MonoAccipiter

Leonardo da Vinci was a renaissance artist/scientist. The renaissance is very much the beginning of this idea, where it was not at all uncommon for an artist to have benefactors (patrons). Both Michelangelo and da Vinci has those, as mercantilism gave rise to a new form of valuing art (most due to the fact that the new bourgeois class wanted to express their wealth through having portraits or works of art commissioned by highly respected artists). So yes, as long as we had a money-centric culture, the advent of such attitudes have been fairly rapid. As such, da Vinci becomes an exception both because he was an artist and because he lived in Italy which was the prime example of mercantilism in its heyday. Simply pointing out that he did not publish his weapon designs to share them with anyone also does not tell the whole story. In fact, he did not publish most of his findings in many fields, and as such they made no direct contribution to the development of any of them. Of course there are scientists that cared much for the fame and fortune side of things, but there are plenty of examples of people who did not, especially in philosophy which is a subject that has a tendency to visit this topic with the question: "should I feel that way?". Jean Paul Sartre declined the Nobel Prize in Literature for example, and yes he did later ask if that also meant he had to forfeit the money, but that is very much the idea of it. While the system (especially the modern system) would like you to want money, it does not mean you have to let that define you. In any case, yes, this is going very far OT. @GP: That is very much what I argued for in other words, my earlier posts make a very clear distinction between the argument for how I would want the system to be, and whether or not you should respect it in the current state (to which I clearly answered yes as I have shown throughout my work). I do pretty much agree with this. @zilav: Do you mean the "essence"? I do not feel that it is a perfect example of the conversation as a whole, there are very distinctly different arguments being presented here. @TechAngel: See what I said to GP. I agree with this pretty much wholeheartedly. @kryptopyr: Using the words giants in referring to the difference between people usually makes it easy to read more into it. The quote is first and foremost about humbleness in achievement (i.e. he could never have achieved what he did without his idols who came before him). Fun fact about Newton: Latter findings tend to point towards him caring more about his research into alchemy than his achievements in mathematics and physics. By alchemy I mean looking for the Philosopher's Stone and attempting to transmute other materials into gold et cetera. The point about public domain is good. Nothing to add to that, really. I do think you guys should be less harsh on Synthetik though. Giving people the scolding look for reading into the motivations of modders kinda loses its point when you start bombastically declaring that he is ethically wrong. The argument that his view does not right his stance goes both ways, and is why I have tried to approach this through conversation instead of simply declaring that it is one way. A fallacious argument does not make an erroneous conclusion and vice versa. I might not have the full understanding of the subject, and I am sorry if that did not show through my posts, but that is partly why I return to respond to all the answers, so as to move closer to a better understanding of the matter at hand.

Good, I thought so.

Yeah, that's NVInteriors, which has been unhidden on the Nexus after the new Creation Kit for FO4. Go redownload it and see if it fixes your problem.

I realize this was probably said humorously, but that kind of attitude is probably part of the problem. If it is important that something you made is better than something else, then I can understand why you would not want others to improve upon it (i.e. you would rather display it in your parlor). @kryptopyr: My argument was less about assuming what mod authors' motivations were, as much as it was about speculating on how one could approach a point of view that did not necessitate such inimical attitudes. I do agree that disrespecting a mod author's wishes is rather pointless in attempting to advocate a change. I have personally improved a lot of mods with permission. One example of this is the New Vegas Landscape Overhaul mod which was a great idea, but had some jarring issues like floating rocks in the middle of a town and tons of deleted navmeshes. If I didn't take the time (which I think amounted to quite a lot) to fix those issues the mod probably would have slipped into nothingness, as the author had abandoned it. Luckily for me, and him, he had written something along the lines of "do whatever you please, just credit me as the original creator". This also meant something he had made could actually be enjoyed by people instead of just making them crash. On the other hand you have the Spice of Life mod which created a Ranger Armor with some cool effects on it called the Rogue Ranger Duster, I've messaged nivea about releasing my improved meshes, where I took the ADAM mod's improved meshes (another mod I heavily fixed by adding female meshes where they were missing and lots of other stuff, then had darthbdaman improve upon my work further so as to make it even better) and combined them with SoL's decor, as well as painting the skull emblem over ADAM's textures to use them instead of the low res modified vanilla ones already included. However, he/she has not reached out to me beyond two messages about not ignoring me, so eventually I gave up, and had to keep the files for my own sake (the only exception being that I can make the plugins in my pack point to ADAM's textures, so it is semi-functional). That way I respected the author's wishes (which I always will) but I don't see how anybody won on it. Actually, possessive scientists are a thing of the modern world. Most renaissance writers saw their work as helping understand God's creation (and Newton was probably more concerned with his work in alchemy than in physics). Socrates did not care much about leaving behind a body of work. Plato only cared about contributing to the conversation. Tesla is suppose to have said the Bell were using 13 (or a similar number) of his patents, but he considered him a good guy so he did not care. As for art, I have never studied art history much, but there is a reason why such movements as Dada exist, and yes, lots of artists do share their techniques and that is very good. I never drew any strong distinction between them, but the idea of some artistic property is much more deeply engraved in art than it is in science, and you may very well argue that science's move towards a similar attitude could even be hurtful for it. Last Week Tonight did a piece not too long ago where they talked about how there wasn't a Nobel Price for fact-checking (which there is not) and how that has affected a massive amount of research engineered to provide suprising results, if perhaps not as useful. I didn't know that famous artists bothered spending much time teaching their techniques either, whether they do that well in a popular field (like music) or a more traditional one (like painting). This whole not on eye-level with the giant who created it thing really, really, really irated me, so I tried not to be too focused on that, but do you honestly think everyone wants to be damn giant? When I started out modding I was dealing with a major illness that had forced me to drop two subject from school in order to manage finishing the rest, and being able to be part of a community through something as small as editing other mods other people had created (like New Vegas Landscape Overhaul which was basically unplayable) meant a lot to me. Was I supposed to worship other people because they had the time and energy I lacked? This distinction between people is exactly what makes the bitterness bubble, it does actually go both ways. Why does everything have to be new and unique?

