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

[Tannin42]

This is best viewed from the forum.

 

 

 

 

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.

For me it's not about whether or not vfs or SymLinks are better, worse, or more efficient. Sometimes when I share an opinion it's not to convince someone I am right. I'm not always trying to prove anything one way or another. I just explain how I feel about it, and leave it at that.

 

I'm seeing a lot of good reasons about why people like things and what they want or don't want in a mod manager. Which is fine because everyone has their personal preference. My personal preference is that the files are copied directly to the data folder. However, that has nothing to do with the features of the mod manager itself.

 

What I'd like to suggest is to watch Gopher's video titled The ELDER SCROLLS Formula #1: Why do people love TES? Because in the video Gopher is suggesting that Bethesda needs to go back and look at all the things about Elder scrolls that people loved. People always talk about what they want added because they feel it's missing or what needs to be removed because they hate it. However, Gopher says that it's a sad fact that people don't talk about the things they are really happy with. So what things about mod managers am I happy with? What things are you happy with? What really provides you with what you need to install and manage mods?

 

All features in yellow are not offered by my current mod manager and would be nice features to have.

 

What I like when managing my mods:

• Download the file form the nexus by clicking on the webpage
• Enable or completely disable how files are installed to the Data folder (vfs as mentioned)
• Move a file higher or lower in the list of installers to overwrite files. Because uninstalling files and overwriting files in a certain order is difficult and can easily be done wrong. Which means you have to start over. Not to mention that it is easier to know where to drag the file and which files need to be overwritten when you can visually see conflicting files.
• See at a glance from the list of installers (colored indicator or icon) when files from the archive differ from the files in the data folder
• Manual way to refresh the CRC tracking of files in the Data folder, installer folders, and archives
• Tracking mod to monitor an external installation (EXE installer or manual install) when finished all new files tracked are converted into an archive or organized into a folder for instalation. Eliminating the need for the external installer.
• Report of all installed plugin files (copied to clipboard)
• Localization via Poedit
• Report of all installed mods downloaded from the nexus (name of the mod installed - copied to clipboard)
• Add my own custom categories I can use to organize my mods
• Organize mods by pre-determined categories like those used on the Nexus. Hide empty categories to avoid clutter.
• Double click the mod to view the archive's contents.
• Open the location of the archive or folder in the windows explorer
• Unpack the archive into a folder and install the files from the folder instead (without closing the mod manager)
• Rename or Delete the archive or folder
• Tell the mod manager what folder should be considered the Data folder (Where the plugin and resources are) Because I sometimes see archives with nested folders that I'm not interested in like "My Mod\it has a name\I want to have screen shots\then the plugin and other files"
• Option to remove superfluous folders previously mentioned but to the mod manager it's still considered the same file and same version I downloaded from the Nexus.
• A way to indicate which file and version it is if the information wasn't or isn't available to suppress warnings
• Display a list of all the files (from the installer folder or archive) with their directories that I can cut and paste anywhere I may need (copy to clipboard)
• A way to specify any files (not pre-determined, my choice) just anything I don't want (advanced users only)
• Suggested options offered to skip certain file types (readme files for example)
• Track orphan files in the data folder but not part of an installer (the ck built a new face gen file or topic info file)
• Tabs or some way to see at a glance
  • all the files in the archive
  • which files match what is in the data folder and the archive or folder
  • which files are missing (I didn't skip them)
  • which files are not the same in the data folder and the archive or folder (I edited the plugin in the CK so it changed or the CK compiled a script)
  • a list of all files with the same name and extension (they will conflict) from any folder, archive, or BSA/BA2 file
  • any skipped files
• A way to install files by
  • folder - no script - (00 Main, 01 Textures, 02 Alt Textures, 03 Body Slide, 04 Script Extender Plugins)
  • Install BAIN package
  • by OBMM
  • by C based scripts
  • NMM XML or Fomod
  • any other format that has been previously available
• A wysiwyg installer creator (BAT) that lets me
  • create a complex install archive by specifying folders and dragging and dropping files
  • a way to add pics and descriptions as needed
  • Complex enough to cover any situation and provide one file for users to download
  • A way to detect any plugin, texture, or file and only offer certain install options based on installed files (don't show a patch for Moda when it isn't installed)
  • I don't want to manually edit an xml or script file I want it built for me
• Ways to link to programs I find useful for modding such as LOOT, xEdit, NifSkope, Photoshop, Blender (create custom links as well as default options)
• A watchdog of sorts (not necessarily a DLL of the same name) that will notice when a file is added or removed from in the data folder and updates my list of plugins. The routine wouldn't auto activate the mod but would cleanse my load order
  • alters plugins.txt or loadorder.txt when applicable
  • loadorder.txt not used by Fallout 4 and future games with star load order
• If a mod author or user changes the ESM flag (of an ESP file) of a plugin the mod manager automatically moves the plugin into the ESM group above all the ESP files and alters load order files
• A watchdog that sees I removed an installer (file or folder) but the files are in the data folder and removes the files. Only tracks files installed with the mod manager and any remaining files become orphaned files.
• A way to clean out the data folder of all files that are not installed by the game or Construction Kit (vanilla install) Also leaving behind all files currently in the data folder from an active installer archive or folder
• A way to see the save game and which files were installed at the time the save game was made
• A way to build a report of which mods were used in the save game (copy to clipboard)
• A way to make different folders for my save games (set SLocalSavePath in game's INI to avoid copying files)
• Copy save games to other folders I have created (Other play through)
• Colored indicators to show
  • which mods in the save game are present and in the same location as the save game's header
  • present but at a different location
  • missing from my load order
  • separate color to show all files are present and have the exact same load order as the save game's header
• A report that shows mods that have been added or removed from my load order compared to the save game's header
• Activate only the files in the save game's header
• Sort the mods (excluding missing mods) in the same order as indicated in the save game header. Remaining files append to end of the list.
• Rename the mod in the save game header (When mod author changes the name but it's the same mod) unless author indicates not to because of extensive changes (doing the same to script extender co-saves)
• Display the screen shot from the save game header so I know how I want to organize the file
• A way to alter the INI files with commonly suggested settings that I can check and uncheck to apply them without knowing where the files are located on my HD
• A way to restore the default INI files

