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

[PirateZ86]

In response to post #43210430. #43215310, #43215490, #43215920, #43216655, #43217565, #43217935, #43218210, #43222660, #43225585, #43227190, #43227900, #43227920, #43237490, #43238795, #43239135, #43239200, #43239375, #43239605 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.

Dark0ne wrote:

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 ;)

Eman17j wrote: @moriador

The CK does see it. I just had to run the CK thru MO and it works just the same as if it was installed directly into the data folder

Sonja wrote: I'm one of those stick-in-the-mud types, and I still use Wrye Smash to install mods, enable them and change their order... Works great! :)
The only real down side, of course, as compared to MO, is that you can't create separate profiles. But, if you just want something fairly simple, it does the job nicely.

No offence to either MO, or NMM.. it's just what I'm used to, and for me, at least, "If it ain't broke...." ;)

People who really likes wrye bash can continue to use them because it exists and still in development. The main people who are at loss are people using MO because it's discontinued. Just don't make us mod the way you think it's better for us. And i can guarantee, people using WB won't move to the new mod managers but would like to have a second choice. Seriously think about others too.

[lasse1001]

In response to post #43242800.

janishewski wrote: I'm not sure if this is where we should post ideas for the new program, but since one of the struggles stated is finding that balance between ease of use for casual users and access and complexity for advanced users, it might be as simple as a toggle button to hide advanced features, block certain keybinding shortcuts, etc. Just have an icon that switches between B and A when you click on it to give the Basic and Advanced interface. Or it's a stupid idea and I look foolish. Either way it is out there now :).

Nope, you look great from up here. It's a good idea to not scare people away if it may seem complicated at first sight, and instead later be able to turn on more features when we miss them. :) Changes are a good and necessary thing, but should not be forced on.

[Revan7even]

In response to post #43246710.

diyeath wrote: Thank god. NMM while constantly improving is not exactly a good, reasonably bug free program. It'll be nice to see a lot of these hickups addressed.

That's become especially evident with Fallout 4: many times a mod has failed to install or uninstall and NMM closes itself, then when I get the mod to install/uninstall I find there are loose files from the previously failed attempts that I have to clean out manually.

[lemonsquare]

In response to post #43228135. #43228440, #43228710, #43228800, #43229750, #43229950, #43230240, #43231080, #43231240, #43232990 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)

archerarcher wrote: 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...

Good lord, did you even read the bloody article? Unbelievable...

[fgambler]

In response to post #43224730. #43229715, #43231195, #43231225, #43234520, #43237900, #43238095 are all replies on the same post.

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

Tannin42 wrote: Suggestions are welcome... :D

GuardianAngel42 wrote: NNMM: New Nexus Mod Manager.

renthal311 wrote: hahaha Fgambler, I'm with tears in his eyes :D :D

pStyl3 wrote: NexMO = Nexus Mod Organizer

HadToRegister wrote: I like what someone previously suggested but without the 'x'

NeMO = Nexus Mod Organizer

Thallassa wrote: I think NeMO is the best one I've heard, but I'm still partial to "NOMM" (not quite sure how that acronym works out but it's cute).

NeMO kinda sounds nice but not so serious, it's a name either attached to a fish or a nintendo 8-bit game :P

[HadToRegister]

In response to post #43224730. #43229715, #43231195, #43231225, #43234520, #43237900, #43238095, #43248580 are all replies on the same post.

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

Tannin42 wrote: Suggestions are welcome... :D

GuardianAngel42 wrote: NNMM: New Nexus Mod Manager.

renthal311 wrote: hahaha Fgambler, I'm with tears in his eyes :D :D

pStyl3 wrote: NexMO = Nexus Mod Organizer

HadToRegister wrote: I like what someone previously suggested but without the 'x'

NeMO = Nexus Mod Organizer

Thallassa wrote: I think NeMO is the best one I've heard, but I'm still partial to "NOMM" (not quite sure how that acronym works out but it's cute).

fgambler wrote: NeMO kinda sounds nice but not so serious, it's a name either attached to a fish or a nintendo 8-bit game :P

I was thinking of a famous Submarine Captain from a book by Jules Verne ;)

[Deleted23213994User]

In response to post #43210430. #43215310, #43215490, #43215920, #43216655, #43217565, #43217935, #43218210, #43222660, #43225585, #43227190, #43227900, #43227920, #43237490, #43238795, #43239135, #43239200, #43239375, #43239605, #43247190 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.

Dark0ne wrote:

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 ;)

Eman17j wrote: @moriador

The CK does see it. I just had to run the CK thru MO and it works just the same as if it was installed directly into the data folder

Sonja wrote: I'm one of those stick-in-the-mud types, and I still use Wrye Smash to install mods, enable them and change their order... Works great! :)
The only real down side, of course, as compared to MO, is that you can't create separate profiles. But, if you just want something fairly simple, it does the job nicely.

