An update on Vortex development

[ousnius]

In response to post #54930308. #54930478, #54930773, #54930833, #54930843, #54930848, #54930913, #54931018, #54931133, #54931298, #54931363, #54931473, #54931588 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*

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. Edited November 3, 2017 by ousnius

[Tannin42]

In response to post #54930713.

calscks wrote: is there any interoperability with existing installation information from NMM? or we'll need to start fresh on vortex? that's the only thing i'm concerned about...

We have import options from NMM and MO.

[ozoak]

Even as someone who would advocate for the 'clean' VFS style of implementation (for very specific reasons I've already brought up elsewhere), I feel compelled to say:

OMG, can't we just have a thread where it might even be remotely possible that the dev/Nexus could talk about Vortex without it getting sucked into this pit of vfs/vs-non-vfs despair?

 

Personally I'd love to see something even if it were just a clip of a corner of the UI. True tease of something.

Still, it's been over 12 months now, what's another couple? :smile:

 

Good to know it's coming along, even if I didn't get to test pre-pre-pre-alpha or whatever it was/is in :wink:

Edited November 3, 2017 by ozoak

[Zanderat]

In response to post #54930713. #54932353 is also a reply to the same post.

calscks wrote: is there any interoperability with existing installation information from NMM? or we'll need to start fresh on vortex? that's the only thing i'm concerned about...

Tannin42 wrote: We have import options from NMM and MO.

Perfect.

[calscks]

In response to post #54930713. #54932353, #54932553 are all replies on the same post.

calscks wrote: is there any interoperability with existing installation information from NMM? or we'll need to start fresh on vortex? that's the only thing i'm concerned about...

Tannin42 wrote: We have import options from NMM and MO.

Zanderat wrote: Perfect.

thanks, very glad to hear about that Edited November 3, 2017 by calscks

[Valyn81]

In response to post #54932378.

ozoak wrote:

Even as someone who would advocate for the 'clean' VFS style of implementation (for very specific reasons I've already brought up elsewhere), I feel compelled to say:

OMG, can't we just have a thread where it might even be remotely possible that the dev/Nexus could talk about Vortex without it getting sucked into this pit of vfs/vs-non-vfs despair?

 

Personally I'd love to see something even if it were just a clip of a corner of the UI. True tease of something.

Still, it's been over 12 months now, what's another couple? :smile:

 

Good to know it's coming along, even if I didn't get to test pre-pre-pre-alpha or whatever it was/is in :wink:

A one inch section for every day/week/month before release. Eventually you will get the full image. lol

[diskdevl]

In response to post #54930713. #54932353, #54932553, #54932643 are all replies on the same post.

calscks wrote: is there any interoperability with existing installation information from NMM? or we'll need to start fresh on vortex? that's the only thing i'm concerned about...

Tannin42 wrote: We have import options from NMM and MO.

Zanderat wrote: Perfect.

calscks wrote: thanks, very glad to hear about that

You're awesome Tannin, thank you for not making me select checkboxes again for multiple profiles and 700+ mods. =)

[ozoak]

 

 

 

In response to post #54932378.

ozoak wrote:

Even as someone who would advocate for the 'clean' VFS style of implementation (for very specific reasons I've already brought up elsewhere), I feel compelled to say:

OMG, can't we just have a thread where it might even be remotely possible that the dev/Nexus could talk about Vortex without it getting sucked into this pit of vfs/vs-non-vfs despair?

Personally I'd love to see something even if it were just a clip of a corner of the UI. True tease of something.

Still, it's been over 12 months now, what's another couple? :smile:

Good to know it's coming along, even if I didn't get to test pre-pre-pre-alpha or whatever it was/is in :wink:

A one inch section for every day/week/month before release. Eventually you will get the full image. lol

 

 

 

 

That'd be perfect :D

[sdsd8452]

I think putting files directly into data folder won't be a big deal.

 

Cuz modern Bethesda games keeps original files BA2-packed.

 

Data folder will not be corrupted by mods unless they replaced the original files such as Skyrim - Textures0.bsa or Fallout4 - Meshes0.ba2.

[ThatDirtyShisno]

In response to post #54933313. #54934468 is also a reply to the same post.

sdsd8452 wrote: I think putting files directly into data folder won't be a big deal.

Cuz modern Bethesda games keeps original files BA2-packed.

Data folder will not be corrupted by mods unless they replaced the original files such as Skyrim - Textures0.bsa or Fallout4 - Meshes0.ba2.

VaultBoyAM wrote: It's not putting files directly into the data folder, they're links. This means that if you uninstall a mod that was winning a mod conflict, it won't leave a hole where the file was, instead the mod that was losing the conflict will take it's place, and you can uninstall/reinstall mods in peace.

Vortex's virtualization sounds like a nice compromise between NMM and MO and it overall seems like it'll be the best of both worlds. Edited November 3, 2017 by ThatDirtyShisno