FO4Edit, TES5Edit, xEdit for short, just does what it does well. It doesn't sort or install files. I don't think Wrye ever preferred that Wrye Bash had mod management features. He and I only talked a few times and I don't remember for sure. However, some people wanted features not available from other mod managers. What if Wrye Bash just built the Bash Patch and did it well?

 

Currently "ONE" volunteer is refactoring Wrye Bash and has darn near completely rewritten the entire program. However, none of that has anything to do with building the Bash Patch. The current volunteer looks for ways to remove binaries and unneeded features in ways to benefit the program and its functionality. I wouldn't want to see all the development that has gone into Wrye Bash go to waste. What if Wrye Bash was separated into Mod Manager and Bash Patcher? While I can't write in Python and although I am not a current Wrye developer, I do work on the Wrye iterations for all the various games both for personal benefit and to benefit those who enjoy using Wrye. I know for the most part what files have to do with the the Patcher routines having dome some work on it.

 

Do you want to start from scratch? How long would it take to start form scratch and provide the above features? Could you use existing code and add to it?

 

 

 

Woah, Sharlikran, great list. When I started this project I created a similar list of features in MO / NMM (and Wrye Bash as far as I was aware because admittedly I never used it for long) but

your list contains some stuff I missed.

 

I can't promise we will implement all of that but I'll add the missing stuff to our to-do list for consideration.

Much of this I would consider advanced features so they wouldn't be part of the core application but implemented as extensions.

 

> What if Wrye Bash just built the Bash Patch and did it well?

 

and

 

> Currently "ONE" volunteer is refactoring Wrye Bash and has darn near completely rewritten the entire program.

 

Yeah, it would have been quite awesome if the Bashed Patch functionality would have been a separate application or a library because that would have made it much easier

to integrate it into other mod managers.

 

I've looked at the bashed patch code and it is quite complex stuff that requires a lot of experience with the file format. I would much rather have an extensions for the new mod manager

that bridges the gap to existing wrye bash code than trying to reimplement everything from scratch. This would allow both NMM devs and Wrye Bash devs to improve the routines

for the benefit of all. If he's willing, could you ask that one volunteer to contact me so we can see if we can get a cooperation going?

 

> Do you want to start from scratch? How long would it take to start form scratch and provide the above features? Could you use existing code and add to it?

 

We do create the mod manager from scratch but try to identify independent pieces of functionality from the existing managers, factor them into libraries, polish and try to reuse them.

I.e. we won't be rewriting all the fomod installer code and then try to make it compatible with all the existing installers, we will use the existing code from NMM and polish it to the

point where we can neatly integrate it into the new mod manager.

 

We can reuse code to a degree, it all depends on how "clean" the interface is.

[EpF]

In response to post #43256595.

Ronindoll wrote:

HI. I don't know if that i ask here it's correct place but i try :)

 

Who buy lifetime nexusmode ( i mean premium access ) will be transfer to new program MO ? Where i can find this new MO ?

Thank's for who can help / answer me :)

I am not a member of the nexus team, but I'm sure the new manager will be available to all once it's released and won't require premium membership.

