MonoAccipiter

I see. Well, no harm done. I'm usually not very familiar how other people who hold my point of view tend to act, so when people treat me on that basis, I tend to get confused. When I say I'm sceptical, I mean that I am sceptical of this. Not that it is in my nature or something like that. In fact, I rarely care what my nature is, because I would rather act in a way that is in accordance with my morals and what provides me with a good life, than I would want to act according to my nature, as it could be arbitrarily both bad and good, when measured according to that maxim. Just to clarify, once and for all, even when I would like to prove why I believe this is untrue (because it seems an interesting point of application for scrutiny and I dislike dismissing something without proper reasoning) there should be nothing in my argument passing judgement on anyone who believe in this, as I do not think they are mad, or even dumber than me in any fashion. I don't consider myself to be particularly clever or wise, and it is unlikely that I have anymore understanding of the things that led anyone to believe in this, than I do of the things that led me to doubt it. I apologise if any contrary impression has been given.

@Mator: While to me, that's a rather strange argument to make, viz. that someone should adapt what they do because of the irrational way which most people would judge them, I can see where it is coming from and I apologise for misrepresenting what you said. Perhaps I'm just more of an idealist, and would rather scorn negative behaviour (e.g. viewing something like STEP in a lesser light based on this very detached topic) than suggest we adapt to it. I'm kinda used to holding unpopular opinions anyhow; though I am always more than ready to debate them. @baronaatista: These two parts seem rather interesting when combined: [1] [2] If one-fifth of the planets in the Milky Way is 67000000, or 67 million, the total number of planets would be 67 * 5 = 335 million planets. According to most scientific estimates, that number is actually at least 100 billion. I found this point in a Wikipedia user's page, so I didn't come up with it myself, but I cross-referenced it to make sure. Guess I'm making a statement on whether it is true or not, Sparrowprince, or more specifically, that Ra either does not know everything he pretends to, is a deceiver, or the invention of a deceiver. Which makes taking its statements for truth very problematic. Still don't think you're mad though.

