE with MO is as easy as KISSing(Keep It Simple Stupid). Similar to installing it with NMM. You drag and drop the loose files into the install folder, then using 7zip or WinRAR, right click the Data folder, name it to SKSE scripts(If you want) and 7zip/zip/rar it. Load MO and add it like a downloaded mod. Click the box to install and you're done.

See? Easy as KISSing.

Actually you don't have to rename anything or repackage anything, you just install it. There are no special steps, you extract the files into your skyrim folder just like anything else. It's so frustrating to see people making mountains out of nothing, personally I use MO and it just makes it way easier to install/uninstall mods because you can't accidentally break a dependency and ruin a 50+ hour game save (which happened to me with NMM causing me to switch to MO).
</rant>

[Tannin42]

In response to post #43210430. #43215310, #43215490, #43215920, #43216655, #43217565, #43217935, #43218210, #43222660, #43225585, #43227190, #43227900, #43227920, #43237490 are all replies on the same post.

jim_uk wrote: Please can we get a mode for us old stick in the muds who still do everything manually and only want something to enable mods and change the load order? I'm still using 0.52.3.

kingtobbe wrote: This works perfectly for that. It doesn't disable mods beyond unchecking the esp though. Of course if it did, it wouldn't be simple anymore :)

http://www.nexusmods.com/fallout4/mods/13671/?

vram1974 wrote: You're never too old to save time. If a veritable moron like myself can figure out mod managers then anybody can.

jim_uk wrote: It's nothing to do with figuring them out, it's that I don't need all the other stuff, I've been installing mods since 2002, I know what I'm doing and prefer to do things myself.

@kingtobbe I used something similar for FO4, it saved me from upgrading and risking breaking my older games.

Arthmoor wrote: I'm with jim_uk on this one. If I were to be convinced to use this new NMM, I'd want it to be straightforward and without all the file system virtualization stuff. And it would need to be at least as robust about handling the Data folder as Wrye Bash is now.

Oh, and please, for the love of Talos, leave the BSA unpacking to other tools where it belongs!

HadToRegister wrote: So if you're still using 0.52.3 then just continue using it then, problem solved, as you're not even using NMM for anything except to enable/disable mods and change the load order.
You're not even using it to it's fullest potential, so you'll be able to use that version forever.

jim_uk wrote: It won't work for newer titles, this months Skyrim Shiny Edition being one of them.

PirateZ86 wrote: @jim_uk: Please don't listen or reply to morons who have no common sense.

HadToRegister wrote:

PirateZ86 9 kudos 557 posts
@jim_uk: Please don't listen or reply to morons who have no common sense.

Wow, so you go straight to the ad hominems because someone has a different opinion than you?

Jesus christ dude, chill out.

ShalabiRogue wrote: @arthmoor This could be a dumb (or too long to answer) question but what do you have against file virtualization? For me the benefits are massive; quick and easy profiling, clean skyrim folder, quick and easy file priority, and MO lets me use Wrye Bash for bash patches and such even between profiles. I can't even think of a negative point.

Without MO I couldn't have both Enderal and Skyrim installed right now and quickly choose which one I want to play.

Arthmoor wrote: My main objection is having an intermediate layer between my OS and my game that is under the control of neither one and prone to bugs because neither one has been subjected to the appropriate levels of QA.

Plus I just don't see the point considering Wrye Bash has not had issues with "dirty data folders" since the BAIN installers module was perfected. Proven technology that gives you the kind of control MO users want without injecting code into the task to accomplish it.

IMO if you want something sufficient to separate Enderal from Skyrim you should be prepared to sacrifice the extra install space for it. Drive storage is cheap, and nothing beats a hard separation when it comes to guaranteeing one can't contaminate the other.

Also, I don't need to jump through hoops for each tool I want to use in order to get the virtual file system to notice it. Which ironically includes not having to faff about with that to make Wrye Bash work to do bashed patches with :P

moriador wrote: Yes, exactly.

There doesn't seem to be much point in using a file virtualization system if the CK can't see it.

ColdHarmonics wrote: While I can sympathize with this position, I think anybody who has taken the 5 minutes it takes to install and learn MO will soon understand its profound advantages and near-complete lack of disadvantages, 100% of the time. As someone who very much likes doing things myself, MO is a tool that lets me do things myself better. But, to each their own.

jim_uk wrote: Read what people have written, it's nothing to do with learning how to use it, don't assume people who prefer to do things differently are somehow ignorant.