As for the other question - it's not available yet. Keep your eye on the nexus sites and you'll see more news for it in time.

[UhuruNUru]

In response to post #43256595. #43256980 is also a reply to the same post.

Ronindoll wrote:

HI. I don't know if that i ask here it's correct place but i try :)

 

Who buy lifetime nexusmode ( i mean premium access ) will be transfer to new program MO ? Where i can find this new MO ?

Thank's for who can help / answer me :)

EpF wrote: I am not a member of the nexus team, but I'm sure the new manager will be available to all once it's released and won't require premium membership.

As for the other question - it's not available yet. Keep your eye on the nexus sites and you'll see more news for it in time.

No new MO, this is a new NMM, and it doesn't exist yet.
You bought lifetime premiun access to the Nexus Site, not NMM. NMM is free software, and the same for all users.

The only thing premium accounts get you, that free ones don't, is it gives you access to faster servers for downloads, which is a site feature, and one you will get no matter what.

This is a site feature the manager takes advantage of by linking to special servers.

@Tannin
Congratulations on the new job, as a long standing supporter of the original MO, I'm sad to see that end, but trust you can do great new things, now you can devote your full time efforts to the task.

The biggest issue I see as the greatest problem, is you can make a simple manager for all games, but you can't be an advanced manager for them all as well.

NMM is a Jack of all Games, Master of none.

There simply can't be one manager to rule them all, due to the multiple different engines. Managers dedicated to one game/engine, will always produce better advanced results, where generic ones will fail.

This is the major problem, I see by definition, generic solutions, will never be advanced, simply due to the fact, they must work for all games, not just one.

[jonboy]

In response to post #43223565.

AlexZander40 wrote: I've done manual modding, OBMM, FOMM, Wrye Bash modding, NMM modding and Mod Organizer modding. With the help of the modding community and tutorials, I've always managed to get a modded game playing and working great.

So far, I would have to say Mod Organizer has been my favorite Mod Manager. Just started using it last year on a fresh intall of Skyrim, and with awesome help of GamerPoets and Gopher on Youtube, it has been relatively hassle free. Though I still go into the Mod Organzier mod files and manually mess around a bit.

I think it's great that Tannin42 is going to work with Nexus for the next Nexus Mod Manager release. Since I haven't modded up and played Fallout 4 yet, I look forward to trying out the new NMM upon release for that game. Hopefully, the Profile system that Mod Organizer uses and keeping the Data folder untouched will be implemented. I love that about Mod Organizer.

^This

[UhuruNUru]

In response to post #43256930.

Tannin42 wrote:

This is best viewed from the forum.

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.

For me it's not about whether or not vfs or SymLinks are better, worse, or more efficient. Sometimes when I share an opinion it's not to convince someone I am right. I'm not always trying to prove anything one way or another. I just explain how I feel about it, and leave it at that.

I'm seeing a lot of good reasons about why people like things and what they want or don't want in a mod manager. Which is fine because everyone has their personal preference. My personal preference is that the files are copied directly to the data folder. However, that has nothing to do with the features of the mod manager itself.

What I'd like to suggest is to watch Gopher's video titled The ELDER SCROLLS Formula #1: Why do people love TES? Because in the video Gopher is suggesting that Bethesda needs to go back and look at all the things about Elder scrolls that people loved. People always talk about what they want added because they feel it's missing or what needs to be removed because they hate it. However, Gopher says that it's a sad fact that people don't talk about the things they are really happy with. So what things about mod managers am I happy with? What things are you happy with? What really provides you with what you need to install and manage mods?

All features in yellow are not offered by my current mod manager and would be nice features to have.

