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

[Tannin42]

In response to post #50002107.

ozoak wrote:

 

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?

I have to admit I haven't put too much thought into multi-user environments yet.
We have profiles of course so multiple persons can play with one windows account.

But if you have multiple windows accounts... By default we store all Vortex settings, mods, downloads, profiles in a user-specific dir. If you deploy these mods and then switch windows accounts, for the Vortex in that other account those deployed files would look as if they were installed manually or by a different application.

I guess the only solution for this is to share profiles/mods/... between accounts so they all manage the same vortex installation - and then you can use different profiles again to allow different users.

OR you'd have to purge every time you switch accounts.

[TechAngel85]

In response to post #50002592.

alt3rn1ty wrote:

 

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)

Having vast experience with both MO and WB....

I advocate WB for Skyrim SE, atm, but admit it's not the best solution for a heavy modder/mod author. I'm often having to install and uninstall mods for testing while I'm working on building mods. The uninstallation is painful even on a SSD because of the things Tannin explained in the interview of extracting the mods, counting files, replacing files, etc. When mods like SMIM and texture overhauls are involved, I tend to walk away from the computer because it can take quite a while, whereas MO is instant; ultimately allowing me to get more work done because I'm not waiting around on the program to do its thing.

WB is also forcing me to keep an additional 9GBs of mod archives on my drive (and I have a small mod list compared to others). So WB has it's negatives, but currently it's the most stable for modding Skyrim SE. For mod authoring, MO is far superior, imo, because its features allow me to work far easier and faster.

[GioGr]

Awesome Read

Thank you Robin and Thank you Tannin <3

[lued123]

In response to post #49980317. #50001302 is also a reply to the same post.

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.

QuantumBios wrote: 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!

If you're so sure that those mods are permanent fixtures in your load order, why not just install them manually and never let the manager touch them?

[xxBr0d3r1cKxx]

Do you think that you could add a "nuclear option" that would purge all mods you have and the data from your games if you need to do so because of errors? This looks fantastic so far, but I think that that was a feature that made MO easy to use when it came to virtualization, and that many people would appreciate if it is available.

[Skagens]

I think I'll wait until a bit more development has gone into Vortex before I use it. I prefer MO over NMM in almost every aspect, and if Vortex won't leave my data folder completely clean like MO, then I won't use it. If you are planning for this to become an option though, then I will simply bide my time. Stuff like UI or the manager being user friendly isn't as much a priority. It is very important for me (and many others I believe) that the mods I install isn't installed in the data folder like NMM tends to do.

[FreedomsFlame]

In response to post #49980317. #50001302, #50005337 are all replies on the same post.

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.

QuantumBios wrote: 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!

lued123 wrote: If you're so sure that those mods are permanent fixtures in your load order, why not just install them manually and never let the manager touch them?

Because the whole point of this software is that you never have to install things manually. Not that manual installation is a problem for most, but the aforementioned option would be great for keeping things simple for the less tech-savvy users among our number.

[Darkangelmn]

If I read the starting paragraphs correctly, it will still feature the advanced usage/control for power users like MO did.

 

MO was always my go-to mod manager because it allowed so much control over how I mod the games. It just worked.

 

Always loved the work Tannin did, and I still do even though it's been a year since I stopped playing Skyrim.

 

Modding FTW.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Darkangelmn

[Gyzzidonth]

In response to post #49984342. #49985262, #49989507, #49992427, #49994012, #50001227 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.

SorrelKat wrote: 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

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

When you scan for updates in NMM, it goes to the website to see if there is a new version of the installed mod.

The program can pass what you have installed to the website and tag "installed".

[urielz]

In response to post #49989912. #49994582, #50000142 are all replies on the same post.

Exchange324 wrote: Would like to see an option, when choosing between 2 textures, to visually compare them both, just 2 images opened at once, it won't be too hard to implement, but will help a lot believe me. Thx

BryanMichaelD3 wrote: I second this. That would be super helpful!

Tannin42 wrote: MO had this option and I have it on the todo list for Vortex. But it's not as trivial as it may sound because support for reading/displaying dds textures isn't as widespread as - say - jpg.
I can't guarantee we will find an appropriate library with support for it. I haven't looked into that yet though.
Plus supporting textures that are packed in bsas for example would of course require the extra step of extracting them...

That's great you're considering this. It would be an awesome feature to have.