> My main objection is having an intermediate layer between my OS and my game that is
> under the control of neither one and prone to bugs because neither one has been
> subjected to the appropriate levels of QA.

I understand this position although I would like to point out that
a) MO doesn't do anything different, technology-wise, from skse or enb. And your AV. And your graphics card support software. And probably at least half a dozen other tools you're running right now.
I would argue - in fact - that skse / skse plugins are a bigger safety risk than MO because with skse you're loading multiple dlls from different sources, some of which may be closed source.
MO is wider in scope but if you worry about MO you should be worrying about similar tools as well.
b) I've always advocated to run MO as limited user. With MO you can install mods without having write access to the game folder. As such it has limited potential for damage.
NMM otoh requires administrator rights and copies/deletes files outside its own "domain". You are very wrong if you think MO is a bigger security concern than Wrye Bash or NMM, it's the other way around.
MOs vfs is very complex and will thus contain (way) more bugs than a simpler solution but the damage these bugs may cause is far smaller.

> Plus I just don't see the point considering Wrye Bash has not had issues with "dirty data > folders" since the BAIN installers module was perfected.

But is it really perfect? MO has no problem with dirty data folders by design. Even if it's bugged. even if the user messes up. Even if you install mods and then manully remove wrye bash your data folder will be clean.
Relying on software to be perfect is a bit unrealistic in my experience. If a software is bugfree that only means you're not looking hard enough.

I'm not sure why I now ended up defending MO when I'm supposed to advocate the new Mod Manager ;)
I guess what I should be saying is: All solutions have their pros and cons. Trust me, I've spent years analyzing the alternatives, considered some that have never been implemented and there is no approach that is 100% superior to any other.
If you think MOs vfs is useless or if you think symbolic / hard links are wrong or direct installation is bad you just don't have all the facts or haven't considered how others want to mod.

Which is why I want to offer alternatives with the new manager and not presume to know what's best for each individual.

[Clevon]

One thing I truly hope you consider is documentation. A powerful tool that's badly documented can be destructive. Additionally, poor documentation causes people to ask the same questions over and over until they "sledgehammer" their way into understanding. In my opinion, documentation should be detailed if not exhaustive, and NOT contain vague and ambiguous references, or slang. English isn't everyone's first language.

 

I know you are familiar with many accomplished mod authors that have been vocal about their issues with MO, and in some cases intensely so. I would hope that you revisit some of these issues and the author's concerns, regardless of the decided source of the problem. Since your work at this point is foundational, this may be critical input.

 

Very best regards

[xaosbob]

Congratulations to you, Tannin!

 

Overall, my experience with MO made transitioning back to NMM last November challenging. I felt like I lost a lot of control in my installs, which I did, but NMM has been doing just fine, overall. I am excited to see how you implement ideas and functions from both into MONex(t).

 

I honestly don't know much on the tech side of how the managers actually do what they do, but I do have some observations from the user end, things I like or don't, just so you have a little more grist for the mill.

 

MO's install control is probably one of my favorite things about it. Being able to manually verify and select files is a powerful tool, and the reason I manually installed files for a long time. This, integrated with virtual installs, gives me real freedom to install and try things willy-nilly, without worrying about breaking my game.

 

MO's virtual file system really cleans things up in the Data folder. This is important to me, because if I have a mod that I enjoy, except for that one texture (you know the one), I can find that texture, adjust it to suit my game, and know exactly where to put it back when I'm done. As an example. This ease of access (mods folder/mod name folder/mod's additions for the Data folder) is a big deal because I like to tweak, and because I like to have all a mod's assets in one place, discrete from the others.

 

Actual post-install file control is a big deal, too. Finding and moving orphaned files (like a merge patch or new mod I just CKd up), the file explorer shell from virtually (heh) anywhere in MO, and the ability to adjust installs with drag and drop were features I grew surprisingly dependent upon.

 

It's been a year now since I last used MO, so a number of its features slip my mind, but launching a plethora of tools from within MO (especially with the ability to configure how they launch) to then run them on the virtual installs, managing saves, switching between profiles painlessly, and even tracking downloaded mods until I decide to clear the list (or even clear individual entries) are all important to me, and sorely missed in NMM.

