Install Order File?

[kamikatze13]

having started to mod fallout 4 yesterday from scratch with VO, the lack of BA2-BA2 and BA2-loosefile conflict recognition is off-putting ^{- i'm starting to consider extracting}

[SkunkMonkey]

having started to mod fallout 4 yesterday from scratch with VO, the lack of BA2-BA2 and BA2-loosefile conflict recognition is off-putting ^{- i'm starting to consider extracting}

 

IIRC that feature is planned, just not implemented yet. Remember, as alpha stage software, some features and functionality will be straight up missing.

[kamikatze13]

IIRC that feature is planned, just not implemented yet. Remember, as alpha stage software, some features and functionality will be straight up missing.

 

 

well aware that alpha software is not feature-complete, just hoping it'll be bumped further up on the todo list :wink:

[Tannin42]

Sorry, but I don't think much will change on this front. While we may display conflicts between loose files and BSAs at some time it would have to be in a different, hidden/optional way, since there is no good way to resolve loose file <> bsa conflicts.

With file conflicts we show the conflict symbol and then you set a rule to decide which loads first and then the symbol goes away/turns green.

But we can't set a rule to load a bsa after loose files since the load order of bsas is determined by the load order corresponding esp while the load order of loose files is determined by the "install" order of the mod. So how would you make that "conflict" go away?

You may decide to hide/delete the loose file if you want to use the one from the bsa but there isn't really a way to express the other way around: "i want the loose file so the way the conflict is automatically resolved is fine".

 

And conflicts between two bsas are resolved via plugin load order so the conflict would have to be displayed on that page which would be odd as well.

[LawrenceFB]

 

 

Sorry, but I don't think much will change on this front. While we may display conflicts between loose files and BSAs at some time it would have to be in a different, hidden/optional way, since there is no good way to resolve loose file <> bsa conflicts.

With file conflicts we show the conflict symbol and then you set a rule to decide which loads first and then the symbol goes away/turns green.

But we can't set a rule to load a bsa after loose files since the load order of bsas is determined by the load order corresponding esp while the load order of loose files is determined by the "install" order of the mod. So how would you make that "conflict" go away?

You may decide to hide/delete the loose file if you want to use the one from the bsa but there isn't really a way to express the other way around: "i want the loose file so the way the conflict is automatically resolved is fine".

 

And conflicts between two bsas are resolved via plugin load order so the conflict would have to be displayed on that page which would be odd as well.

 

 

Pardon my mumbling, I find this difficult to explain in text.

 

Not knowing which mods have a bsa in the 'Mods" tab and the install order not reflecting that, as I understand it, those mods will be 'logically' loaded first surprises me. Unfortunately Skyrim, etc do have interdependences between the 'Mods' and 'Plugins' tabs.

 

On the 'Plugins' tab I had hoped that we would be able to see conflicting bsa and 'Vortex' by using priorities in some way (waving hands in the air) would allow the plugins to be reordered as long as LOOT did not have an rule that prevented it. Adding a 'load after' rule would work but may be a little heavy handed.

[piperman123]

@Tannin42

Sorry, but I don't think much will change on this front. While we may display conflicts between loose files and BSAs at some time it would have to be in a different, hidden/optional way, since there is no good way to resolve loose file <> bsa conflicts.

With file conflicts we show the conflict symbol and then you set a rule to decide which loads first and then the symbol goes away/turns green.

But we can't set a rule to load a bsa after loose files since the load order of bsas is determined by the load order corresponding esp while the load order of loose files is determined by the "install" order of the mod. So how would you make that "conflict" go away?

You may decide to hide/delete the loose file if you want to use the one from the bsa but there isn't really a way to express the other way around: "i want the loose file so the way the conflict is automatically resolved is fine".

 

And conflicts between two bsas are resolved via plugin load order so the conflict would have to be displayed on that page which would be odd as well.

 

 

Why not simply provide an option to deal with BSA's like MO did where all of them are extracted so the install order or conflict resolution system Vortex uses now will work for those too? Or:

• Highlight all bsa related conflicts and do so in less alarming way, a new symbol, blue perhaps so it's not as shocking as red might be.
• Have mods with loose files have a small which when hovered over shows a message stating that it overwrites mod x,y and z or whatever. Clicking on it could show in detail which files are affected perhaps.
• Simply allow a mod to be right clicked and "extract bsa's" causing Vortex to append the bsa with '.hidden'?
• A means to hide certain conflicted files

Just to name a few possibilities. MO handled these issues pretty well, I prefer Vortex's conflict resolution, it keeps things nice and simple so I think the easiest and most in line with that approach idea would be to simply add the option to handle bsa files as MO did.

 

I think the ability to hide files like MO can would be pretty important, it would better allow for large load orders and merges or to disable patches that have been installed from another mod in preparation for a mod to be added later.

