We have a name! And a Q&A session with Tannin regarding the new mod manager.

[Tannin42]

In response to post #49982472. #49983957, #49985507, #49987442, #49997457 are all replies on the same post.

Tannin42 wrote:

So, does this mean Vortex is going to retain copies of mods we download? So for example, getting a new version of say SMIM from Skyrim is a massive influx of data. Is it going to be able to handle those large files without issue? And can it properly dump them when I want them removed, either because of an upgrade, or because I no longer want the mod?

 

Not sure I understand the question. When you install a mod you basically have 3 steps:
- download the mod
- install the mod (into a separate directory)
- enable the mod

At this point you have the original archive from nexus which you are free to delete to free up space or not.

You have the installed mod. If there was an installer, this is only the selected options. No files here get deleted or replaced by other mods

Finally, you have a bunch of links to the files in the game directory.

 

You can disable the mod and it will remove the links and of course you can remove the mod altogether.
I'm not aware of any problems with large files, SMIM didn't cause any trouble in my testing.

Hackfield wrote: I think what he meant it's, when you download a mod with NMM, the zip file is stored in the "mods" folder of NMM, when you install it, it decompresses the file into a folder and creates the symlinks, but the original zip file is still in the "mods" folder.
At this point, a mod is actually using twice the space needed (zip file + decompressed folder, really noticeable in large mods like SMIM or texture mods that can reach easily a GB or more).

In MO you could delete the downloaded zip file to save space and the content of the mod would still be installed, but in NMM, if you delete the downloaded zip file, NMM removes the mod completely.

KunoMochi wrote: Actually, you can remove the mod archive in NMM and the mod will still stay installed.

When NMM extracts/decompresses the mod archive, it is momentarily extracted/decompressed to the NMM Temp folder. Once finished, the files get moved into the Virtual Install.

You might want to check where the Temp folder is located at in the NMM Settings.

Hackfield wrote: Well, NMM options are: uninstall from current profile, from all profiles and "delete mod (permanently) and uninstall", there is no option to delete the zip file only.

If you delete the zip file manually, NMM will prompt an error and "uninstall" that mod claiming that it couldn't find it (It doesn't actually delete the files, but removes the mod from NMM, losing management control over it and all its assets).

KunoMochi wrote: Well, yes. The current NMM depends on whether or not it sees the mod archive in the Mods folder for proper management, but you are still able to enable/disable and manipulate the plugin in the load order list. After all, the mod files are still installed.

If you were to insert the archive back in, NMM should allow you to manage the mod like before again. You just might need to restart NMM for the mod to appear back on the list.

Although I've never tried, you might be able to insert a dummy (empty) archive with the same file name to keep the mod management without having to keep the real archive around.

Yes, Vortex will by default keep the zip around but you can remove it without removing the mod.

[Deleted42240165User]

I know it's been mentioned that Vortex can sort mod priorities automatically, but the answer only referred to a LOOT-style compatibility order between gameplay changing mods. What about textures? Say I install Skyrim 2K as a base and then use Noble Skyrim 2K on top of it followed by Vivid Landscapes. Am I able to just drag and drop them on the list in the order I want just like MO? That was a core feature that made MO the best mod manager for graphics whores like me.

[Sennerezza]

In response to post #49993792.

Raider480 wrote: Well, it is very nice to have an in-depth report on the progress of the new mod manager.

But come on, a couple of these are just silly. Paring down good MO features because users might not be "tech-savvy" enough to avoid a virus scanner mucking with their mod manager? I know the idea is to make the new organizer more accessible to users, but at some point the hand holding has to stop. Especially if the trouble is PEBKAC.

And "virtualisation is objectively superior" is the same kind of hubris that got the old method removed from NMM 0.60.x without recourse. Not everybody cares about all these sorts of shiny profiling features and other accouterments that come along.

I get the concerns about migrating across evolving manifest formats, but hanging an argument for the Vortex implementation on "you _might_ want to move your entire installation and you _might_ break your installed mods and the manifest _might_ get corrupted and the mod manager _might_ not be able to fix it" is rather unconvincing in my opinion.

Also, the name. "Vortex" seems a bit... puerile?