 

On the other hand, NMM has run rock-solid for me with Fallout 4, without a single hiccup in the last year. Profiles are a good idea, but because of NMM's implementation, I don't really use them because of the time (and hassle, sorry NMM team!), but for basic load order stuff, it's solid as Gibraltar. I don't know if that is helpful feedback, now that I'm typing it out, but there it is. NMM seems to do better with running scripted installers, which is less important to me with more robust installation options, but it is nice for really complex mods and for modders who are more casual or simply newer to all of this.

 

I'll stick by MONex as my name in the hat. Thanks for the update, Robin, and thank you for hiring Tannin! I think the Nexus mod scene just got an upgrade. ;)

[Eman17j]

In response to post #43236125. #43237275, #43237355 are all replies on the same post.

dizzy249 wrote: @Tannin42,

Will you tweak MO v1 for Skyrim SE if needed?

PirateZ86 wrote: Impossible, MO1 is 32-bit and Skyrim SE is 64-bit.

lxndr wrote: As much as I heard Skyrim SE is gonna be 64bit. MO1 can only run 32bit executables. MO2 can do 64bit, yet pretty much abandoned. Everything is not so bad though: after SE is out, at least SKSE has to be fully adapted and it'll take time. I bet by the time they done, we'll see the new mod manager in some state.

@PirateZ86

Not impossible. The guy who makes the Papyrus Data Wrapping tool for cleaning saves in Skyrim has an bat file that can convert it to 32bit and back to 64bit if needed Edited October 14, 2016 by Eman17j

[Eman17j]

In response to post #43210430. #43215310, #43215490, #43215920, #43216655, #43217565, #43217935, #43218210, #43222660, #43225585, #43227190, #43227900, #43227920, #43237490, #43238795 are all replies on the same post.

jim_uk wrote: Please can we get a mode for us old stick in the muds who still do everything manually and only want something to enable mods and change the load order? I'm still using 0.52.3.

kingtobbe wrote: This works perfectly for that. It doesn't disable mods beyond unchecking the esp though. Of course if it did, it wouldn't be simple anymore :)

http://www.nexusmods.com/fallout4/mods/13671/?

vram1974 wrote: You're never too old to save time. If a veritable moron like myself can figure out mod managers then anybody can.

jim_uk wrote: It's nothing to do with figuring them out, it's that I don't need all the other stuff, I've been installing mods since 2002, I know what I'm doing and prefer to do things myself.

@kingtobbe I used something similar for FO4, it saved me from upgrading and risking breaking my older games.

Arthmoor wrote: I'm with jim_uk on this one. If I were to be convinced to use this new NMM, I'd want it to be straightforward and without all the file system virtualization stuff. And it would need to be at least as robust about handling the Data folder as Wrye Bash is now.

Oh, and please, for the love of Talos, leave the BSA unpacking to other tools where it belongs!

HadToRegister wrote: So if you're still using 0.52.3 then just continue using it then, problem solved, as you're not even using NMM for anything except to enable/disable mods and change the load order.
You're not even using it to it's fullest potential, so you'll be able to use that version forever.

jim_uk wrote: It won't work for newer titles, this months Skyrim Shiny Edition being one of them.

PirateZ86 wrote: @jim_uk: Please don't listen or reply to morons who have no common sense.

HadToRegister wrote:

PirateZ86 9 kudos 557 posts
@jim_uk: Please don't listen or reply to morons who have no common sense.

Wow, so you go straight to the ad hominems because someone has a different opinion than you?

Jesus christ dude, chill out.

ShalabiRogue wrote: @arthmoor This could be a dumb (or too long to answer) question but what do you have against file virtualization? For me the benefits are massive; quick and easy profiling, clean skyrim folder, quick and easy file priority, and MO lets me use Wrye Bash for bash patches and such even between profiles. I can't even think of a negative point.

Without MO I couldn't have both Enderal and Skyrim installed right now and quickly choose which one I want to play.

Arthmoor wrote: My main objection is having an intermediate layer between my OS and my game that is under the control of neither one and prone to bugs because neither one has been subjected to the appropriate levels of QA.

Plus I just don't see the point considering Wrye Bash has not had issues with "dirty data folders" since the BAIN installers module was perfected. Proven technology that gives you the kind of control MO users want without injecting code into the task to accomplish it.

IMO if you want something sufficient to separate Enderal from Skyrim you should be prepared to sacrifice the extra install space for it. Drive storage is cheap, and nothing beats a hard separation when it comes to guaranteeing one can't contaminate the other.