[Tannin42]

@Tannin42

Why not simply provide an option to deal with BSA's like MO did where all of them are extracted so the install order or conflict resolution system Vortex uses now will work for those too? Or:

• Highlight all bsa related conflicts and do so in less alarming way, a new symbol, blue perhaps so it's not as shocking as red might be.
• Have mods with loose files have a small which when hovered over shows a message stating that it overwrites mod x,y and z or whatever. Clicking on it could show in detail which files are affected perhaps.
• Simply allow a mod to be right clicked and "extract bsa's" causing Vortex to append the bsa with '.hidden'?
• A means to hide certain conflicted files

Just to name a few possibilities. MO handled these issues pretty well, I prefer Vortex's conflict resolution, it keeps things nice and simple so I think the easiest and most in line with that approach idea would be to simply add the option to handle bsa files as MO did.

 

I think the ability to hide files like MO can would be pretty important, it would better allow for large load orders and merges or to disable patches that have been installed from another mod in preparation for a mod to be added later.

 

I answered that in my last post. Mods are tested by their authors under the assumption they are bundled in a certain way. They write install instructions based around that. Loot may contain plugin ordering rules based around the assumption that the bsa is loaded in that order too.

When we give users the ability to extract BSAs they will use it, break mods, complain to the mod authors who then complain to us and everyone is unhappy.

All this has already happened with MO. It was not handled well there, you just say that because you only know a third of the story.

 

If you want to extract BSAs there are tools for that but we will not integrate that functionality in Vortex as that would imply it was a good idea, which it's not.

[piperman123]

 

@Tannin42

Why not simply provide an option to deal with BSA's like MO did where all of them are extracted so the install order or conflict resolution system Vortex uses now will work for those too? Or:

• Highlight all bsa related conflicts and do so in less alarming way, a new symbol, blue perhaps so it's not as shocking as red might be.
• Have mods with loose files have a small which when hovered over shows a message stating that it overwrites mod x,y and z or whatever. Clicking on it could show in detail which files are affected perhaps.
• Simply allow a mod to be right clicked and "extract bsa's" causing Vortex to append the bsa with '.hidden'?
• A means to hide certain conflicted files

Just to name a few possibilities. MO handled these issues pretty well, I prefer Vortex's conflict resolution, it keeps things nice and simple so I think the easiest and most in line with that approach idea would be to simply add the option to handle bsa files as MO did.

 

I think the ability to hide files like MO can would be pretty important, it would better allow for large load orders and merges or to disable patches that have been installed from another mod in preparation for a mod to be added later.

 

I answered that in my last post. Mods are tested by their authors under the assumption they are bundled in a certain way. They write install instructions based around that. Loot may contain plugin ordering rules based around the assumption that the bsa is loaded in that order too.

When we give users the ability to extract BSAs they will use it, break mods, complain to the mod authors who then complain to us and everyone is unhappy.

All this has already happened with MO. It was not handled well there, you just say that because you only know a third of the story.

 

If you want to extract BSAs there are tools for that but we will not integrate that functionality in Vortex as that would imply it was a good idea, which it's not.

 

 

Ok, I'll take your word for it. I've been away from modding for a while and have no recollection of why that would make a difference but I trust you know what your talking about.

 

I still think the option to detect conflicting bsa's could be useful as well as what bsa's are being overwritten by loose files. Correct me if I'm wrong though. Would it not be enough to make them an option under the advanced settings? Or perhaps a filter we can manually apply which will show only mod conflicts between said files? That way only people actively looking for that will use it? Rather than it automatically appearing like the current conflict detection.

 

Edit:

Ok so after doing some reading to remind myself about bsa extraction:

 

Seem like there's a number of pros and cons for both doing it and not. And it seems the main reasons for not doing it are people not understanding what it entails and being unable to update mods correctly as a result, similar issues with not understanding how things will then interact and more hassle for mod authors.

 

However, it does seem like it's perfectly fine to do so when you know what your doing and if it's handled and implemented properly.

 

So I get not wanting to implement the option in Vortex which is aiming to be the main mod manager used by modders of all levels. However, you are, or so it seems, trying to provide for more advanced modders. So would you at least be willing to create an optional extension or perhaps provide a hidden option somewhere with plenty of warnings about the risks etc. to allow those who wish to have bsa's handled in a similar way to MO2 do so? We could do with having Vortex show us the conflicts at least, so we can then go and manually handle these things if we wish to.

 

Your choice at the end of the day but it seems like enough of the community that you're making Vortex for would appreciate the feature. I'm not asking for it now, but at some point down the line.

 

Did my reading on Reddit, STEP and the TES wiki to try and get as much info from multiple perspectives as possible.

This for example seemed quite well thought out and fair in it's arguments.