fireundubh

If you click the Filter button at the bottom left, you can open the real left pane. Also, remove installation order from your vocabulary with regard to MO because the order in which you *install* mods is rendered moot by MO.

@TechAngel85: I don't see why install order matters at all. You know you can drag mods in the middle pane to reorder them, right?

Instead of checking specifically for the unofficial patches, Tannin could auto-detect ESPs flagged as ESMs by reading the ESP header in hex and checking if the ninth byte (0x08) is 01 (ESM).

As far as I know, SKSE, Sheson's memory hack, and ENBSeries didn't need Tannin to reengineer MO to solve a few obscure problems with neck seams.

I think any solution that involves reengineering MO is too much. False-flagging ESPs as ESMs is itself a workaround. It shouldn't even be possible. In fact, it is an unofficial third-party tool (read: hack) that makes it possible. Instruct, or prompt, users to copy, move, or link the DLC in the mods folder so that the few false-flagged plugins that exist don't cause problems. What has happened in these three threads is a lot of deep thought and proposed effort to climb a mountain that is actually a molehill.

Symbolic links require elevated privileges; however, neither hard links nor junctions do. Symbolic links, hard links, and junctions are treated as different things in Windows, although all are created with the same program. This sounds like needless complexity for an impractical application.

FYI: LOOT actually fails when you use symbolic links the way I suggested.

Junctions require only access to the file system, but then junctions work only with directories, not files. Extremely rare to nonexistent as far as PCs go. Symbolic links. When you delete a symbolic link, you delete only the symbolic link.Also, symbolic links have been supported in Windows since Vista. Unfortunately, you need a (free) third-party driver for XP. You could add an exceptions textarea/listbox to the settings window, but then you'd need to educate users about that textarea/listbox. I was trying to suggest things that minimized your workload, but if you're down to go crazy, have at it! ;)

Here's a simple Windows batch file (.bat) that automates the linking process. @echo offREM Path to Mod Organizer modsset MO_MODS_DIR="C:GamesModOrganizermods"REM Name the subdirectories to be created in the mods directoryset DLC1_DIR_NAME="DLC1 Dawnguard"set DLC2_DIR_NAME="DLC2 Hearthfire"set DLC3_DIR_NAME="DLC3 Dragonborn"REM Find Skyrim installation path with registry keyset SKYRIM_REGKEY="HKLMSOFTWAREWow6432Nodebethesda softworksskyrim"set SKYRIM_REGVAL="installed path"set SKYRIM_DIR= for /f "tokens=3,*" %%a in ('reg query %SKYRIM_REGKEY% /v %SKYRIM_REGVAL% ^| findstr %SKYRIM_REGVAL%') do ( set SKYRIM_DIR=%%b )REM Change path to modscd %MO_MODS_DIR%REM Create the subdirectoriesmkdir %DLC1_DIR_NAME%mkdir %DLC2_DIR_NAME%mkdir %DLC3_DIR_NAME%REM Create the symbolic linksmklink %DLC1_DIR_NAME%Dawnguard.esm %SKYRIM_DIR%DataDawnguard.esmmklink %DLC1_DIR_NAME%Dawnguard.bsa %SKYRIM_DIR%DataDawnguard.bsamklink %DLC2_DIR_NAME%HearthFires.esm %SKYRIM_DIR%DataHearthFires.esmmklink %DLC2_DIR_NAME%HearthFires.bsa %SKYRIM_DIR%DataHearthFires.bsamklink %DLC3_DIR_NAME%Dragonborn.esm %SKYRIM_DIR%DataDragonborn.esmmklink %DLC3_DIR_NAME%Dragonborn.bsa %SKYRIM_DIR%DataDragonborn.bsaREM Finishecho Done!

Here's what symbolic links look like for Dawnguard in the MO mods folder. Note the file sizes. These links point to Dawnguard.bsa and Dawnguard.esm in the Skyrim Data directory. Here's what the UDGP conflicts tab looks like. If this fixes Kuldebar's issue, MO could automate the linking process. C:>mklinkCreates a symbolic link.MKLINK [[/D] | [/H] | [/J]] Link Target /D Creates a directory symbolic link. Default is a file symbolic link. /H Creates a hard link instead of a symbolic link. /J Creates a Directory Junction. Link specifies the new symbolic link name. Target specifies the path (relative or absolute) that the new link refers to.Symbolic links are absolute or relative links to files, directories, or junctions on a single volume. They require an elevated process to create. Hard links are the same as symbolic links except that they will always point to the target, even if the target is moved, on the same volume. Junctions can link directories on different volumes, but they're mostly the same as hard links. SSD users work with hard links and junctions to optimize performance and extend the drive life cycle.

Symbolic links.

