An update on Vortex development

[opusGlass]

In response to post #54930308. #54930478, #54930773, #54930833, #54930843, #54930848, #54930913, #54931018, #54931133, #54931298, #54931363, #54931473, #54931588, #54932243 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.

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]

In response to post #54930308. #54930478, #54930773, #54930833, #54930843, #54930848, #54930913, #54931018, #54931133, #54931298, #54931363, #54931473, #54931588, #54932243, #54933863 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.)

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. Edited November 3, 2017 by Dark0ne

[VaultBoyAM]

In response to post #54930308. #54930478, #54930773, #54930833, #54930843, #54930848, #54930913, #54931018, #54931133, #54931298, #54931363, #54931473, #54931588, #54932243, #54933863, #54934008 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.

@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. Edited November 3, 2017 by VaultBoyAM

[fireundubh]

In response to post #54930308. #54930478, #54930773, #54930833, #54930843, #54930848, #54930913, #54931018, #54931133, #54931298, #54931363, #54931473, #54931588, #54932243, #54933863, #54934008, #54934293 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.

Silence speaks for itself.

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

[Deleted3624098User]

At least this is an informative update. Keep them coming.

[VaultBoyAM]

In response to post #54933313. #54933668 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.

ThatDirtyShisno wrote: 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.

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 its place, and you can uninstall/reinstall mods in peace. Edited November 3, 2017 by VaultBoyAM

[axonis]

Thanks Dark0ne.

 

No fully virtual system = no headaches for mod authors.

 

Here's a fresh example of a user asking me how to remove trace files of my mod after he uninstalled it with Mod Organizer. If he didn't use a fully virtualized system I could simply help him out by telling him which files he should have deleted.

 

I can't do that, however, because these virtualized remains had been injected by another mod through UIO and apparently MO didn't consider them as part of my own mod anymore. Or something else. Who knows ?

 

Thankfully it seems Vortex, by ditching the fully virtualized system, will sort out these problems and eliminate such headaches.

[seancdaug]

 

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.

 

I'm sorry, but this is just flatly untrue. Creating links isn't a particularly time consuming process, but it isn't, and pretty much cannot be, as fast as MO's VFS. If you're talking about creating a dozen or two links, the chances of anyone actually noticing are close to nil. But, at the moment, my Fallout 4 data directory contains around 150,000 files. Even an optimized process to scan the directory structure and create the needed links is going to be noticeably slow. Not hours, of course, but minutes is certainly reasonable. If I were still actively working on mods, and still in the habit of switching Mod Organizer profiles regularly, that would be plenty long enough to be a significant irritation.

 

I understand the benefits of Vortex's approach, I really do. But the PR here seem to be either misunderstanding or misrepresenting the trade-offs. When Vortex comes out, if people have been promised something that works "just as easily and quickly" in all things, they are going to be seriously disappointed to find out its not true. And I say this as someone who is likely going to switch over to Vortex when the time comes. I'm not averse to making certain trade-offs, I'd just rather everyone be more upfront about the fact that those trade-offs are going to exist.

[Deleted42537105User]

In response to post #54930713. #54932353, #54932553, #54932643, #54932878 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

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

Awesome, Thank you for all the work.

[seancdaug]

 

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 its place, and you can uninstall/reinstall mods in peace.

 

Ideally, this isn't a function of whether the files are physically copied or virtualized (regardless of how they're virtualized). It's a function of the mod manager to keep track of files and mod dependencies to prevent this. Wrye Bash, which features absolutely zero virtualization, already takes care of this quite well, while the current NMM (which uses links similar, at least in concept, to Vortex) is infamously terrible at doing so.

 

The only benefit of Mod Organizer's VFS is that it handles these kind of conflicts essentially invisibly. Any system that depends on either files or links being created in the game's actual directory structure can't do that in the same way. If you uninstall from the manager itself (be it Bash, Vortex, or whatever), the manager should clean everything up. But if you delete something outside of the manager, the manager will need to be told to clean things up. In Bash, that means finding any errors in the Installers tab and annealing them. I expect Vortex will have a similar system, either manual or automatic.