Vortex STILL can't handle FOMODS

[Sulhir]

If a mod is packaged as a FOMOD like so -

ModName.fomod.7z\fomod\ModuleConfig.xml

Vortex knows what to do

If a mod is packaged as a FOMOD like so -

ModName.fomod.7z\ModName.fomod\fomod\ModuleConfig.xml

Vortex claims the file isn't an archive and generates temporary junk files if you ask it to create a mod for it (which wouldn't work anyway since it's a FOMOD installer and cannot be installed like a regular mod).

My preferred mod manager has no such issues and even better, if it *detects* such issues it has a functionality to tell it where it *should* be looking for the information instead of seeing something unexpected and sitting on a rock and crying that it's not real.

I'm getting mighty tired of having to unpack and repackage every fomod *just* for Vortex and re-upload and update all the file versions on a mod for something that's *only* a problem for Vortex.

And yes, I already have done the easy solution and don't use Vortex. I have to deal with this every time I create a fomod and someone pipes up that it doesn't work.

[Guest deleted34304850]

i may be wrong here, as the specification for FOMOD isnt set in stone, but isn't the former example following the fomod specification (based on this linkhttps://fomod-docs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/specs.html), where as the latter isn't?

[HadToRegister]

Nevermind.

I defer to 1ae0bfb8's post about the proper FOMOD format.

[Zanderat]

The fomod that won't load correctly is packaged incorrectly. The mod author should fix it.

[Guest deleted34304850]

thats the point i was trying to make.

there's a standard - i don't know how strongly enforced it is, but there is a standard, and vortex follows that standard, meaning that the title of this thread is factually incorrect.

the rant that the OP consists of is basically a bellyache because the mod author initially packages their mod in a non-standard manner, then has to redo it in a standard manner so that vortex can deploy it correctly.

so, to my thinking - if the OP simply packages their mod correctly to begin with, then the double effort is resolved, and that's not the problem of vortex, surely?

also, it seems counter intuitive, to me at least, to try to create support for non-standard fomod packages because that is something that can never be 100% achieved. You either follow the standard and comply and have no problem, or you don't, and have to redo everything.

but i could be wrong on this.

[Zanderat]

You are not wrong.

[AugustaCalidia]

but i could be wrong on this.

 

In agreement with Zanderat, you are not wrong.

 

The second FOMOD package example given in the OP's post is certainly an inefficient way to package a FOMOD. Why would anyone want to package it that way? Also, I've rarely ever come across a FOMOD packaged in this manner, whereas the OP talks as if there are multitudes of them.

[dizietemblesssma]

I have never seen a mod packaged like that, is it a particular game?

 

diziet

[HadToRegister]

I have YET to run into a FOMOD that was packaged incorrectly and didn't work with Vortex.

I'm curious where the OP is finding an endless supply of incorrectly packaged FOMODs to the extent that OP is exasperated by having to endlessly repackage FOMOD after FOMOD