You bring up a good point with the tech-savviness & virus scanner paragraph, but that's not the real issue with VFS. As Tannin says there are multiple programs that are incompatible with the system, for example even Bodyslide and Outfit Studio have trouble running under VFS and when I'm using them I have to switch into and out of VFS to use different features of the programs.

Vortex will need to be compatible with more than just Bethesda games, and the small dev team can't spend weeks on each game that rejects VFS. I can imagine VFS implementation will at first be small-scale, wouldn't surprise me if it's pretty much limited to just Bethesda games, so it's better to focus initial release on a rock-steady but limited type of virtualization.

Also yeah, Vortex is frankly a ridiculous name ( https://xkcd.com/856/ ). Mod Organizer, Bodyslide, Outfit Studio, Wrye Bash. Okay so, Wrye Bash isn't that sensible a name, but the other three are pretty iconic in Bethesda game modding. What I'm saying is try not to resort to random trochees and don't be afraid to make it sensible by using two or three words; going serious with the name is a good way to avoid ridicule.

[Tannin42]

In response to post #50000452.

StukaXCII wrote: I know it's been mentioned that Vortex can sort mod priorities automatically, but the answer only referred to a LOOT-style compatibility order between gameplay changing mods. What about textures? Say I install Skyrim 2K as a base and then use Noble Skyrim 2K on top of it followed by Vivid Landscapes. Am I able to just drag and drop them on the list in the order I want just like MO? That was a core feature that made MO the best mod manager for graphics whores like me.

You would use drag&drop to set up a connection between those two mods and then tell Vortex to load Noble Skyrim 2K after Skyrim 2K.

This way you don't define the exact load order between the mods, just that one has to come after the other.

[Tannin42]

In response to post #49993792. #50000522 is also a reply to the same post.

Raider480 wrote: Well, it is very nice to have an in-depth report on the progress of the new mod manager.

But come on, a couple of these are just silly. Paring down good MO features because users might not be "tech-savvy" enough to avoid a virus scanner mucking with their mod manager? I know the idea is to make the new organizer more accessible to users, but at some point the hand holding has to stop. Especially if the trouble is PEBKAC.

And "virtualisation is objectively superior" is the same kind of hubris that got the old method removed from NMM 0.60.x without recourse. Not everybody cares about all these sorts of shiny profiling features and other accouterments that come along.

I get the concerns about migrating across evolving manifest formats, but hanging an argument for the Vortex implementation on "you _might_ want to move your entire installation and you _might_ break your installed mods and the manifest _might_ get corrupted and the mod manager _might_ not be able to fix it" is rather unconvincing in my opinion.

Also, the name. "Vortex" seems a bit... puerile?

Sennerezza wrote: You bring up a good point with the tech-savviness & virus scanner paragraph, but that's not the real issue with VFS. As Tannin says there are multiple programs that are incompatible with the system, for example even Bodyslide and Outfit Studio have trouble running under VFS and when I'm using them I have to switch into and out of VFS to use different features of the programs.

Vortex will need to be compatible with more than just Bethesda games, and the small dev team can't spend weeks on each game that rejects VFS. I can imagine VFS implementation will at first be small-scale, wouldn't surprise me if it's pretty much limited to just Bethesda games, so it's better to focus initial release on a rock-steady but limited type of virtualization.

Also yeah, Vortex is frankly a ridiculous name ( https://xkcd.com/856/ ). Mod Organizer, Bodyslide, Outfit Studio, Wrye Bash. Okay so, Wrye Bash isn't that sensible a name, but the other three are pretty iconic in Bethesda game modding. What I'm saying is try not to resort to random trochees and don't be afraid to make it sensible by using two or three words; going serious with the name is a good way to avoid ridicule.

So I give two arguments against the MO virtualisation and you counter one with "who cares about 90% of the users" and ignore the one that you don't have a counter-argument for.
Vortex is not dumbed down, how can you even suggest that without having seen anything? We've only been talking about an implementation detail not about functionality.

> Not everybody cares about all these sorts of shiny profiling features and other
> accouterments that come along.