Also, I don't need to jump through hoops for each tool I want to use in order to get the virtual file system to notice it. Which ironically includes not having to faff about with that to make Wrye Bash work to do bashed patches with :P

moriador wrote: Yes, exactly.

There doesn't seem to be much point in using a file virtualization system if the CK can't see it.

ColdHarmonics wrote: While I can sympathize with this position, I think anybody who has taken the 5 minutes it takes to install and learn MO will soon understand its profound advantages and near-complete lack of disadvantages, 100% of the time. As someone who very much likes doing things myself, MO is a tool that lets me do things myself better. But, to each their own.

jim_uk wrote: Read what people have written, it's nothing to do with learning how to use it, don't assume people who prefer to do things differently are somehow ignorant.

Tannin42 wrote: > My main objection is having an intermediate layer between my OS and my game that is
> under the control of neither one and prone to bugs because neither one has been
> subjected to the appropriate levels of QA.

I understand this position although I would like to point out that
a) MO doesn't do anything different, technology-wise, from skse or enb. And your AV. And your graphics card support software. And probably at least half a dozen other tools you're running right now.
I would argue - in fact - that skse / skse plugins are a bigger safety risk than MO because with skse you're loading multiple dlls from different sources, some of which may be closed source.
MO is wider in scope but if you worry about MO you should be worrying about similar tools as well.
b) I've always advocated to run MO as limited user. With MO you can install mods without having write access to the game folder. As such it has limited potential for damage.
NMM otoh requires administrator rights and copies/deletes files outside its own "domain". You are very wrong if you think MO is a bigger security concern than Wrye Bash or NMM, it's the other way around.
MOs vfs is very complex and will thus contain (way) more bugs than a simpler solution but the damage these bugs may cause is far smaller.

> Plus I just don't see the point considering Wrye Bash has not had issues with "dirty data > folders" since the BAIN installers module was perfected.

But is it really perfect? MO has no problem with dirty data folders by design. Even if it's bugged. even if the user messes up. Even if you install mods and then manully remove wrye bash your data folder will be clean.
Relying on software to be perfect is a bit unrealistic in my experience. If a software is bugfree that only means you're not looking hard enough.

I'm not sure why I now ended up defending MO when I'm supposed to advocate the new Mod Manager ;)
I guess what I should be saying is: All solutions have their pros and cons. Trust me, I've spent years analyzing the alternatives, considered some that have never been implemented and there is no approach that is 100% superior to any other.
If you think MOs vfs is useless or if you think symbolic / hard links are wrong or direct installation is bad you just don't have all the facts or haven't considered how others want to mod.

Which is why I want to offer alternatives with the new manager and not presume to know what's best for each individual.

Please do not take out the BSA unpacking tool I use it all the time. Its perfectly fine having it off by default and having to enable it but removing it seems extreme.

[Dark0ne]

In response to post #43210430. #43215310, #43215490, #43215920, #43216655, #43217565, #43217935, #43218210, #43222660, #43225585, #43227190, #43227900, #43227920, #43237490, #43238795, #43239135 are all replies on the same post.

jim_uk wrote: Please can we get a mode for us old stick in the muds who still do everything manually and only want something to enable mods and change the load order? I'm still using 0.52.3.

kingtobbe wrote: This works perfectly for that. It doesn't disable mods beyond unchecking the esp though. Of course if it did, it wouldn't be simple anymore :)

http://www.nexusmods.com/fallout4/mods/13671/?

vram1974 wrote: You're never too old to save time. If a veritable moron like myself can figure out mod managers then anybody can.

jim_uk wrote: It's nothing to do with figuring them out, it's that I don't need all the other stuff, I've been installing mods since 2002, I know what I'm doing and prefer to do things myself.

@kingtobbe I used something similar for FO4, it saved me from upgrading and risking breaking my older games.

Arthmoor wrote: I'm with jim_uk on this one. If I were to be convinced to use this new NMM, I'd want it to be straightforward and without all the file system virtualization stuff. And it would need to be at least as robust about handling the Data folder as Wrye Bash is now.

Oh, and please, for the love of Talos, leave the BSA unpacking to other tools where it belongs!

HadToRegister wrote: So if you're still using 0.52.3 then just continue using it then, problem solved, as you're not even using NMM for anything except to enable/disable mods and change the load order.
You're not even using it to it's fullest potential, so you'll be able to use that version forever.

jim_uk wrote: It won't work for newer titles, this months Skyrim Shiny Edition being one of them.