What I like when managing my mods:Download the file form the nexus by clicking on the webpageEnable or completely disable how files are installed to the Data folder (vfs as mentioned)Move a file higher or lower in the list of installers to overwrite files. Because uninstalling files and overwriting files in a certain order is difficult and can easily be done wrong. Which means you have to start over. Not to mention that it is easier to know where to drag the file and which files need to be overwritten when you can visually see conflicting files.See at a glance from the list of installers (colored indicator or icon) when files from the archive differ from the files in the data folderManual way to refresh the CRC tracking of files in the Data folder, installer folders, and archivesTracking mod to monitor an external installation (EXE installer or manual install) when finished all new files tracked are converted into an archive or organized into a folder for instalation. Eliminating the need for the external installer.Report of all installed plugin files (copied to clipboard)Localization via PoeditReport of all installed mods downloaded from the nexus (name of the mod installed - copied to clipboard)Add my own custom categories I can use to organize my modsOrganize mods by pre-determined categories like those used on the Nexus. Hide empty categories to avoid clutter.Double click the mod to view the archive's contents.Open the location of the archive or folder in the windows explorerUnpack the archive into a folder and install the files from the folder instead (without closing the mod manager)Rename or Delete the archive or folderTell the mod manager what folder should be considered the Data folder (Where the plugin and resources are) Because I sometimes see archives with nested folders that I'm not interested in like "My Mod\it has a name\I want to have screen shots\then the plugin and other files"Option to remove superfluous folders previously mentioned but to the mod manager it's still considered the same file and same version I downloaded from the Nexus.A way to indicate which file and version it is if the information wasn't or isn't available to suppress warningsDisplay a list of all the files (from the installer folder or archive) with their directories that I can cut and paste anywhere I may need (copy to clipboard)A way to specify any files (not pre-determined, my choice) just anything I don't want (advanced users only)Suggested options offered to skip certain file types (readme files for example)Track orphan files in the data folder but not part of an installer (the ck built a new face gen file or topic info file)Tabs or some way to see at a glanceall the files in the archivewhich files match what is in the data folder and the archive or folderwhich files are missing (I didn't skip them)which files are not the same in the data folder and the archive or folder (I edited the plugin in the CK so it changed or the CK compiled a script)a list of all files with the same name and extension (they will conflict) from any folder, archive, or BSA/BA2 fileany skipped filesA way to install files byfolder - no script - (00 Main, 01 Textures, 02 Alt Textures, 03 Body Slide, 04 Script Extender Plugins)Install BAIN packageby OBMMby C based scriptsNMM XML or Fomodany other format that has been previously availableA wysiwyg installer creator (BAT) that lets mecreate a complex install archive by specifying folders and dragging and dropping filesa way to add pics and descriptions as neededComplex enough to cover any situation and provide one file for users to downloadA way to detect any plugin, texture, or file and only offer certain install options based on installed files (don't show a patch for Moda when it isn't installed)I don't want to manually edit an xml or script file I want it built for meWays to link to programs I find useful for modding such as LOOT, xEdit, NifSkope, Photoshop, Blender (create custom links as well as default options)A watchdog of sorts (not necessarily a DLL of the same name) that will notice when a file is added or removed from in the data folder and updates my list of plugins. The routine wouldn't auto activate the mod but would cleanse my load orderalters plugins.txt or loadorder.txt when applicableloadorder.txt not used by Fallout 4 and future games with star load orderIf a mod author or user changes the ESM flag (of an ESP file) of a plugin the mod manager automatically moves the plugin into the ESM group above all the ESP files and alters load order filesA watchdog that sees I removed an installer (file or folder) but the files are in the data folder and removes the files. Only tracks files installed with the mod manager and any remaining files become orphaned files.A way to clean out the data folder of all files that are not installed by the game or Construction Kit (vanilla install) Also leaving behind all files currently in the data folder from an active installer archive or folderA way to see the save game and which files were installed at the time the save game was madeA way to build a report of which mods were used in the save game (copy to clipboard)A way to make different folders for my save games (set SLocalSavePath in game's INI to avoid copying files)Copy save games to other folders I have created (Other play through)Colored indicators to showwhich mods in the save game are present and in the same location as the save game's headerpresent but at a different locationmissing from my load orderseparate color to show all files are present and have the exact same load order as the save game's headerA report that shows mods that have been added or removed from my load order compared to the save game's headerActivate only the files in the save game's headerSort the mods (excluding missing mods) in the same order as indicated in the save game header. Remaining files append to end of the list.Rename the mod in the save game header (When mod author changes the name but it's the same mod) unless author indicates not to because of extensive changes (doing the same to script extender co-saves)Display the screen shot from the save game header so I know how I want to organize the fileA way to alter the INI files with commonly suggested settings that I can check and uncheck to apply them without knowing where the files are located on my HDA way to restore the default INI filesFO4Edit, TES5Edit, xEdit for short, just does what it does well. It doesn't sort or install files. I don't think Wrye ever preferred that Wrye Bash had mod management features. He and I only talked a few times and I don't remember for sure. However, some people wanted features not available from other mod managers. What if Wrye Bash just built the Bash Patch and did it well?

Currently "ONE" volunteer is refactoring Wrye Bash and has darn near completely rewritten the entire program. However, none of that has anything to do with building the Bash Patch. The current volunteer looks for ways to remove binaries and unneeded features in ways to benefit the program and its functionality. I wouldn't want to see all the development that has gone into Wrye Bash go to waste. What if Wrye Bash was separated into Mod Manager and Bash Patcher? While I can't write in Python and although I am not a current Wrye developer, I do work on the Wrye iterations for all the various games both for personal benefit and to benefit those who enjoy using Wrye. I know for the most part what files have to do with the the Patcher routines having dome some work on it.

