An update on Vortex development

[seancdaug]

If you've achieved that functionality, please let us know, so this can end. Otherwise you will continue to get angry posts from grumpy users who are stuck with a buggy MO2.

NMM's inability to properly manage mod priorities is, shall we say, a uniquely NMM problem. It's a question of how well the mod manager tracks files, not virtualization per se. Wrye Bash doesn't virtualize at all, and it's damned good about both managing conflicts, reordering, and uninstallation.

[velvetsanity]

In response to post #54930308. #54930478, #54930773, #54930833, #54930843, #54930848, #54930913, #54931018, #54931133, #54931298, #54931363, #54931473, #54931588, #54932243, #54933863, #54934008, #54934293, #54934383 are all replies on the same post.

Kevin843 wrote: Like I said before no REAL virtual data=no using Vortex, I dont want my data folder messed up and ability to reorder mods is what makes MO2 the best mod manager. I am disappointed it is highly anticipated it will not have a virtual data like MO2. Hopefully there will still be community builds of MO2 for future Bethesda games. No way I can go back to installing mods to data folder now. I wont even bother using it if it dosent have these "Essential" MO2 features.

Zora wrote: I agree, not using a virtual file system is a step-back from what could be a huge improvement to mod managers we've seen so far. I still have high hopes for Vortex and will probably use it either way.

SarahTheMascara wrote: I agree. Keeping the data folder clean is essential for me as well. I have so many different builds for Skyrim and I'm jumping back and forth between profiles regularly.

BlueGunk wrote: From the interview with Tannin, 10 May 2017:

Robin: I think we both know the biggest questions we've received around Vortex have been in regards to virtualisation and how Vortex will handle and store files on people's hard-drives. Is Vortex going to use virtualisation?

Tannin: Yes it does.

I know people have - often very strong - opinions on the topic so I ask that you please read my reasons before you go to the comments and vent.

In the initial release of Vortex, virtualisation will be implemented using links (symbolic or hard links), similar to NMM v0.6. We've left the door open so we can implement different approaches (i.e. the usvfs library from Mod Organizer) but at this point I don't think there will be a "no virtualisation" option.

Dark0ne wrote: Thanks for your feedback.

If you're not interested in a mod manager that doesn't use MO's functionality VFS, that's fine. But this is about Vortex, not MO.

I'll be deleting any more comments that follow this line of thought as it's completely irrelevant to what I've talked about in this news article.

Yggdrasil7557 wrote: There are many reasons for this, Tannin is the original developer of mod organizer, and he was one of the people who decided not to use virtual filing. the new program will feature mod managing methods similar to how mod organizer currently works, the file managing will be able to work in many the same ways that mo does, the only difference is that it will actually place the files in the correct locations, this is for the same reason that el presidente gave up on mo2, the crashes due to virtual filing, especially in 64 bit are far too complex. for more info go read all previous posts about vortex, including the post where tannin said he was discontinuing development of mo1

Valyn81 wrote:

Remember that it is not the same thing as the old NMM did, corrupting your data folder easily.

TanninOne is helping them make the new Vortex, so you know Vortex will have some aspect of MO2 in order to help minimize data folder corruption.

*EDIT*
Seems BlueGunk, Yggdrasil7557, and I all have the same thought at about the same time, lol.

:wub:

 

Here is the link to help the people with Facts about Vortex and its Virtualization:
https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/news/13257/?

Qrygg wrote: I'm confused... where does it say there will be no virtualization?

Dark0ne wrote:

I'm confused... where does it say there will be no virtualization?

They're getting confused (which is kind of telling), there is virtualisation, it's just not the same as MO's virtualisation, which is what they are actually taking issue with.

We already did a Q&A with Tannin where it was explained why Tannin had decided to choose a different method, so the fact this needs to be brought up in a different news article about a different topic is...odd...to say the least.

If not using MO's virtualisation is a "no deal" for you, I just don't really understand why you're here, posting it as a comment in a completely unrelated article about Vortex.

Ethreon wrote: You expect rando user who doesn't know what's in his data folder to remember previous discussions?