A real solution would involve Bethesda Softworks fixing their software, but you can wish in one hand... They can't do anything. They have to false flag the unofficial patches for reasons already mentioned. The simplest, most elegant, and most reasonable solution is for users to put in the work to move, copy, or link the DLC as mods.Sometimes you have to configure software and the operating environment to work the way you want.

You can move the DLC to save disk space. Problems: MO would be required to play the DLC unless you moved the DLC back. Steam may also redownload the DLC if you didn't disable autoupdate.You can copy the DLC to preserve the originals in the Data folder. Problems: You'd have two copies of each DLC taking up disk space and changes to either copy wouldn't be mirrored.You can also try creating symbolic links to the DLC. I don't know if this works, but this method would avoid all problems at the expense of learning your OS.For the latter:1. Create mod folders for each DLC.2. Open a command prompt.3. Type: cd "C:GamesMod OrganizermodsDLC 01 - Dawnguard"4. Type: mklink Dawnguard.bsa "C:SteamSteamAppscommonSkyrimDataDawnguard.bsa"This creates a symbolic link in the Dawnguard mod folder to the real Dawnguard.bsa. MO will treat the symbolic link as the real deal.Repeat for each DLC. Obviously, change the paths to your own.

Wrye Bash: TES5Edit:

Arthmoor doesn't like MO because he still thinks you can drag-and-reorder BSAs in the Archives tab as you once could in older versions of MO. That's it. That's the only reason behind his hate for MO. Tannin has had lengthy arguments with Arthmoor in the Bethesda Softworks forum, as have I in various Nexus threads. He's not familiar with MO at all. And, like Tannin said, I don't think MO should be designed, or redesigned, for the people who aren't drinking the same Kool-Aid. You can feed only the hungry, so why waste your food? I just beat that metaphor to death. No, technically, it's not the same at all. For the DLC to be treated, specifically, as excluded files (i.e., excluded from the way mods are treated), Tannin would have to specifically account for each file in the code. The fact that you can resolve Kuldebar's issue by moving, copying, or linking the DLC outside the Data folder indicates that the Data folder itself is excluded, not the files. You could place any other BSA in the Data folder and, most likely, achieve the same effect. I don't know why the Data folder was excluded like so, but I'd wager that the Data folder is therefore protected from Mod Organizer operations in order to truly keep the Data folder pristine, as Kuldebar would say. Bethesda's standards would have you installing mods directly into the Data folder. MO was designed to, effectively, subvert that practice because it's a bad practice. You're proposing that Tannin create an inconsistency to achieve consistency—that Tannin should commit to a not insignificant rewrite of a core system to specifically exclude the DLC from the rule that protects the Data folder, in order to conform to the way things are done as part of a bad practice. I disagree with your suggestion and its basis, but you know, at the end of day, how does agreeing or disagreeing matter? With regard to MO, Tannin is free to do what he wants; everything else is immaterial. At this point, I think more than enough has been said on both "sides" and we're just talking in circles.

No, the DLC are not treated "specially." The Data folder is though and with good reason. Move the DLC out of the Data folder and into the MO mods directory where the rest of your mods are located because the DLC are mods—official mods but still mods. I'm impressed that he hasn't thrown his computer off a bridge yet. Or jumped himself.

Crap is a technical term for ESMs, ESPs, BSAs, and other files, which include the DLC.

The DLC is treated differently because the DLC is in the Data folder. MO exists so you don't put crap into the Data folder. Thus, adding the DLC to the MO mods folder isn't any more of a workaround than adding Steam Workshop-downloaded mods to the MO mods folder. Just because the core ESM/BSA files are downloaded by Steam into the Data folder doesn't mean you should keep them there when you're using MO.

FYI: I made every Skyrim core ESM/BSA a separate mod. Seems to be working fine.

Don't forget about Mirmulnir's voice. USKP added that. FYI: These are pretty much the same complaints that people have about Mission Mojave Ultimate Edition in the FNV community. In fact, there's even a competing unofficial patch called Yukichigai Unofficial Patch.

Why copy them? Just move them and turn off automatic update in Steam. Check the .ini in the MO folder.[DialogChoices]unpackBSA=65536

You could move the DLC into their own mod folders and manage them like a boss a.k.a. me.

Don't tell Arthmoor you're using MO. He hates MO.

While somewhat OT, the only real way to determine whether loose files load faster than a compressed BSA on a SSD is to run that test. I have an Intel Core i5-3570k @ 3.4Ghz, 16GB DDR3-1600, and a Samsung 840 EVO SSD. The performance gain, if any, from loose files is probably negligible, but the potential placebo effect is to-die-for!

I'd also wager that SSD read speed is faster than BSA decompression/read speed.