Do you want to start from scratch? How long would it take to start form scratch and provide the above features? Could you use existing code and add to it?

 

Woah, Sharlikran, great list. When I started this project I created a similar list of features in MO / NMM (and Wrye Bash as far as I was aware because admittedly I never used it for long) but
your list contains some stuff I missed.

I can't promise we will implement all of that but I'll add the missing stuff to our to-do list for consideration.
Much of this I would consider advanced features so they wouldn't be part of the core application but implemented as extensions.

> What if Wrye Bash just built the Bash Patch and did it well?

and

> Currently "ONE" volunteer is refactoring Wrye Bash and has darn near completely rewritten the entire program.

Yeah, it would have been quite awesome if the Bashed Patch functionality would have been a separate application or a library because that would have made it much easier
to integrate it into other mod managers.

I've looked at the bashed patch code and it is quite complex stuff that requires a lot of experience with the file format. I would much rather have an extensions for the new mod manager
that bridges the gap to existing wrye bash code than trying to reimplement everything from scratch. This would allow both NMM devs and Wrye Bash devs to improve the routines
for the benefit of all. If he's willing, could you ask that one volunteer to contact me so we can see if we can get a cooperation going?

> Do you want to start from scratch? How long would it take to start form scratch and provide the above features? Could you use existing code and add to it?

We do create the mod manager from scratch but try to identify independent pieces of functionality from the existing managers, factor them into libraries, polish and try to reuse them.
I.e. we won't be rewriting all the fomod installer code and then try to make it compatible with all the existing installers, we will use the existing code from NMM and polish it to the
point where we can neatly integrate it into the new mod manager.

We can reuse code to a degree, it all depends on how "clean" the interface is.

Mator's Merge Plugins, and Mator Smash are the Standalone example to the Bashed Patch, I would use.
They both use xEdit at their core, and both work fine with MO. Mator Smash is not fully released, but shows greater promise, in my view.

Though Mator has/had put them on the backburner to work on the Mod Picker site, whether as plugins, or standalone, using the current functionality.

Then there's the fact you are focusing on older Bethesda games, which are a large part of the Nexus, but eventually, and maybe sooner than later, with the imminent arrival of 64-bit Skyrim, those games will not be the focus.

We come back to the difference I mentioned in another post.

NMM is a multi-engine manager, and you talk of one, and frankly, since NMM became multi-engine, all Skyrim Development ceased, and only features that work on all engines, has been added, that's incompatible with being advanced, which by it's nature must be engine specific, to be of any use.

My general rule is the manager most developed, when the modding is at it's peak, is the most advanced, and I find it telling, that only when the Wrye Bash Team, abandoned the game specific approach, did they lose focus on what makes an advanced manager work.
Making it work best for just one game, the more games added, the less advanced it becomes.

Examples
Morrowind = Wrye Mash
Oblivion = Wrye Mash
Fallout3/NV = Wrye Flash or FoMM (Fallout Mod Manager)
Dragon Age = DAOMM (Dragon Age Origins Mod Manager)
Skyrim = Mod Organizer

Can NMM be both advanced, and simple, for every game, I doubt it very much, and fear it will stifle the independant managers, from starting.

That has been seen with newer games, where NMM is an option, from the start.

A few devs have embraced the MO philosophy, of mod isolation (Witcher3, and XCOM 2, for example), and that helps, alleviate that need.

I wish you all the best, but see no way, one manager can be advanced for all games/engines, as that requires focvusing on features, only useful to one of them.

Sharlikran's post above, does just that, focuses on one, that's the problem, NMM doesn't.

[UhuruNUru]

In response to post #43223160. #43223235, #43225810, #43226065, #43226570, #43226580, #43226675, #43226930, #43227145, #43227835, #43229000, #43229600, #43229700, #43231180, #43250055, #43250125, #43252635, #43253770, #43254560, #43254880, #43255025 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.

elezraita wrote: 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.

UWShocks wrote: At least add an option for those that do want the files in the Data folders.. One of the reasons why I use NMM.
Makes tinkering around w/ CK and files (meshes, textures) much easier for me.

moriador wrote: @elezraita,

Thank you. That's a very full and descriptive answer! :)

I don't know why finding the information I need on how to get MO to work for me is so hard for me, but I read a lot of forum threads and watched more than a few tutorials. Almost all of them repeated the same information -- and not a single one explained how to use MO and the CK together. On the contrary, everything I read indicated that they didn't work together at all. To be sure, I couldn't find much anyway because almost all threads and tutorials seemed to assume that all you wanted to do was download and install mods. I found nothing specifically by or for mod authors EXCEPT the posts that said how using MO in conjunction with the CK was a royal PITA.