Valyn81 wrote: *Delete this comment, content moved to my first reply.*

AnyOldName3 wrote: Mod Organizer 2 doesn't seem to actually be abandoned anymore. There were commits today, for example, which doesn't suggest to me that it's abandoned.

Valyn81 wrote: They said MO1 not MO2.

*Replying from the forum is annoying*

ousnius wrote: A clean data folder is really not an argument for using or not using Vortex. It really isn't.

You're saying you're switching profiles all the time, but these are all things that are still possible (just as easily and quickly) as with NMM or MO. Just instead of doing it at runtime, the hard links are handling it within seconds. This was all explained in the previous news post already.

opusGlass wrote: I'm sorry Dark0ne, but it seems like you guys are trying to dodge the issue here.

Whether or not the underlying mechanism is the same as MO, there is one feature where NMM has never reached the bar. That is the ability to reorder the mod install order. In Mod Organizer, if ModA and ModB both have a copy of the same file and ModB is winning, you can move ModB above ModA and now ModA is winning. In NMM on the other hand, you have to uninstall and reinstall ModA. Additionally, in MO you can uninstall and reinstall ModA without altering the fact that ModB wins the conflict, another necessary function for debugging a mod list.

If Tannin has found a way to implement that same functionality with symlinks/hardlinks, then everyone here will be happy. But I haven't seen any confirmation of that, and silence speaks for itself. So far only MO has achieved that vital functionality. That's why everyone keeps harping on about whether or not you're using the same system as MO.

If you've achieved that functionality, please let us know, so this can end. Otherwise you will continue to get angry posts from grumpy users who are stuck with a buggy MO2.

(And this is really a secondary issue, but I just want to point out that a clean Data folder is an important feature for many mod authors, who need to be able to package their mod files from Data without having to sort through thousands of files to figure out which ones belong to that mod. This isn't a problem for me because I've developed a workflow that doesn't rely on the true Data folder, but a few months ago that would've been a deal breaker for me, and I'm sure it still is for some authors.)

Dark0ne wrote:

If you've achieved that functionality, please let us know, so this can end. Otherwise you will continue to get angry posts from grumpy users who are stuck with a buggy MO2.

If Tannin has found a way to implement that same functionality with symlinks/hardlinks, then everyone here will be happy. But I haven't seen any confirmation of that, and silence speaks for itself. So far only MO has achieved that vital functionality. That's why everyone keeps harping on about whether or not you're using the same system as MO.

The majority of complaints are because users want "a clean data folder" and aren't related to what you're talking about at all.

If you haven't heard anything about a particular aspect of Vortex it's because we're not ready to talk about it yet. Indeed, we'd rather wait until users actually used Vortex and saw how Tannin has implemented things, rather than trying to explain it to users and have them misunderstand or arbitrarily dismiss the methods Tannin has come up with as inferior based on no actual understanding of the issue.

VaultBoyAM wrote: @opusGlass You should read the original post AND all the replies by Tannin. He's already mentioned that you can set mod conflict victory, not exactly a mod install order, but you'll get the same end result.

fireundubh wrote:

Silence speaks for itself.

Silence doesn't speak for itself, hence its name.

El presidents hasn’t given up on MO2. He’s still working on it. I know this because a friend of mine is testing things in it for him.

[MysteriousGuy]

"Not long now!"

 

We are talking 2 months minimum here. It was months in development already. Makes me wonder how was Tannin able to build fully functional mod organizer in such a short time when he was working all alone, but its not the case now when he has whole team around him.

 

So after months of waiting for something, you cant even provide a screenshot to public? Really?

[fluxxdog]

In response to post #54935243.

MysteriousGuy wrote: "Not long now!"

We are talking 2 months minimum here. It was months in development already. Makes me wonder how was Tannin able to build fully functional mod organizer in such a short time when he was working all alone, but its not the case now when he has whole team around him.

So after months of waiting for something, you cant even provide a screenshot to public? Really?

Yes really.

[fluxxdog]

Glad to hear your team is getting into the last hurdles! This should be a nice way to start the new year.