That's another missing mesh (missing textures go purple instead). Can you manage to click exactly on the mesh (dead right center of the exclamation mark - I would think) with the console open and find out what it is? It probably has a name, like the "Scotch" did for the user in the other thread. Make sure you don't click the bush though, and if it doesn't have a name just jot down the FormID (8 numbers/letters like 123B5C78).

Me neither. I'm sorry this put you off from further discussing the topic. This was a very interesting theme of discussion (IMHO). As for the difference between stealing and "loaning" - I would honestly point to older practices than ours where the likes of Newton said he could only achieve what he achieved because he "stood on the shoulders of giants". Would science have gone anywhere if scientists had some way of protecting their thoughts from the prelatic touch of their successors? It goes without saying that this speaks in your favor. Yet it is a fine line to walk. Art has obviously been much more protective of their right to claim something as their own intellectual property (since the Renaissance at least, before then most painters would make works anonymously for churches and the like) and the growing urge of more people to work with their dreams of leads to an attempt at ascertaining the value of everything. For example if you say you are a painter, but you only paint for yourself, most people would scoff at that description. Now the French existentialists (which I don't actually feel the need to name, because the most central of them at least did not care much about being remembered) would say that it is absurd to limit your own definition of yourself in that way. Is the small book worth writing et cetera. As such you could say that the necessity of maintaining strict control over your intellectual property is absurd, especially in terms of modding, where you would think that the goal of both parties (that would be the modder and the potential userbase) would be achieving the highest possible amount of fun. So long as someone gives full credit when modifying a mod, how would that remove the fun or reward from either party? I think most people here would agree that the answer is simply that it does not. Especially if you were to attain the view that the existentialist movement would argue for, which is that the societal views you allow to wall-in your self or your dreams are innately absurd. As such the act of learning to make mods (and I think many can recognize this aspect of it without being at all familiar with the philosophy I refer to) wouldn't be because you desired external recognition or gratification, since they are no longer needed either for your goal or your coveted definition of self; but rather because you desired to make a particular mod. However, Nozzer66 does have the gist of it (much like I mentioned before as well) in that as long as the general idea remains as it is, there is a very large step from arguing for a change to actively forcing such a change upon someone. I realize I might have made this overly complicated, but if I was lucky I also managed to ameliorate both concepts a little.

I partly agree with you. My earlier post was more about addressing the discrepancy between what I felt people were expressing as their opinion and what you interpreted it as. I still stand by that. I do wish we had a civilization where this focus on legacy or "personal property" didn't seep into everything, but we don't. This is constantly proven through how people approach everything from modding to music, and for how much it despairs me to see it, I cannot blame them. For as long as society remains so focused on the "value" of all things there is really no way around simply balancing on the fulcrum. Maybe it's because I come from a country with such a large socialist movement (Norway) or perhaps it is for some other reason altogether, I do not know. However, that is also essential in my approach to this - I do not actually know. Hence, how can I defend forcing my opinion on others? Thus not forcing my opinion on others becomes imperative, and respecting people no matter our differences even more so. There is a fundamental difference in approaching the subject through logical arguing (i.e. the philosophical conversation) and assuming that you are already right, by taking the matter into your own hands. Even if I agree that this is how modding should work, I also have to respect that if I thought it right to exploit the system (in this case that would be the Internet) to achieve that goal, that would also necessitate me being fine with someone exploiting another system similarly if said goal were already achieved. A vital part you missed in your music example was that providing a piano cover for a certain song would be much more equatable to making the same mod as one that was already made, from scratch.