PirateZ86 wrote: @jim_uk: Please don't listen or reply to morons who have no common sense.

HadToRegister wrote:

PirateZ86 9 kudos 557 posts
@jim_uk: Please don't listen or reply to morons who have no common sense.

Wow, so you go straight to the ad hominems because someone has a different opinion than you?

Jesus christ dude, chill out.

ShalabiRogue wrote: @arthmoor This could be a dumb (or too long to answer) question but what do you have against file virtualization? For me the benefits are massive; quick and easy profiling, clean skyrim folder, quick and easy file priority, and MO lets me use Wrye Bash for bash patches and such even between profiles. I can't even think of a negative point.

Without MO I couldn't have both Enderal and Skyrim installed right now and quickly choose which one I want to play.

Arthmoor wrote: My main objection is having an intermediate layer between my OS and my game that is under the control of neither one and prone to bugs because neither one has been subjected to the appropriate levels of QA.

Plus I just don't see the point considering Wrye Bash has not had issues with "dirty data folders" since the BAIN installers module was perfected. Proven technology that gives you the kind of control MO users want without injecting code into the task to accomplish it.

IMO if you want something sufficient to separate Enderal from Skyrim you should be prepared to sacrifice the extra install space for it. Drive storage is cheap, and nothing beats a hard separation when it comes to guaranteeing one can't contaminate the other.

Also, I don't need to jump through hoops for each tool I want to use in order to get the virtual file system to notice it. Which ironically includes not having to faff about with that to make Wrye Bash work to do bashed patches with :P

moriador wrote: Yes, exactly.

There doesn't seem to be much point in using a file virtualization system if the CK can't see it.

ColdHarmonics wrote: While I can sympathize with this position, I think anybody who has taken the 5 minutes it takes to install and learn MO will soon understand its profound advantages and near-complete lack of disadvantages, 100% of the time. As someone who very much likes doing things myself, MO is a tool that lets me do things myself better. But, to each their own.

jim_uk wrote: Read what people have written, it's nothing to do with learning how to use it, don't assume people who prefer to do things differently are somehow ignorant.

Tannin42 wrote: > My main objection is having an intermediate layer between my OS and my game that is
> under the control of neither one and prone to bugs because neither one has been
> subjected to the appropriate levels of QA.

I understand this position although I would like to point out that
a) MO doesn't do anything different, technology-wise, from skse or enb. And your AV. And your graphics card support software. And probably at least half a dozen other tools you're running right now.
I would argue - in fact - that skse / skse plugins are a bigger safety risk than MO because with skse you're loading multiple dlls from different sources, some of which may be closed source.
MO is wider in scope but if you worry about MO you should be worrying about similar tools as well.
b) I've always advocated to run MO as limited user. With MO you can install mods without having write access to the game folder. As such it has limited potential for damage.
NMM otoh requires administrator rights and copies/deletes files outside its own "domain". You are very wrong if you think MO is a bigger security concern than Wrye Bash or NMM, it's the other way around.
MOs vfs is very complex and will thus contain (way) more bugs than a simpler solution but the damage these bugs may cause is far smaller.

> Plus I just don't see the point considering Wrye Bash has not had issues with "dirty data > folders" since the BAIN installers module was perfected.

But is it really perfect? MO has no problem with dirty data folders by design. Even if it's bugged. even if the user messes up. Even if you install mods and then manully remove wrye bash your data folder will be clean.
Relying on software to be perfect is a bit unrealistic in my experience. If a software is bugfree that only means you're not looking hard enough.

I'm not sure why I now ended up defending MO when I'm supposed to advocate the new Mod Manager ;)
I guess what I should be saying is: All solutions have their pros and cons. Trust me, I've spent years analyzing the alternatives, considered some that have never been implemented and there is no approach that is 100% superior to any other.
If you think MOs vfs is useless or if you think symbolic / hard links are wrong or direct installation is bad you just don't have all the facts or haven't considered how others want to mod.

Which is why I want to offer alternatives with the new manager and not presume to know what's best for each individual.

Eman17j wrote: Please do not take out the BSA unpacking tool I use it all the time. Its perfectly fine having it off by default and having to enable it but removing it seems extreme.

I'm not sure why I now ended up defending MO when I'm supposed to advocate the new Mod Manager

You got triggered, basically ;)