Tannin

I'm very careful about providing multiple ways to achieve the same thing, that's just bound to confuse people, make explanations harder, overload the interface,... You can currently disable a mod in a profile by unchecking it. You can hide it by putting it into a category. You can hide it in a profilie by creating categories that align with profiles. Providing a new, parallel way to "remove" mods from a profile would be redundant. I am however willing to consider options that would make using existing functionality (categories) for the goals mentioned more intuitive.

MO has categories built-in which you can customize from settings->"Configure Mod Categories". You can assign each mod multiple categories.Only the "primary" category will be displayed, but a filter will match all of them.So you could assign a mod the categories "Armor", "Step 2-D", "Profile a" and "Profile b".Now if you filter for Armor it will show up, if you filter for "Profile a" it will show up but if you filter for "profile c" it will not show up.

Does no one notice the missing linebreak between iSize W=1680 and iSize H=1050 ?

I'm not sure why you'd go with two installations. If you dont want a mod active in one profile then uncheck it. If the mod list is too long/complex, use categories. I.e. you could put the mods you want to see in profile A into a category "visible in A", those for profile B into "visible in B" and so on and then activate the corresponding filter to get a reduced list.

The errors mean that the network library MO uses tries to call openssl functions and can't find the relevant libraries. Which is odd because I can't think of a situation where MO would have to use openssl to begin with (This would be the case in accessing a https webpage). Do you use some special network setup like a vpn or a proxy? Or do you use the integrated browser to navigate to non-nexusmods pages? Or asking more generally: What are you doing when these errors show up? You could probably fix the problem by following these instructions: https://codeblog.vurdalakov.net/2009/11/solution-qsslsocket-cannot-call.html But that still doesn't tell me why you'd need openssl to begin with.

"until I got the error telling me to run SKSE as admin" What were the exact words of that message and where did it come from? A very simple but bad solution to this problem is to run MO itself as administrator. "When I click Yes, normal Skyrim.exe starts instead of SKSE" This I have a bit of trouble believing. When you click yes MO starts that same binary elevated, I don't see how it could skip the skse_loader. Are you sure skse is not being run? have you checked in-game that skse isn't active? Have you checked the skse logs to see if maybe skse_loader has trouble running?

There is no convincing evidence it does. By enabling MO the OP a) activated MOs hooks b) activated different game settings c) activated mods including skse plugins d) potentially changed the permissions with which the game runs if he runs MO as administrator While it's possible MOs hooks have an influence this is not at all proven. And even if MOs hooks are involved that doesn't mean they are guilty, usually MOs hooks are "good citizens" in that they don't break foreign hooks. Btw.: the list is not complete, there are further libraries that might hook api functions, i.e. the windows application compatibility layer works by hooking functions, nvidia optimus does and there is a good chance your virus scanner does too. And various DRM systems. And all the fun pieces of malware you have installed.

Correlation does not imply causation

a) Next time a crap software is telling you it's going to delete/quarantine files you might at least write down what files those are b) If you can start Mod Organizer, you can start skyrim and you can start the launcher but you can't start skse, isn't it far more likely that it's skse that is broken than any of the others? Seeing that you didn't write down (or at least didn't post) what Norton actually did, one possibility is that it deleted or removed all access rights on skse, one of its files or one of the skse plugins and now skse can't access one of it's essential files or it tries to read a plugin, can't access it and panics.

MO doesn't proxy the directx dlls, ENB does that. MO doesn't have anything to do with accelerated graphics, it's a filesystem tool. -> I can say with confidence bordering to certainty that this is NOT caused by MO.

MO should work fine without administrator privileges as long as you don't install it in a restricted directory (i.e. Program Files). This problem may be unrelated. First of all: Is this really the exact error message? Because "C:/User/TheAdmin/Documents/My Games/skyrimprefs.ini" doesn't seem right, skyrimprefs.ini should be located in .../My Games/Skyrim/skyrimprefs.ini Also: Have you ever started Skyrim before? MO tries to copy your settings to its profile, if you have never started the game before that can't work because Skyrim hasn't been set up yet.