[GamerPoets]

Go Ninja Go Ninja Go!

[zeezle]

Thank you for the update.

[ViralArchitect]

As badly as I want to see what Vortex looks like, I totally understand the idea that you have to actually use it to be able to provide meaningful feedback. I'm really looking forward to this.

 

As for the virtualization discussion, I am looking forward to seeing how Vortex works with hard links. I understand the desire for a "clean" data folder but my biggest problem has been when I want to just nuke my mod installs and start fresh, I have ended up with an un-launchable game and have had to reinstall it, which takes hours to download. I hope I can more easily do that with Vortex.

 

Thanks for the update. Keep up the good work.

[lued123]

In response to post #54930308. #54930478, #54930773, #54930833, #54930843, #54930848, #54930913, #54931018, #54931133, #54931298, #54931363, #54931473, #54931588, #54932243, #54933863, #54934008, #54934293, #54934383, #54935133 are all replies on the same post.

Kevin843 wrote: Like I said before no REAL virtual data=no using Vortex, I dont want my data folder messed up and ability to reorder mods is what makes MO2 the best mod manager. I am disappointed it is highly anticipated it will not have a virtual data like MO2. Hopefully there will still be community builds of MO2 for future Bethesda games. No way I can go back to installing mods to data folder now. I wont even bother using it if it dosent have these "Essential" MO2 features.

Zora wrote: I agree, not using a virtual file system is a step-back from what could be a huge improvement to mod managers we've seen so far. I still have high hopes for Vortex and will probably use it either way.

SarahTheMascara wrote: I agree. Keeping the data folder clean is essential for me as well. I have so many different builds for Skyrim and I'm jumping back and forth between profiles regularly.

BlueGunk wrote: From the interview with Tannin, 10 May 2017:

Robin: I think we both know the biggest questions we've received around Vortex have been in regards to virtualisation and how Vortex will handle and store files on people's hard-drives. Is Vortex going to use virtualisation?

Tannin: Yes it does.

I know people have - often very strong - opinions on the topic so I ask that you please read my reasons before you go to the comments and vent.

In the initial release of Vortex, virtualisation will be implemented using links (symbolic or hard links), similar to NMM v0.6. We've left the door open so we can implement different approaches (i.e. the usvfs library from Mod Organizer) but at this point I don't think there will be a "no virtualisation" option.

Dark0ne wrote: Thanks for your feedback.

If you're not interested in a mod manager that doesn't use MO's functionality VFS, that's fine. But this is about Vortex, not MO.

I'll be deleting any more comments that follow this line of thought as it's completely irrelevant to what I've talked about in this news article.

Yggdrasil7557 wrote: There are many reasons for this, Tannin is the original developer of mod organizer, and he was one of the people who decided not to use virtual filing. the new program will feature mod managing methods similar to how mod organizer currently works, the file managing will be able to work in many the same ways that mo does, the only difference is that it will actually place the files in the correct locations, this is for the same reason that el presidente gave up on mo2, the crashes due to virtual filing, especially in 64 bit are far too complex. for more info go read all previous posts about vortex, including the post where tannin said he was discontinuing development of mo1

Valyn81 wrote:

Remember that it is not the same thing as the old NMM did, corrupting your data folder easily.

TanninOne is helping them make the new Vortex, so you know Vortex will have some aspect of MO2 in order to help minimize data folder corruption.

*EDIT*
Seems BlueGunk, Yggdrasil7557, and I all have the same thought at about the same time, lol.

:wub:

 

Here is the link to help the people with Facts about Vortex and its Virtualization:
https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/news/13257/?

Qrygg wrote: I'm confused... where does it say there will be no virtualization?

Dark0ne wrote:

I'm confused... where does it say there will be no virtualization?

They're getting confused (which is kind of telling), there is virtualisation, it's just not the same as MO's virtualisation, which is what they are actually taking issue with.

We already did a Q&A with Tannin where it was explained why Tannin had decided to choose a different method, so the fact this needs to be brought up in a different news article about a different topic is...odd...to say the least.