Okey I fixed it. New link up now. Let me know if you have any other issues. Now time for screenshots. EDIT: New Wattz Laser Rifle (w/o and with mods, not including the scope): New Wattz Laser Pistols (regular and unique): New Chinese Sniper Rifle and Yazi Vanguard Rifle (the regular version has 3 mods):

Almost everyone here thinks it is unethical. You're mixing our stances. I feel like it is the right thing for me to share my mods with other authors because I, like Wrye, believe in making the best possible modding experience together - as a community. That does not mean I think it is ethical to force that stance on others. First of all that would require me to follow an imperative that suggests such ethical ideals can be applied in broad strokes to literally any other situation (i.e. think of the categorical imperative which suggests you should only act according to a maxim you would welcome as an universal law). Then secondly it requires that stance to trump the question of whether it is right to force that stance on somebody else (e.g if we continue using the categorical imperative as an example I would also have to accept that someone else forced their ideals on me whether or not I agree with said ideals). Hence, the difference between arguing for a certain ethical mindset does no equate implying that such a mindset should be forced on anyone. In considering your example with SoS, I think most people here arguing for the cathedral view would agree that disrespecting that author's wishes is wrong, while still being able to point out that if said author had followed that view, we would most likely have ended up with something more people could enjoy. EDIT: Tech, can you move my post, please. I did not see yours until after I posted this.

The pack has been updated to 0.61. Jumping in game to snag some pictures now. Remember to redo your Bashed Patch. EDIT: I forgot about the EVE patch. Hold on!

That pack was so small the last time I played Skyrim. I kinda do the same thing, except my policy is pretty much that people can do whatever they want with my mods as long as they credit me. The problem is that some of the mods I have made have been modifications on other people's work/or using resources from other people (e.g. I borrowed the light switch models from ILO) hence I can't always say "go right ahead". Though on my gun I actually did so, and I think some guy ported it to Fallout 4. Would be kinda weird if I didn't do that as my favorite thing to do has basically been improving on other people's ideas (e.g. NNBS & NVInterior Rewritten).

He promised to put Nipton on the map.

The mayor made contact with the Powder Gangers, not vice versa. Might be worth noting for the second scene.

See this thread. Exact same issue.

What errors? Could you take a screenshot?

Probably went in Blackjack and Caravan then, but remember, there is no such thing as illegal gambling in post-apocalyptic Nevada. Perhaps in New Vegas itself, but not all the way out in Nipton. Not sure if I can get a roulette wheel on a regular table, it really depends on how the mesh is structured, but I can take a look when I come home. Might be able to fix it in 3DS Max like I did with the Spice of Life helmets for my equipment pack.

I am working on a restored version of Nipton to showcase the habitual activities during the time leading up to the raid. Given the shabby state of most New Vegas towns (Freeside's weary ruins, Goodsprings' nailed shut windows et cetera) it will only be tidied up to the extent you could expect from a Fallout settlement. It will include some kind of casino and hotel, as well as the scenes GP has suggested to me earlier.

Well the first one I had not heard of, but the second one I was around for and in all honestly I cannot see how you lay that at his feet. In all honesty it left me more disappointed with the design philosophy of Bethesda, which he honestly had no choice but to support. After all, what better answer could he have given if the people who wrote the quest didn't care? I for one, would not have been satisfied with some ad-hoc lie. The unquoted ones I've never heard of either, but I guess you're right if they're true. To label Bethesda games as shoddy products also seems kinda bitter, as they usually achieve exactly what the want to achieve. I might not agree with the direction they've taken their products, but it seems to work for most people.

To be fair, it is kind of his job to provide information without letting it be misinterpreted, so to call him a snake is a bit harsh.

Coming to a town near you soon: Shiny Wattz Pistols, the second one being the upgraded "Magneto" variant. Probably gonna make it something you can craft with an upgrade kit. Grabbed them from joefoxx's Fallout 3 mod, just changing the base version to use the glowmap for the upgraded one so it didn't look like a weird crossbreed of aluminium and stone. I know the GECK is a shitty renderer, but they're both using 2K textures. I've also removed a ton of the not-so-good-looking weapons, and replaced the Chinese Sniper Rifle with the Dragunov I teased earlier (including a unique variant named after a "dragon son" from Chinese Mythology). EDIT: Also, Mortercotic, sorry for not responding to your suggestion earlier. I have actually seen the mod, but couldn't for the life of me remember what it was called, so thank you for linking to it. It's definitely a candidate for a future update, since you can easily make any weapon use custom sights.

That is not an NVInteriors record, are you sure that is corrupted (it's a light ray, you might have clicked it accidentally in-game). If NVInteriors is really the problem, you might try downloading the TTWInteriors Core download from here and just install the .bsa, then tick it under the archives tab in MO, and make sure it is sorted after the NVInteriors one.

It's clearly free on PC so that they can get mod makers making mods for consoles, and hence sell more of it for consoles. There are potentially a lot of things not to like, depending on what it pans out to be. A remaster of an older game would be more welcome for my part.

Redownload CaliberX and make sure you followed the steps correctly. Also, since I am seeing a pattern with the mods in question having BSAs, make sure Automatic Archive Invalidation is ticked and that Fallout - Invalidation.bsa is sorted first under the archives tab in MO. Like so:

NVInteriors is currently unavailable on the Nexus, so that might prove to be an issue. What you can do is open up NVInteriorsComboEdition.esp in FNVEdit, then search for the record and change the scotch bottle to use the default mesh again. Like so:

That's not a corrupt texture, that is a missing mesh. Are you using NVInteriors? It changes the default scotch bottle for some reason, meaning it would have it included in its BSA (archive).