wolverine2710

Same hear, reliving my childhood. Will buy both. Just like one can enjoy BattleField and Call of Duty at the same time. Bought PB ED because indeed of my childhood experience ;-). When Standard Beta starts I think far more ppl will jump into ED.

Here is another one who is reliving his PAST. Missed KS also but bought PB and started 1 st of June with ED. You are lucky because you started with PB 2.x and not PB1.x. PB2 is MUCH more stable and the market is NOT flattened as in PB1. In fact in PB2 (till last sunday) they fixed the market in such a way that one could make progress with the grinding part. The famous P-cells from Aluin. I bought X-rebirth a few months ago but hated the KB M experience. Bought a cheap Logitech Extreme 3D Pro and using it atm. Works great in combination with the keypad of the KB. Please DO go the joystick/flightstick/HOTAS route, its much more immersive. Tip: I just ordered an ED-tracker (basically track-ir which you build yourself or order for I believe 20 pound or so). Mine will arrive in 1.5 weeks. Will make 'looking around' in cockpit/space much more immersive. What we currently see in PB is ONLY a SKELETON of the full game, but MAN does it look good and its addictive as well. Cmdr Wolverine signing off. Edit: I bought a X-52 HOTAS, not tested it yet but will be returned as I'm actually waiting for the Saitek X-55 HOTAS.

Tannin, thanks for the explanation and for giving a solution for the current situation. If I've interpreted your post correctly there IS a real solution possible. I've read three things: LOOT/BOSS interleaving the unofficial patches. I think/hope by contacting them this can be changed in the masterlist.yaml file.The unofficial patches that want to be treated different than other modsMod Organizer.How would in your opinion a REAL solution look like? Would this involve having Arthmoor (and team) changing things in the official patches or is there another real solution possible (MO changes)? I hope that you and Artmoor can work something out. I also hope that Arthmoor responds in this thread to tell us what is possible or not.. Should I've misinterpreted things and making things more complicated then I apologize upfront.

The tune makes the music. Might I suggest to do what Z wrote on the OP of this thread "In order to do so, we must not dredge up combative arguments. Constructive argument is good for all respective modding endeavors, so what has been said in the past is water under the bridge. So keep it lively and fact filled ... but keep it polite and considerate!". Personally I don't think that what you wrote is that polite. That said: We together learn new things all the time and no one has all the answers (except Tannin). Perhaps its best that someone makes a condensed version of this issue and the information which has been found and send it to Tannin. I can imagine he doesn't follow this thread (the whole time). Tannin can then decide what is the best way to proceed and perhaps he can/will make changes to MO. Edit: Ninja-ed by TechAngel85.

Don't have a perfect memory but I can search forums pretty well... Afaik the feature was needed because of upcoming changes in the USKP (use of false esm files). I think it and MO's then new 'potential mod order problem" (PMOP) feature where discussed there, haven't reread the whole thread but I think its the one. DoubleYou did some tests and iirc the outcome was that in some situations things could not be automated - or was impratical or too complex. Hence it was changed by Tannin into the current PMOP warning feature, so users can make the changes themselves. Its far more complex then one would think. Testimony for this is this current lengthy thread. Note: Haven't done (lazy and burned out a bit) so but I think having a good look at the algorithm would make things clearer and perhaps by altering the algorithm some issues would disappear or result in fewer warnings. Those suggestions would need to come from us I think. Anyone who has been following this and other related threads might have noticed that this whole BSA extraction and PMOP warnings stuff does not seem to give Tannin lots of positive energy (my opinion), which saddens me. He's open for suggestions and changes should the PMOP feature not work 100% BUT we all need to do some torture testing (imho) and create tickets so he can have a look at it. After all the latest algorithm is in the latest 1.21 BETA of MO.

I was doing some torture testing with MO's Potential Mod Order Problem warning (PMOP) and found something I couldn't explain, Turned out there was a ticket for it by Octopuss so I added my observations there. Observed by Octopuss and myself is that MO issues warnings between two (or more) mods even if those mods don't have scripts in common. The ticket explains why that happens with the current algorithm. Tannin has said here in this thread and I quote him: "The algorithm is very simple: If scripts from two mods conflict the scripts should be loaded in the same order as the corresponding esps.". The current algorithm does the following and I quote Tannin from the ticket: "The reason this happens is this: Proudspire Manor Refurbished conflicts with Unofficial Skyrim Patch. Cutting Room Floor Traps conflicts with Unofficial Skyrim Patch. That puts all three mods into one dependency graph. MO always makes suggestions based on whole dependency graphs, even if the two mods mentioned don't conflict directly. This is why disabling one mod can make move suggestions between two other mods disappear." For more info see ticket 638: "Conflict resolution feature reporting nonexistant problems".

Tannin you have a very valid point with regard to useful bug reports. Might I suggest to users who want the BSA extraction to be available in future MO versions to take some time to torture test this 'warning algorithm' and create bug reports for it. I personally like the future and I'm willing to invest time in it, just like I did with the NMM importer. Problem is that I'm on 'holiday' (actually helping Rosi my ex-gf with home decorating stuff etc) and I basically have not a single free minute and no access to Skyrim. Things have changed and I will be reurn later then planned, next thursday. This is my first opportunity to login and comment With regard to hashes (inside BSA files). As a laymen of the algorithm and without having looked at the code I thought it would simplify things (guess I'm wrong). Also I didn't realize that scripts inside BSA have to be taken into account as you said. Can you explain why that is as I thought that scripts inside BSA's were already in the correct place (synced with the esp file) ? Wouldn't it be possible to cash the hashes so that only on startup of MO or after adding/removing/enabling/disabling a mod they have to be calculated? They could (I think) even be put in a mods folder as a file which contains hashes for the script (psc/pex) files. But that would need extra coding of course. Long story short: Users please invest time in this and provide Tannin with reproducible bug reports so that with our combined help he can perfect the warning algorithm so that BSA extraction can stay in MO (if he chooses to do so).

