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.

Got ninja-ed by Double you. When typing my post I got a notice from the forum software that someone has posted an message. I agree with you and also DoubleYou agrees. Note: It is a wiki and anybody can and is very much encouraged to add/change information. Should you see other things feel free to change it. One remark: Tannin uses the term 'overwritten' in the conflicts tab (when right clicking information for a selected mod). I think its best to use the same terminology in the MO wiki and in the program. Perhaps Tannin agrees with the suggestion and can change the wording in a next version of MO or he has a reason for using the word 'overwritten'. I don't know. PS. Good work DoubleYou. Hadn't looked at the wiki for a while and it has certainly improved. Especially the 'overwrite' tab. Feel a bit ashamed to after initial wiki editing I let it slip.....

Tannin, thanks for correcting me. My post was based upon threads here and what I recall was the consensus. Guess I was wrong. As suggested in 1.2.1 I gave myself a good slapping, felt good..... It good that this thread was made and you stating what needs to be done. I've finally got rid of the warning. I now have 13 mods changed from position but there is something I can't explain. It could be an issue or intended. Yesterday I tried to get the warnings disappear but whatever I did I still got warnings. Gordian knot. Drove me mad so this morning I decided to disable all thirteen mods and enabled them one by one and changed the install order in the left pane. In the end I succeeded but I also came across something which I can't explain and is perhaps the reason I could not get it sorted out yesterday. I have all thirteen mods enabled. I disable them in one go by selecting them all and hitting space. Of course no warning. I enable them all again by selecting them all and hitting space. Again no warning. I disable 'Run For Your Lives -- IO changed' (IO is install order) and no warning. When I however enable it again MO gives me a warning. "Move Run For Your Lives -- IO changed after The Choice is Yours - Dawnguard -- IO changed". The last mod is last in the install order (of the thirteen mods). Resfreshing and/or restarting MO does not work. I can get it to work by deselecting all 13 mods and enabling them again (in one go or one by one). I can reproduce this every time on my system. When trying to figure out what was going on I discovered something similar. I disabled "The Choice is Yours - Dawnguard -- IO changed" to get rid of the warning. The warning did NOT go away. The warning no says: "Move Run For Your Lives -- IO changed after Non-Essential Children -- Hearthfire edition -- IO changed". Non essential children is actually right above "Choice is Yours - Dawnguard -- IO changed" in the left pane. I know disabled "Non essential children" and was getting a new warning. I hoped it was the mod which was above "non essential children" because it would mean there was a pattern. But it was not the case. The mod mentioned in the warning was indeed below "run for your lives" but not directly above "non essential children". At this point I gave up. I disabled all 13 mods and enabled them again and now the warning is gone. I've noticed other things as well but I try to keep this post (relative) short. I'm getting a deja vu feeling (NMM importer). Questions: Do you have any idea what could cause the behavior I noticed. Does somebody has noticed something similar ? You stated the algorithm checks scripts and esp files. Some mods which I had to rearrange do beside scripts have textures and hkx files also. Which means Skyrim could/can look/behave differently. I think (if I understand the VFS correctly) the following is possible but I would like to double check it. I move the scripts directory from mod X and move them to mod "X scripts only". I do this for the rest of the mods (Y Z etc if needed). The X Y Z mods retain there normal install order. I then place the ". scripts only" mods in the correct order.I hope you can answer my questions. I can supply you with more info if needed. I'm using LOOT (kickstarted by MO).