So you don't care about the robustness of your mod installation? You don't care whether a single update of the management software can break your mod installation? You don't care if disabling a mod takes a second or 5 minutes? You don't care how many features we have to drop because we're busy writing and testing migration paths for the manifest?
Again, you ignore most of what the article says and focus only on the part that you have an argument against.

> I get the concerns about migrating across evolving manifest formats, but hanging an
> argument for the Vortex implementation on "you _might_ want to move your entire
> installation and you _might_ break your installed mods and the manifest _might_ get
> corrupted and the mod manager _might_ not be able to fix it" is rather unconvincing in
> my opinion.

Historically both NMM and Wrye Bash had trouble maintaining the manifest reliably and it would be pure arrogance to assume we won't make any such mistakes ever.
And it's not only our mistakes, users modifying/installing mods manually or through other means (steam workshop, beth.net, ...) also break the manifest.
Given enough time and enough users a non-robust solution will break. A lot. This is not a possibility it's a certainty.

Saying we shouldn't plan for robustness because may not break is like removing all seat belts from cars because not everyone is in a car accident all the time.

[SorrelKat]

In response to post #49984342. #49985262, #49989507, #49992427, #49994012 are all replies on the same post.

Bonechip wrote: Great update.... thank you.

Request: Can it be made so the website reflects what you have installed?

IE: If I have BadAssGunMod001 installed... when I visit the mod's page, or see it in a list, it will show "Installed".

When you have over 200 mods installed, it is sometimes easy to forget when one is trolling around looking for more.

sgtmcbiscuits wrote: That's actually a great idea! Especially when changing modlists between playthroughs and such, it can be easy to forget what all you have. Even better would be if mod authors could state which mods are incompatible with others, and if it sees that you have that mod installed, it could warn you. That one would definitely be harder to support, as it requires authors to do a little extra work rather than the site doing it automatically, but for casual users that don't understand incompatibilities and the like, that would be a lifesaver

Gribbleshnibit8 wrote: A lot of extra work that would quickly go out of date. Not really possible, no matter how convenient it'd be.

SorrelKat wrote: Do you want mod authors to devote time to developing, or to doing things like this? Choose...

ReaperTai wrote: Actually I do see a middle ground here. There is already a format for required mods popup so simply add another optional popup for incompatibilities that can be filled in like the required. If or as any arise the author has a option to display them that way.

Okay, not a bad solution. That will make it up to each author if and/or what they want to include, and the complaints for not doing so will be right on their mods where they have the option of banning users. Makes sense. :D

[QuantumBios]

In response to post #49980317.

FatherGuse wrote: .. that was/is one of the flat-out best "press releases" ever .. right to the point with very good (simple) explanations and examples .. well done, said, and presented .. I am REALLY looking forward to this next step .. so let me ask a couple of simple (I hope) questions .. well. one question broken down into two questions/scenarios ..

Question: If I have a game (Fallout 4, for example) heavily modded and "something" breaks (and I get recurring CTDs), will I be able to "Purge" all of the MODs and return to a Vanilla Game without having to delete and reinstall the game itself?

Question: Will the "Purge" Feature allow me to remove only certain MODs and keep "Core" MODs (like the Unofficial Patch and F4SKE, for example). It would seem like, with all the "inter-linking" of "Required MODs" between some of these MODs (authors) it would be much easier to "nuke" (pun intended) everything except "Core MODs" (for lack of a better term) and just re-build your game/MOD selection (rather than trying to keep track of who's MOD needs who's MOD). this would be at the "User" level and not something for the software/program to decide .. like little "Check Boxes" under a Purge Menu to select specific files to purge, or designated "Core Mods" to save .. or both.

.. okay .. not so simple, and not so short questions .. my apologies.

I like this idea of a vanilla "masterlist". One could even add certain mods to the "masterlist if they are known to be problem free. Cool idea, hope they implement something like that!

[QuantumBios]

Excited to hear about Vortex. I'd like to be considered for a alpha testing slot please.

 

Guess it's time for a recurring subscription. I knew it was always inevitable.

 

Time to rebuild Ten Pines again.

[ozoak]

 

In response to post #49996382.