If the problem is that the info about MO is just disorganized and mostly outdated and sometimes simply incorrect, then the software is definitely worth looking into!

But -- seriously -- I've installed and used thousands of complex programs over the last four decades, so it's not as though I give up on software that easily.

I shall definitely give it another try!! (While waiting for the new mod manager to be developed.)

Arthmoor wrote: @elezraita: The mere fact that I'd even need to go through all that for every external tool I might want to use is one reason I don't like virtualized systems like that. Not everyone thinks it's such a great idea, which is why it belongs in an extension module for those who want it.

lithiumfox wrote: And I don't mind going through MO for every application. In fact, it's the least pain-in-the-butt system I've had to use for all of that.

Keep the VFS.

elezraita wrote: @moriador

You are probably right. There aren't really a whole lot of tutorials for using the CK and MO. I just learned how to use other third party programs and did the same thing for the CK. When I make a new plugin, it comes out in the overwrite mod and I just move it to its own mod at that point. I'll admit that getting scripts to compile from notepad++ while using MO was a royal pain. I had to download a mod to get it to work and then I had to write my own compile.bat. But after that, it was perfect. I honestly can see how people would get frustrated with that. I did, but I saw too many other advantages to MO to give up. My love of MO and all the misinformation I kept seeing led me too hyperbole. MO has its challenges, but I like it enough to spend time finding solutions. Not everyone is willing to do that. It depends on what one values. anyway, I made a tutorial a while ago about how I made a certain compatibility patch (because it was getting way more endorsements than it deserved). I wanted people to see how easy it was to make. In that tutorial, I used MO to open the CK, but that is about the extent of direct CK/MO tutorialage I know of. It's just that, except for setting up papyrus to compile from a text editor, it's basically the same as installing any other tool and launching it from MO.

@Arthmoor

I understand that not everyone thinks it's a good idea. I do; it works for me, as I explained. I understand that you like Wrye Bash. I like Wrye too, but I like MO more. I agree with you that virtualization a la MO should be an extension for NMO (as I'll call it for now). My purpose wasn't to tell people that their choice not to use MO is wrong. I'm perfectly fine with people using whatever tool they want. I just felt that I'd explain that MO isn't actually that hard to learn. I've seen quite a few comments expressing frustration about how certain tools don't work with MO at all, and I wanted to explain that they actually do. You understand that the way to get those tools to work in MO is the same way one gets the game to run in MO. If you don't like how those two things are accomplished, I'm fine with it. I just want people who don't understand the concept to get why those tools weren't working for them.

pedantic wrote: All that? All that what, Arthmoor.

You click on the executable ( The gears ) Type a name then click on the [ ... ] to navigate to the .exe and, well, that's all there is to it.

The external programs run from within MO aren't virtual at all, they simply read from the virtual .esm and .esp files and write back the result, from the CK as an example, to the overwrite folder with no harm done. If you're happy with what you've accomplished just drag and drop the thing onto the existing mod to update it or simply rename it and create a replacement mod. It's how I keep different versions of the self same mod. Childs play.

Edit: Yep, I even run Wrye from MO and it dumps the bashed patch in the overwrite, too.

NMM DOES NOT use a virtual file system.

It uses Hard Links/Symbolic Links, to move files in and out, there's nothing Virtual about it,simply naming a folder "Virtual", doesn't make it so

The big problem is that NMM needs 100% control, of everything.

It simply doesn't work properly with any 3rd party tools (FNIS, Bodyslide, etc), that changes, or adds new files.
These can, and will simply replace the links NMM relies on, with standard files

The result is, all these altered files remain in the data folder, when you switch profiles.

This is why Tannin rejected this linking method for MO, at the start, and went to the fully virtual system.

Even then it took MO years to iron out all the issues, that using 3rd party tools introduces. The "Overwrite" mod is not ideal, but it does work.

Basically it's not profile specific, which is why manual action is required.
Anything file that a 3rd party tool puts in the Data folder, with no mod linked to it, gets put in "Overwrite", for the user to move.

That's the big difference, MO works with 3rd party tools, and manual intervention.
NMM ignores it, and leaves the resulting mess in the data folder, but it only affects users who use multiple profiles, and the vast majority of multi-profile modders, use MO instead.

I've only discovered these issues with non Bethesda games, as MO is my choice for those.

Multi-profiles work in NMM, if you only use NMM on the Data folder files, it's a basic system, and not designed for advanced modding.

MO is Virtual file system, NMM is Hard/Sym Link file system.

[dizzy249]

In response to post #43236125. #43237275, #43237355, #43239080 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.