No offence to either MO, or NMM.. it's just what I'm used to, and for me, at least, "If it ain't broke...." ;)

PirateZ86 wrote: People who really likes wrye bash can continue to use them because it exists and still in development. The main people who are at loss are people using MO because it's discontinued. Just don't make us mod the way you think it's better for us. And i can guarantee, people using WB won't move to the new mod managers but would like to have a second choice. Seriously think about others too.

You say that now, but if Tannin wasn't the main developer of NMM, you'd still be using the janky NMM. So keep in mind the THE ONE who will fix NMM is the one who made MO. Edited October 15, 2016 by Guest

[Revan7even]

In response to post #43228135. #43228440, #43228710, #43228800, #43229750, #43229950, #43230240, #43231080, #43231240, #43232990, #43248095 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)

archerarcher wrote: 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...

lemonsquare wrote: Good lord, did you even read the bloody article? Unbelievable...

As a college student who took C++ and had the most ambitious final group-project in the class -- making an ASCII maze that appeared 3D -- bug-testing is an enormous amount of work. I had to combine my code with that of two other people who had different styles and methods and it took a full week of debugging up to second the instructor called on us to even get it to work visually.
Working on something that was originally conceived by a different programmer and built up by others over a decade can only result in something astronomically convoluted eventually (like the Gamebryo Engine). I'm wholeheartedly on board with the decision to make a new one from scratch, especially accompanying a site redesign. I only hope both can exceed our expectations.

Glad virtualization will be optional as Tannin42 posted, as I personally only use one mod profile, and after trying Multi-HardDrive mode once I'm not going to bother as Fallout 4 and Skyrim are the only big games installed on my 250GB SSD and I still have 100GB to spare. Any other games go on my 1TB drive.

[Eman17j]

In response to post #43218780.

dannyrmortenson1993 wrote: I know that the issue i'm about to refer to probably does not apply to a whole lot of users, but will this new software fix the issue with 7zip sharp that some of us have been having when trying to install mods? i've had to manually install quite a few files now (not that i can't do it i'm just lazy) and i really hope to stop having to do that. other than that thank you guys for all the hard work!

Have you tried unpacking the 7zip file then repacking them in the ZIP format? Ive done this with larger mods and they work better this way. Unpacking 7zip files is slower then ZIP files. I am using MO but I play with TTW which has quite a large install and turning it into a ZIP file made the install much faster.

[elezraita]

In response to post #43223160. #43223235, #43225810, #43226065, #43226570, #43226580, #43226675, #43226930, #43227145, #43227835, #43229000, #43229600, #43229700, #43231180 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.

Tanker1985 wrote: @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.

Exoclyps wrote: Gotta voice my opinion here as well. The way MO does the Virtualization is just awesome. Separating everything by folder makes it so easy for me to keep track of it and the main reason why I love MO.

I don't understand why people can't figure out how to use MO. I get that it is different, but there are so many wonderful tutorials out there explaining how to get third party programs to work with MO. I install enbs through MO using Casmithy's EnbMan. I use TES5Edit, the CK, dyndolod, Bodyslide, Merge Plugins, FNIS, any and all Skyproc patchers, you name it. Through MO, I can see and manipulate my "Data Folder" as I could if my mods were installed my actual data folder. And guess what: my actual data folder is completely vanilla. I can edit my inis without actually editing my inis. What's even better is that I have another option as well: I can look at and manipulate my mods on an individual basis without having to search for assets in a mess of a regular data folder. I just go to the mods folder in the MO directory, and I can find the mod that contains the asset. Finally, I love that I can hide unnecessary plugins so they don't clutter my load order. I don't have to delete them. They are still contained in the mod folder in case I need them again.

I could go on and on, but people keep saying that NMM is better for people who make mods and do advanced things, and that NMM is more streamlined for beginners who want a simple process. Which is it? I'd say that those people just haven't taken the time to understand how smooth MO makes everything. It's perfect for beginners, because you install mods the same way you do with NMM: you click the download link and you click "install" from the installation tab. The difference is, that if you screw up the installation order, you simply change the mod's priority, as easily as you change your plugin load order instead of uninstalling all the out of order mods and reinstalling them in the correct order. Mod Organizer does not force its advanced features on amateur mod users. It's just that MO forces you to think a little differently than you might be used to. It has a slight learning curve that is really just a small paradigm shift curve.

Sorry for the rant. If people want use NMM because they think it's easier, more power to them. I just don't like all of the misinformation I've seen here regarding Mod Organizer in this thread.