 

 

 

ozoak wrote:

If Vortex will have virtualization "more like NMM" and a UI "more like NMM", why not call it by its real name--NMM 0.7?

Unfortunately, so long as Vortex lacks the same virtualization system as the original Mod Organizer, I'll be yet another person who doesn't plan to use it.

I have to agree. I'm pleased we've had an update, and I know Tannin you've said that proper VFS isn't permanently off the table, but the two greatest strengths of MO were the VFS and the (I'm going to say it) simple drag and drop reordering and priority organisation. The later is merely (I mean no disrespect) an orderly UI and process, whilst the first, the VFS, is a technological superior solution. I understand that it may have been a solution looking for a problem, as you say, but without it...this feels a bit disappointing.

Anyway, sorry for the criticism but if we all just shut-up about it you might not get a real appreciation for how much *we* appreciate the vfs :smile:

What it provided was brilliant, really, and if whitelisting Vortex in any antivirus is really a factor in the decision to not pursue it, then I think we're not giving enough credit to users; so many things require whitelisting these days, it's not really a 'tech-head' thing any more. I'm sure there's more to it than that one factor, but it really would be the one thing I would keep from MO if I had to get rid of everything else.

That said, how will Vortex handle running a multi-user shared environment, ie: one PC, multiple Windows users using same game (not simultaneously, of course)?

Well, everything is trade-off and we've been considering the options we have and I'm very confident that we have the best trade-off for the majority of users.

I know many are sceptical because they had bad experiences with NMM 0.6 but I would really suggest you try Vortex once it's out with an open mind.

The attitude "I didn't like NMM 0.6 so I'm not touching anything that works similar" is just not very productive.

 

And the AV thing was a serious problem with MO, even there there were enough users who didn't understand the error was a false positive and were worried MO contained a virus.

Plus there is AV software around that will simply delete files from the MO package during install without even telling the user about it or why.

 

 

That's not quite my attitude, honestly - I don't recall NMM with their virtualisation, what I recall is that when I used your MO I found the complete virtualisation a god-send in a multi-user environment, and so immediately switched to it :smile: I bear no ill-will towards NMM.

 

I provide support, not development, for software and I'm painfully aware on a daily basis just how problematic AV is, not to get off-topic but it's a continual war of evolution. The most current iterations of "behavioural" type monitoring and scanning, for instance, cause headaches for us (and others). (We've had multiple instances across multiple AV vendors where an update silently pushed out to their behavioural engine has resulted in core executables being deleted from production databases. Fun.)

 

So yeah, bottom line: I appreciate all the effort over the years, I have no doubt Vertex will tick most of the boxes and be an improvement over both previous products.

 

Can I ask though, without getting us sidetracked with all that has preceded :smile: ...

has the question "How will this work in a multi-user environment?" come up in planning or testing, and if so are you able to share any thoughts on that?

Edited May 11, 2017 by ozoak

[Deleted133263User]

 

In response to post #49989632. #49992812 is also a reply to the same post.

 

 

 

alt3rn1ty wrote: Will legacy FOMod scripted mods be supported ?

And will you be including support for Wizards (Wrye Bash) scripting for mods without FOMod scripting, similar to how you did for MO ? (In the case of a mods zip including both FOMod and Wizard, I think FOMod scripting took priority)

Magickingdom wrote: Thanks for the update. :smile:

I to would like to know about older mods. I have a huge collection of stuff I use that is no longer available anyplace but my WD Passport back up drive. I in fact decided against Skyrim SE for this reason(one of several), so it is important. I don't want to go back to manual install, but I can do that.

All fomods that were supported in NMM should work.

MO never supported BAIN wizards, only mods packaged in a certain way for BAIN options. Support for that is on the todo list but not yet implemented.

 

 

Excellent, I dont need to worry about my old dual scripted mods :smile:

 

I still say you ought to have joined the Wrye Bash team instead :tongue:

 

(shameless plug : New development topic, and it now supports Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 4, Skyrim SE after all the refactoring work Utumno has put into it over the last 5 years, latest WB wip standalone from the Dropbox builds installer is excellent - Just thought I would mention it while the world awaits for Vortex)

Edited May 11, 2017 by Guest