Eman17j wrote: @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

So, will MO2 work with Skyrim SE?

[FinnenH4wke]

Well, without virtualized system I'm not even touching it. I mean sure, when it's out I will download it and test it, that's my hobby after all and I want to know all the mod managers out there. However, I cannot simply imagine modding any game right now without virtualized system from Mod Organizer (unless I install 5-10 mods, but for game like Skyrim is more like 300-400, including retexture mods). People say that MO is more complicated or harder - umm, no. For me, NMM and any other classic Mod Managers are MUCH harder. There's one reason I will always use MO over any mod manager - it allows you to make mistakes while installing mods. Recently I've been making new MO profile and I cannot even remember how many times I changed installation order in left panel in Mod Organizer - 10? 15? Maybe more. If I was installing mods in NMM or other Mod Manager then I'd be screwed and it would take me more time to reinstall mods in correct order (terrible thing).

 

I also don't like installing conflicting mods with NMM (for example texture packs) that can conflict not only with eachother but also with SMIM and ELFX. I can understand that NMM makes some kind of copy when you overwrite some files of one mod with other one. But what if on top of that you add 3 other mods that conflict? Which copy is saved then? What if at some point I want to remove the mod in the middle? Which files will be restored? This was always soooo extremely confusing to me when I was using any other mod managers. It was completely solved by MO. This I cannot give up.

 

There's one more thing I like about virtualized system. Every mod has different folder and I can clearly see how mods overwrite each other. I couldn't see that in NMM (only during installation of the mod when it was asking me if I want to overwrite this and that file - but who remembers that in a long run?), therefore it was harder to resolve any conflicts. I know many people might say to me "If you had to reorganize your mods so many times, then you should plan more what you want to install and get them in a correct order". I'm sorry... what? Plan? Think? No thanks :D I prefer to get mods as they go, install them as they go and THEN reorder them in the left panel the way I want when I see how ALL of them conflict with eachother. Much easier, less hassle, less thinking, less planning. Better. WIthout VFS this will be just other mod manager that dumps file into Data folder - what's unique about MO is the VFS so if it won't be available then I can't see how NMM will be better.

 

As a curiosity I will tell you one thing. I was using MO for 2 years and recently I thought I would play Oblivion for the first time. I went with classic tools like OBMM (in other words - classic mod managers that install files to Data folder). I felt lost, I felt blind. I wanted to pluck my hair out after 1 hour of using that. Even though it was a hassle I gave up, went back to MO and I managed to finally get Oblivion working with MO (for some reason OBSE plugins weren't working through VFS so I had to install them manually to data folder + I had to manually activate "archive invalidation" to get textures to work). Even though it was more work, it felt like home. So yeah, you have a "proof" that for people like me going back to classic mod managers is just terrible. MO allows you to make so many mistakes and fix them later on in a matter of seconds - that's for me the most important thing.

Edited October 15, 2016 by kazuyuki

[Arthmoor]

In response to post #43223160. #43223235, #43225810, #43226065, #43226570, #43226580, #43226675, #43226930, #43227145, #43227835, #43229000, #43229600, #43229700, #43231180, #43250055, #43250125, #43252635, #43253770, #43254560, #43254880, #43255025, #43258040 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.

elezraita wrote: 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.

UWShocks wrote: At least add an option for those that do want the files in the Data folders.. One of the reasons why I use NMM.
Makes tinkering around w/ CK and files (meshes, textures) much easier for me.

moriador wrote: @elezraita,

Thank you. That's a very full and descriptive answer! :)

I don't know why finding the information I need on how to get MO to work for me is so hard for me, but I read a lot of forum threads and watched more than a few tutorials. Almost all of them repeated the same information -- and not a single one explained how to use MO and the CK together. On the contrary, everything I read indicated that they didn't work together at all. To be sure, I couldn't find much anyway because almost all threads and tutorials seemed to assume that all you wanted to do was download and install mods. I found nothing specifically by or for mod authors EXCEPT the posts that said how using MO in conjunction with the CK was a royal PITA.

If the problem is that the info about MO is just disorganized and mostly outdated and sometimes simply incorrect, then the software is definitely worth looking into!

But -- seriously -- I've installed and used thousands of complex programs over the last four decades, so it's not as though I give up on software that easily.

I shall definitely give it another try!! (While waiting for the new mod manager to be developed.)

Arthmoor wrote: @elezraita: The mere fact that I'd even need to go through all that for every external tool I might want to use is one reason I don't like virtualized systems like that. Not everyone thinks it's such a great idea, which is why it belongs in an extension module for those who want it.

lithiumfox wrote: And I don't mind going through MO for every application. In fact, it's the least pain-in-the-butt system I've had to use for all of that.