Tannin I do understand your point. However this is about discussing things and to find out if others are having similar problems, which seems to be the case. All the info might help to find a pattern. I DO agree that for all issues a short to the point ticket MUST be created and that we should link to that ticket. I don't expect you to read this thread. I DO hope that BSA extraction will not be removed, such a powerful feature. I hope you understand my point of view. The issue tracker is NOT for asking questions. Perhaps you can answer my question nr 3 (post #6 of this thread). That would be appreciated.

When unraveling the warnings its best to start with the first one, hit refresh and then see whats left to do. And indeed by solving one warning I've seem that other warnings did disappear. It looks as if the algorithm somehow gets confused, when to many mods have to be rearranged. Better said it looks as if they interact with each other (BAD explanation). It seems 1.2.1 immediately detects when I disable a mod but there is a delay when I enable mods or move them in the left pane and warning etc doesn't get refreshed directly. Hence a manual refresh is needed. When I move the mods I change the name, as in I add 'IO changed' to the mod name. That way you can easily see what you have changed later on... I've noticed something strange. Cutting room floor has to be placed after Run for your lives. I've checked the conflicts tab but no conflicts (scripts) are reported there. Not looked at the actual scripts in the mod folder yet. So I'm curious how 1.2.1 decides why I have to move them. If I've interpreted everything correctly it checks for the same scripts which overwrite each other. If there are no conflicting scripts why do I get a warning. Perhaps I'm overlooking something here..... Another thing to watch for: I've noticed that when I enable/disable mods in the left pane (for the warnings) my plugin priority in the plugins tab gets reordered. Its reproducible. I noticed this with WB because for a couple of mods it reported that the masters weren't sorted correctly and then saw that in the right pane things changed. I'm using the external LOOT for my load order. Note: Tannin. Haven't looked at the code but does MO perform some kind of hash check to see if the scripts are really different and changing the installl order is needed? Perhaps someone can verify my cutting room floor and run for your lives issue but I can't check atm. Likely my last post before I go on a small holiday ;-) I guess some form of slow torture testing is required to get to the bottom of it all, any torturers I mean volunteers? Only with enough data which very preferable is reproducible on any ones system including Tannin's can he change things. When on holiday I will see if my mad mind can come up with some new and 'innovating' torture techniques....

I have this tendency to notice things right before I go away. Starting tomorrow morning I will be on a small holiday (again) till sunday the 18th of May. After that I will create bug reports for the things I noticed. I'm gonna make a new profile and try to make a minimal but reproducible set of mods. Its time I do some testing again instead of selfishly playing Skyrim ;-) I haven't forgotten how to create bug reports and its far to silent in my torture testing dungeon lately.... Note: I was testing with 1.2.1. It seems you have missed question number 3, perhaps you can answer it.

Wow, good discussion. I think Tannin explained it rather well and its usable for the regular end user. I was for the word override but I can live with overwrite if its explained this way. Remains the question: where should we put the explanation about the overwrite mechanism.

Great. Bit OT. I want to rectify something, as in make it clearer. It is true that afaik nobody has contributed code to MO but it does not mean that users have not contributed to the development of MO. They imho have done so indirectly by answering questions by users in the official S.T.E.P MO forum and also the Nexus MO forum. Either by being a (MO) moderator or just a regular user. You know who you are. I know from experience how time consuming that is. I think and hope that by doing so we have saved Tannin time, time he can invest (if he chooses so) in the further development and refinement of MO. He still helps users when we can't answer certain questions or when he feels its needed to rectify things. A big thanks to everyone who have helped others this way. Also a big thanks to DoubleYou for his ongoing work on the wiki (been slagging myself) and others. And of course the videos from last year (MO 0.12.6) by DeathNeko11 and Bridger and the new series by RichardPelleds. ALL are awesome. I bow for you all. It all resulted in a very healthy and respectful MO community. NUFF SAID. No need to comment further on this...... Edit: Forgot that Jacko is currently doing coding for an automated installer. My bad.

Not to sound harsh but to be honest a phase like that could be interpreted the wrong way. It is his program which he codes in his spare free time and so far nobody has bothered to contribute to it. That includes me, though I was at the point that I was able to compile MO and wanted to improve the NMM importer. RL and personal stuff interfered. I can imagine he has bigger things on his plate atm. That said I totally agree that a consistent wording or rewording in MO and wiki could make things (a lot) easier/clearer for new users. If he agrees (with changes in MO) perhaps we can start a thread discussing what wording would be better in MO. As a 2+ year user of MO I have to admit that I don't 'register' those inconsistencies (any longer) and I simply use MO with great satisfaction. That's not to say that (little) things can't be improved which would result in a better, more consistent, more powerful experience. Again it was not my intention to sound rude. Feel free to PM me if I should have overstepped a boundary.

nvm. Hickup of S.T.E.P forum (or me), real post after this.

I noticed the changes, thanks for that. I've written Tannin an email about it and asked him to give his opinion about it here. Perhaps he agrees, changing text in the MO GUI is easy (I think) but then there is also the 'overwrite' directory - if one want to be 100% consistent. That is much likely to be far more of a problem as its probably used by a lot of code and plugins and it could break stuff..... I'm so used to the word overwritten and the overwrite directory that I totally don't have problems with it, but I can imagine new users might.