.bsa files vs loose files

[GnatGoSplat]

Almost every mod I've downloaded from this site has been packaged with loose files. It seems like .bsa files would be a neater and tidier way to distribute mods, especially since removal would be so much easier. I suppose I could just copy everyone else and do the same, but I'm curious, is there any compelling reason why I should NOT distribute my mods with everything packed neatly into one .bsa file?

[DizzasterJuice]

Because all the new people that came with Skyrim insist on using NMM and it has problems reading bsa files in correct order. Personally I just pack it in a bsa anyway and tell NMM users that you're on your own.

Edit: apparently not NMM causing it.

Edited September 14, 2012 by DizzasterJuice

[Mujuro]

For some incredibly odd reason that I can't figure out personally, some users are unable to use BSA versions whereas loose files work fine for them.

[DizzasterJuice]

For some incredibly odd reason that I can't figure out personally, some users are unable to use BSA versions whereas loose files work fine for them.

Back in March-May I tracked 50+ bug reports on one of my mods that uses bsa. On one particular issue, item scripts not firing, 100% of them were NMM users, 0% were manual installs.

[SineWaveDrox]

I prefer to use loose files versions of mods when offered, so that I can easily go through and look at the individual files that come with a mod, and perhaps modify them. When they're packaged in a .bsa, it just adds a bit more time to that process.

[Mujuro]

Back in March-May I tracked 50+ bug reports on one of my mods that uses bsa. On one particular issue, item scripts not firing, 100% of them were NMM users, 0% were manual installs.

Now why doesn't that surprise me? :P What baffles me is why a manual install vs. a NMM install of the same bsa would result in different outcomes. In any case, I don't use NMM; I had tons of issues with it when I first gave it a try back in April; went back to trusty ol' Wrye Bash.

[SeraphTC]

Not having any issues with NMM with or without BSA files. It makes no sense that there would be - the bsa is simply placed in the game data folder along with the esp, and is loaded in the same order as the esp file. There is no registering of bsa's required for Skyrim (as with previous TES titles). The only time I can see that anyone would have a problem is if they installed Steam (and therefore Skyrim) to C:\Program Files\ and are not running NMM with admin permissions - at which point it could have issues writing files to the folders, and AV/Security packages are more likely to interfere.

 

The real reason for using loose instead of BSA, is that items in BSA's will be overridden by loose files. Therefore, by using loose files you ensure that your version of files are the ones used by the game unless the player overwrites them.

[DizzasterJuice]

Not having any issues with NMM with or without BSA files. It makes no sense that there would be - the bsa is simply placed in the game data folder along with the esp, and is loaded in the same order as the esp file. There is no registering of bsa's required for Skyrim (as with previous TES titles). The only time I can see that anyone would have a problem is if they installed Steam (and therefore Skyrim) to C:\Program Files\ and are not running NMM with admin permissions - at which point it could have issues writing files to the folders, and AV/Security packages are more likely to interfere.

 

The real reason for using loose instead of BSA, is that items in BSA's will be overridden by loose files. Therefore, by using loose files you ensure that your version of files are the ones used by the game unless the player overwrites them.

Yes, loose files override bsa files of the same file path name. So, if you make an esp with the intent of packing in a bsa, you have to make sure none of your file paths are the same as the vanilla ones. The game will always access the bsa with the same name as the esp first then check that there are no loose files of the same name.

The problem that I'm referring to is scripts. Skyrim is unlike earlier Bethesda game versions in that the scripts are in loose files instead of being stored in the esp itself. With NMM users, for some reason, item scripts that are stored within a bsa never fire at all. Maybe the reason Bethesda stored scripts seperately for Skyrim is that it's unreliable being in a esp? It only happens with item scripts and quest scripts fire just fine. I tried to research this for awhile and never found an answer so I finally gave in to the fact that loose files are better for Skyrim.

 

bottomline is...

Skyrim - loose files are better

Oblivion, Fallout - bsa files (with custom file paths) are better

Edited September 13, 2012 by DizzasterJuice

[GnatGoSplat]

I've never used NMM so I'm not familiar with it. Why would it affect the game's ability to read scripts from within .bsa files? I was thinking .bsa would be nice because I have a bunch of script files.

[SeraphTC]

I've never used NMM so I'm not familiar with it. Why would it affect the game's ability to read scripts from within .bsa files? I was thinking .bsa would be nice because I have a bunch of script files.

 

It wouldn't. The only thing it does is copy files into the game folders, and record what it copied where.

 

As DizzasterJuice says, the problem appears to be with the way Skyrim reads script files that are stored within BSA's. This is a bug with Skyrim, not with NMM.

 

If you are not modifying vanilla scripts (and if you want to maintain compatibility with other mods, I'd avoid it) then just make sure your scripts have unique names and you shouldn't have a problem with them being loose.