Afaik the algorithms used for this feature are not flawless. Especially circular references (can't describe it better in a concise way) don't seem to work that well. It has been discussed before in this forum a few times. A little search would find them. Iirc the concensus is that most of the time it does not really matter at all, at least that is what I made of it. But as you pointed out, it does matter in your case. Afaik so far nobody has looked into the code to see if/how it could be improved. The dev team really is ONE person (Tannin). To be honest I was bothered by it as well but I currently am just ignoring the message and in the last 4-5 weeks my skyrim works without a hitch. Getting the MO organizer code to compile is not trivial as I found out in the past because the documentation how to do it was a bit outdated (then, unknown now). But with help from Tannin I got it to work. Wanted to change the NMM importer but RL interfered. An alternative to compile and change the code one self perhaps ppl with the right knowledge could have a look at the code and check the algorithm used (his code is very clean and understandable) and figure out what could be done to perfect the algorithm and why it is not flawless atm. Perhaps Tannin can use this feedback to improve the algoirthm (if possible at all). I don't have great hopes that someone is willing to do this but still wanted to point out the possibility. Just my 2 euro cent.

I've mentioned it in this thread before. A few weeks ago I made the switch from BOSS to LOOT without any problems. Now I'm at level 47 and all is smooth. So it seems to be working fine. Its entirely possible there are a few conflicts but I've not noticed them. With BOSS I had 20+ and counting plugins which were not in the BOSS masterlist so I had to guess where to put them as I'm lacking the Tes5Edit knowledge to precisely know where to put them. One day..... TLDR: Switched with an existing game from BOSS to LOOT and now 20 levels further Skyrim is still stable as a rock.

When I edited that wiki page I had emailed with Tannin and that is what he said. But like GSDFan said it can take a while before 64 bit support will be added as it is a very difficult feature to implement in the hooking system.

In principle all should be relative to the MO directory, no need to change any settings unless you have changed the directories yourself. You can also rename the directory. At least this was so in the past, perhaps something has changed. Perhaps you could install a new MO and experiment a bit. This would be useful. In the modorganizer.ini file you can find the directories. Its possible they are not there unless you change the directories in MO. Unfortunately I don't have time to check things myself. it Kingsday tomorrow in the Netherlands which means this evening is party time...........

Its best NOT to install MO in the Program Files directory because of windows UAC issues. MO is portable. You can just move the MO directory to another directory, you don't need to reinstall it. Please have a look at the MO wiki, it contains fast amount of info. In the resources tab of it you can find 5+ videos about MO, very useful. You can install every mod with MO as long as it is placed inside the /data directory. Exceptions are SKSE which also installs files in the directory as well as the /data directory. STEP explains how you can install the /data part of it with MO. To better understand MO you need to know what the virtual filing system (which performs the magic of MO) does, its explained here. Welcome to MO....

Fair enough. Bottom line it works and this knowledge can be used in the future for other users having perhaps similar problems.

Glad to see it solved. As I like to understand things, can you explain why moving MO outside of the Program Files directory solved the problem. That location can give UAC issues for sure but I can't explain why cmd kickstarted by MO shows you the correct contents of the VFS but when the reproccer patcher is kickstarted it does NOT show you the correct contents of the VFS - as in does not see your other mods. I mean both cmd and patcher are under control of MO and should see the VFS. It feels as if I'm missing something....

Thanks for the info, gonna have a look at it. I think I got some ideas about what Tannin said in the info provided in the overwrite tab of the MO wiki, to quote him: "Regarding files being moved to overwrite: 0.12.x includes a small workaround that I hope will fix this inconvenience. Basically if a file gets deleted and within a few seconds a new file with exactly the same name is created it will be placed in the mod where the file got deleted." If I've time gonna write a small Java program for creating/updating/deleting files to test that and it at first glance seems I've found something in the way how files are deleted/created by Skyproc by analyzing it using Directory Monitor 2 (free). Have to investigate more. As most files (debug stuff and more) are created by skyproc.jar by changing that (as in by Dienne the maintainer of skyproc) it will affect the behavior of all skyproc patchers when they use his version. If they use Leviathans1753 latest Skyproc.jar its basically a recompile of their patchers with his skyproc.jar. Hopefully he can find a way to have in the near future a clean overwrite directory for skyproc pathchers. Caveat emperor: No promises....