No, MO tries to put the version into a scheme it can work with like doing comparisons. And contrary to what people say, it's pretty good at it. If I leave 1.2a and do an "alphabetic" compare then 1.2a is bigger, thus newer than 1.2. This is what you expect in this case. If I interpret 1.2a as alpha and do a compare then 1.2alpha is older than 1.2. Therefore, depending on how you interpret the "a" the version order is different and it's completely impossible to do the right thing for every mod. But since interpreting "a" as "alpha" is a standard and interpreting a as "newer than without letter but older than b" is inconsequent nonsense I apply the first by default. I'd like to highlight the "by default": MO does allow you to switch the version scheme applied on a per-mod basis: If your installation is at version 1.2 and the version at nexus is at 1.2a then MO will show that as a "downgrade". But you can right-click the mod, click "Change Versioning Scheme" (or somesuch) and MO will re-interpret the version string. This way MO can correctly support 3 different versioning standards and it's the only software I know of to support more than 1. (correctly in the sense that it can make a distinction between "newer" and "older" instead of just "different") Regarding 1.2.8.02 -> 1.2.8: I'd have to check, but I think MO should still store the full version (1.2.8.02) and use that for comparisons, it's possible I shorten the version only for display.

please try deleting the file ModOrganizer/webcache/nexus_cookies.dat I'm not sure why but this has helped before.

Supporting MO has been very tiresome in general recently, this has nothing to do with you personally.

The error message says: "File xyz couldn't be extracted.This probably means the mod is broken though you may still get partial functionality. Please inform the mod author. Detailed Error: bbb" It explicitly states that the likely reason is a broken mod and that the mod author should be informed. There is no way NCC could know for a fact that the installer is at fault, that would be pure arrogance so it says "probably". There is also no way for NCC to know if / how much of the mod is going to work but in case of CBBE the installation through NCC works just as well as if you had installed it through NMM. The error in case of CBBE means that the custom eyebrows weren't installed and this is true for every CBBE installation ever made through that installer, no matter which tool you used. Again: the only difference between NCC and NMM is that NCC told you something went wrong and NMM didn't. There is no difference between a CBBE installation made from MO and one made from NMM.

Umm, you should have read the error message. ;) The CBBE installer is actually broken and can't install certain features. This is true for NMM as well. This has remained undiscovered for 1 1/2 years and almost a million downloads because NMM doesn't report errors during installation, it silently skips over the files it can't install. I opted to report such issues so that you can report them to the mod authors so they can fix their installers.

No you shouldn't need it for any other version than 1.1.2. Please let me know what the error message is and what mods are affected.

Depends. loose files from mods above the dlcs will still be loaded AFTER the dlc so the load order for those files is different than expected (and different than displayed in the MO UI), hence my suggstion to move up the DLCs as far as possible. I could have also said: Place the DLCs wherever and ensure that all mods above them are either bsas or don't conflict with the DLCs.

I think you misunderstood. Mo can not login right now. You cant fix that. There is no workaround. What i was saying is that if you still have a valid login cookie from before the nexus change then downloading will continue to work until the cookie expires. But if you delete the cookie it's game over.

Mo stores the login cookie, the problem only occurs after the cookie becomes invalid/expires

Nexus changed the url through which the login happens (or at least it disabled the url I was using before). Therefore MO can't login (which it reports) and therefore downloads > 2MB don't work. I'll release an update next week, until then I'm afraid there is little to be done except for manual downloading.

No, there is a best practice: Install MO in a location where you don't need administrative rights to write to! Very simple: If you can install MO without needing administrative rights then it's a good location. MO is designed as a portable app, it stores and changes files in its own directory. The "Program Files" directory otoh is designed to contain only "static" data of an application that is not changed post installation (except for updates) with "dynamic" data being stored in the user directory. tl;dr: Don't install MO below "Program Files" and don't run MO with administrative rights.

Banchou: Please download this hook.dll: https://www.dropbox.com/s/52tu1j3xy5kgva4/hook.7z and try running again. This will not work any different but may provide a more detailed error message. Maybe I can say more then.

If all else fails you can delete the plugin (plugins/checkfnis.dll). However mo only relays the error message from fnis. This means either the meaning of fnis return codes has changed or fnis did report an error/warning. Regarding program files: since mo redirects file accesses you should in fact not need write access to the skyrim dir, so it can stay in program files. You do need write access to mo directories (including its mods dir) so THEY shouldn't be in program files

Second try: https://sourceforge.net/projects/modorganizer/files/ModOrganizer-1.2.4.exe/download https://sourceforge.net/projects/modorganizer/files/ModOrganizer_v1.2.4.7z/download