If not using MO's virtualisation is a "no deal" for you, I just don't really understand why you're here, posting it as a comment in a completely unrelated article about Vortex.

Ethreon wrote: You expect rando user who doesn't know what's in his data folder to remember previous discussions?

Valyn81 wrote: *Delete this comment, content moved to my first reply.*

AnyOldName3 wrote: Mod Organizer 2 doesn't seem to actually be abandoned anymore. There were commits today, for example, which doesn't suggest to me that it's abandoned.

Valyn81 wrote: They said MO1 not MO2.

*Replying from the forum is annoying*

ousnius wrote: A clean data folder is really not an argument for using or not using Vortex. It really isn't.

You're saying you're switching profiles all the time, but these are all things that are still possible (just as easily and quickly) as with NMM or MO. Just instead of doing it at runtime, the hard links are handling it within seconds. This was all explained in the previous news post already.

opusGlass wrote: I'm sorry Dark0ne, but it seems like you guys are trying to dodge the issue here.

Whether or not the underlying mechanism is the same as MO, there is one feature where NMM has never reached the bar. That is the ability to reorder the mod install order. In Mod Organizer, if ModA and ModB both have a copy of the same file and ModB is winning, you can move ModB above ModA and now ModA is winning. In NMM on the other hand, you have to uninstall and reinstall ModA. Additionally, in MO you can uninstall and reinstall ModA without altering the fact that ModB wins the conflict, another necessary function for debugging a mod list.

If Tannin has found a way to implement that same functionality with symlinks/hardlinks, then everyone here will be happy. But I haven't seen any confirmation of that, and silence speaks for itself. So far only MO has achieved that vital functionality. That's why everyone keeps harping on about whether or not you're using the same system as MO.

If you've achieved that functionality, please let us know, so this can end. Otherwise you will continue to get angry posts from grumpy users who are stuck with a buggy MO2.

(And this is really a secondary issue, but I just want to point out that a clean Data folder is an important feature for many mod authors, who need to be able to package their mod files from Data without having to sort through thousands of files to figure out which ones belong to that mod. This isn't a problem for me because I've developed a workflow that doesn't rely on the true Data folder, but a few months ago that would've been a deal breaker for me, and I'm sure it still is for some authors.)

Dark0ne wrote:

If you've achieved that functionality, please let us know, so this can end. Otherwise you will continue to get angry posts from grumpy users who are stuck with a buggy MO2.

If Tannin has found a way to implement that same functionality with symlinks/hardlinks, then everyone here will be happy. But I haven't seen any confirmation of that, and silence speaks for itself. So far only MO has achieved that vital functionality. That's why everyone keeps harping on about whether or not you're using the same system as MO.

The majority of complaints are because users want "a clean data folder" and aren't related to what you're talking about at all.

If you haven't heard anything about a particular aspect of Vortex it's because we're not ready to talk about it yet. Indeed, we'd rather wait until users actually used Vortex and saw how Tannin has implemented things, rather than trying to explain it to users and have them misunderstand or arbitrarily dismiss the methods Tannin has come up with as inferior based on no actual understanding of the issue.

VaultBoyAM wrote: @opusGlass You should read the original post AND all the replies by Tannin. He's already mentioned that you can set mod conflict victory, not exactly a mod install order, but you'll get the same end result.

fireundubh wrote:

Silence speaks for itself.

Silence doesn't speak for itself, hence its name.

velvetsanity wrote: El presidents hasn’t given up on MO2. He’s still working on it. I know this because a friend of mine is testing things in it for him.

Actually, Tannin has said that you can control "installation order" in Vortex. It's just a little different in that you don't control the entire priority order. You just set the order for the mods that need to be in a specific order. You say "Put mod B under mod A" rather than "Put all of my 300 mods in this exact order."

[4rc4num]

In response to post #54935763.

GamerPoets wrote: Go Ninja Go Ninja Go!

Oh god please god no. No god no. Nooooo.

Sorry, got a little carried away there.


@Topic: ... "open Alpha"... isn't that, like, an oxymoron or something? :D

Nvm, thanks for the update. Edited November 3, 2017 by 4rc4num