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

[UWShocks]

In response to post #43223160. #43223235, #43225810, #43226065, #43226570, #43226580, #43226675, #43226930, #43227145, #43227835, #43229000, #43229600, #43229700, #43231180, #43250055 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.

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. Edited October 15, 2016 by UWShocks

[elezraita]

In response to post #43222670. #43227380, #43227780, #43228265, #43228300, #43228380, #43228855, #43228880, #43229180, #43229215, #43229725 are all replies on the same post.

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

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

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

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

HadToRegister wrote: No

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HadToRegister wrote:

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

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

HadToRegister wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

With an understanding of xEdit and Wrye Bash, LOOT becomes redundant, in my estimation. LOOT cannot resolve outright conflicts or merge leveled lists; it simply decides which plugin has more records that should win the conflict (I guess. I honestly don't know what algorithm it uses to determine load order). This is all well and good, but no matter how time-consuming, I'd rather resolve conflicts using xEdit than trust a black box sorter, no matter how robust it has gotten. I will, however, gladly let Wrye merge my leveled lists...

[Obscerno]

Yeah Tannin, you're the bomb. I can't say how many times I had to scorch the earth that was my data folder before MO came along.

 

It started my terrible habit of building complimentary mod profiles instead of actually playing the game though... but that's my own fault. :P

 

Speaking of, have any mod managers made it possible to share mod profiles yet? Kind of like those old compilation overhaul mods, except the manager just downloads everything off the Nexus and orders everything for compatibility? It'd make me happy if the shiny new NMM shipped with that... :)

[lithan1]

I'm not sure if it's possible but I think the new Mod Manager should be set up to manage mods independently for Oblivion/ Skyrim and Nehrim/ Enderal

 

(As in managing mods indpendently for Oblivion and Nehrim, Skyrim and Enderal, etc)

[moriador]

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

@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]

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

@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.

[Ethreon]

In response to post #43238510.

prinyo wrote:

 

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

prinyo wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what should a future mod mager be like?

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

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

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

moriador wrote: @archerarcher,

Control. Precisely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

prinyo

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

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

I think he wants a working manager and also wants all you <<MO is better>> crown to bug off.

[Sharlikran]

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 I want to skip (not a pre-determined set or list, 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)
• Synchronize changed files from the Data folder to an installer folder and the reverse. (From and installer to the Data folder)
• 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 (Beta functionality currently implemented)
  • 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
• An option to flag files with the ESL flag for games that support ESL files.
• Enable and manage ESL flagged 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?

 

Edited November 12, 2019 by Sharlikran

[lithiumfox]

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

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.

[pedantic]

Well, if it isn't a virtual file system I ain't touching it with a barge pole. Yes, I used FOMM and OBMM etc. - even tried NMM for a while - and each one was unreliable and ultimately messed up my Data folder resulting in many hours of searching for remnants of mods which were supposedly uninstalled but, in fact, were not properly uninstalled at all and even " lost " files and assets. To be fair, all is fine until you start swapping out your load order for a new game or character.

 

MO, on the other hand, hasn't ever let me down. Oh well, I/we still have that I guess. I originally had high hopes when I first read about this new venture on the Steam forum but now I'm not so sure. It implied Tannin was going to be in control and I'm not so sure about that either now. Whatever....