Keep the VFS.

elezraita wrote: @moriador

You are probably right. There aren't really a whole lot of tutorials for using the CK and MO. I just learned how to use other third party programs and did the same thing for the CK. When I make a new plugin, it comes out in the overwrite mod and I just move it to its own mod at that point. I'll admit that getting scripts to compile from notepad++ while using MO was a royal pain. I had to download a mod to get it to work and then I had to write my own compile.bat. But after that, it was perfect. I honestly can see how people would get frustrated with that. I did, but I saw too many other advantages to MO to give up. My love of MO and all the misinformation I kept seeing led me too hyperbole. MO has its challenges, but I like it enough to spend time finding solutions. Not everyone is willing to do that. It depends on what one values. anyway, I made a tutorial a while ago about how I made a certain compatibility patch (because it was getting way more endorsements than it deserved). I wanted people to see how easy it was to make. In that tutorial, I used MO to open the CK, but that is about the extent of direct CK/MO tutorialage I know of. It's just that, except for setting up papyrus to compile from a text editor, it's basically the same as installing any other tool and launching it from MO.

@Arthmoor

I understand that not everyone thinks it's a good idea. I do; it works for me, as I explained. I understand that you like Wrye Bash. I like Wrye too, but I like MO more. I agree with you that virtualization a la MO should be an extension for NMO (as I'll call it for now). My purpose wasn't to tell people that their choice not to use MO is wrong. I'm perfectly fine with people using whatever tool they want. I just felt that I'd explain that MO isn't actually that hard to learn. I've seen quite a few comments expressing frustration about how certain tools don't work with MO at all, and I wanted to explain that they actually do. You understand that the way to get those tools to work in MO is the same way one gets the game to run in MO. If you don't like how those two things are accomplished, I'm fine with it. I just want people who don't understand the concept to get why those tools weren't working for them.

pedantic wrote: All that? All that what, Arthmoor.

You click on the executable ( The gears ) Type a name then click on the [ ... ] to navigate to the .exe and, well, that's all there is to it.

The external programs run from within MO aren't virtual at all, they simply read from the virtual .esm and .esp files and write back the result, from the CK as an example, to the overwrite folder with no harm done. If you're happy with what you've accomplished just drag and drop the thing onto the existing mod to update it or simply rename it and create a replacement mod. It's how I keep different versions of the self same mod. Childs play.

Edit: Yep, I even run Wrye from MO and it dumps the bashed patch in the overwrite, too.

UhuruNUru wrote: NMM DOES NOT use a virtual file system.

It uses Hard Links/Symbolic Links, to move files in and out, there's nothing Virtual about it,simply naming a folder "Virtual", doesn't make it so

The big problem is that NMM needs 100% control, of everything.

It simply doesn't work properly with any 3rd party tools (FNIS, Bodyslide, etc), that changes, or adds new files.
These can, and will simply replace the links NMM relies on, with standard files

The result is, all these altered files remain in the data folder, when you switch profiles.

This is why Tannin rejected this linking method for MO, at the start, and went to the fully virtual system.

Even then it took MO years to iron out all the issues, that using 3rd party tools introduces. The "Overwrite" mod is not ideal, but it does work.

Basically it's not profile specific, which is why manual action is required.
Anything file that a 3rd party tool puts in the Data folder, with no mod linked to it, gets put in "Overwrite", for the user to move.

That's the big difference, MO works with 3rd party tools, and manual intervention.
NMM ignores it, and leaves the resulting mess in the data folder, but it only affects users who use multiple profiles, and the vast majority of multi-profile modders, use MO instead.

I've only discovered these issues with non Bethesda games, as MO is my choice for those.

Multi-profiles work in NMM, if you only use NMM on the Data folder files, it's a basic system, and not designed for advanced modding.

MO is Virtual file system, NMM is Hard/Sym Link file system.

@pedantic:

You click on the executable ( The gears ) Type a name then click on the [ ... ] to navigate to the .exe and, well, that's all there is to it.

For everything needed to mod the game. At some point one has to concede that needing to do this special for MO vs not having to do it at all is "all that" and it's seen as an inconvenience to more people than you seem to realize.

[HellKnightX88]

In response to post #43224730. #43229715, #43231195, #43231225, #43234520, #43237900, #43238095, #43248580, #43248780, #43256345, #43256845 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

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

FreeWare wrote: How about NMM v2.0? Or 1.0 could work too. The name doesn't really need to change, it's already as good as it can be.

spartanops101 wrote: NMUMMMO - Nexus Mod's Ultimate Mod Manager and Mod Organiser

Voting for NeMO.

Optionally include images of sushi.