You seem to confuse questioning held beliefs with passing judgement on the person who has attained that belief. I can see how some of the things Mator said was akin to passing judgement on the person believing these things, such as when he suggested you should be embarrassed for believing in them, but I intentionally avoided that because it is very unnecessary. I don't judge ignorance of anything very harshly. Your exposure to certain kinds of beliefs is very much pertinent to your situation, which also happens to be completely unique. What happens in the sentence I highlighted is not so much a requirement in criticising something, as it is a potential outcome if the person being critical is more interested in assessing their own superiority than actually dealing with the matter at hand. This being said, there is a degree of embarrassment often bound to occur if something you believe in is torn down, but that is mostly tied to your own assessment of what it says about your character. Yes, declaring that a belief is false, will entail that the experiences or information that has led you to believe in it also must be misleading, but again, this is only detrimental to you insofar as you let it. You did not choose those experiences anymore than I would have chosen mine. What you can choose is whether to consider criticism and attempt to reason with it, taking in the whole of the evidence available to you, and participating in an attempt to discern truth where none have any right to claim wisdom from simply being closer in their initial guess. Whether this makes you happy is very hard to say, and as such it could only really be called a requirement if you want to convince someone else of this truth, discuss said truth with someone, or you want to alter society based on that truth. Which is why I said that what I consider strange is not that you want to believe in it, but only that you want to discuss it without the necessary step of discussing its validity. A demonstration of the difference between level-headed and fair criticism, and the likes of which sinks to mockery, is the difference between the approach most atheist philosophers took in the past, and that which has been adopted by the New Atheism movement. Just look at the difference in book naming. People like Bertrand Russel wrote such books as Why I Am Not a Christian, which clearly states its personal motivation in the title, whereas today, one of the most popular books on the subject is called The God Delusion, already establishing what it thinks of people holding the opposite viewpoint in the title. The former approach is very non-intrusive, and can hardly be called an attack, simply concerned with proof that has seemed vital to the author, whereas the latter immediately announces the flaw in its opposition. That is, as I have mentioned, not at all a necessity. When quoting Leo Tolstoy, as much as I respect the Russian gentleman, one should be aware that this is the same individual who insisted that medicine was a useless science because there was no such thing as a common denominator between the states of several sick people. Things were a lot different back in the 1800s, and he was at times convinced that in almost all things we should leave it for God to decide what should happen. Adopting this approach would probably never have done much for those poor folks who were not born into the nobility. Quotes can certainly be inspirational things, but there is no added weight to what they are saying simply because they are said by people who have accomplished something admirable. However, as I said, you seem to mistake judging beliefs in terms of their truth, with judging individuals in terms of their worth. There is no such inference of the latter from the former, that we can say they are necessarily connected. I react to something you said later on however. Specifically the mention of beliefs aligning with people's conception of right and wrong. You do realise that arguing that we have an innate conception of right and wrong would necessitate that something gave us that (and that it is non-deceiving) and that you seem to argue for the validity of the things that gave us that by referring to our innate conception of right and wrong. That is circular reasoning. Not to mention the fact that believing we have an innate sense of right and wrong seems contrary to what history has taught us about cultural development, or the fact that there are different things considered moral in different parts of the world to this day. It is also worth mentioning that it presupposes this sense of right and wrong is intrinsically correct, which again assumes there is a universal law of right and wrong, something only possible within a belief system, several of which disagree on what that law is. There is a virtually an ocean of issues with that statement. This makes little sense. Favouring experience in such a fashion presupposes that a human being is undeceiveable, or in the very least that it has the ability to discern between truth and untruth without the assistance of reason, something which has been widely disproved, and should be readily apparent as an impossibility. There is no connection between the observer of happenstance and the ability to assess that event. That is at best entirely contingent. If we are to argue that everyone is in possession of the same ability to assess evidence, then we need to allow reason back into the fold, and when we do that, we cannot dismiss the problems posited by its application, because logic is the foundation of reason. Thus we are left with option of either dismissing reason and relying on a deceiveable human being, or allowing reason back in, and being challenged by its logic. In short, we doubt everything other than the fact that we doubt, or we trust in the full sum of our logic, and need to follow where it leads us. Thus there is no middleground where we can randomly discard evidence based on what class of truth it pertains to, and if we are not to doubt in everything, then we must allow that anything truthful should be able to overcome the challenges of reason, whether they come from the person possessing the evidence or not. I completely fail to see how inward searching, directly presupposing that there is a deposit of truth within, which is circular argumentation as it is relies on the beliefs that inward searching is said to validate; should provide you with with any form irrefutable, as well as unpresentable, answers. They would in that case be based on reason, which would consist of proofs, and could be presented as well as refuted. You mention intuition, but intuition is not assessment of complex truths, it is the starting point of a simple truth. For example, I can intuit that I, or perhaps some other entity controlling me, doubt, because even if I doubt everything, that would still be something I could affirm that I am doing, and from that I can deduce several other truths. I can also intuit that I am able to be deceived, because when I do my ear training, I sometime mistake the chord of e for the chord of e minor. However, that is all based on assuming the mantle of rationalism, which is actually quite the leap of faith to make without any evidence, and why you rarely see someone claim the truth of something because they can intuit it is so. But as you can see, intuition is based on a relation that can be described, I cannot say that I doubt because I feel like I doubt, and in presenting the reason for why I make that intuition, the possibility is opened up for criticism. Which is why someone can clearly prove my intuition wrong if I said that I saw a sunflower today and intuited that all flowers are green and yellow. If your measure of accuracy is not science or its means of observation, or subject to logic, what remains as a measure is your spirit, which would be a terrible judge of the truths it has presented to you in the first place. What if a prophet were to argue that he had been told certain truths by God, and that he had verified these truths by asking God if they were true? Does that suddenly mean it is true? No, you would be sceptical of any evidence that seem to suggest ghosts are real, discerning between proof and unreliable evidence, as well as being aware of the fact that life after death or the existence higher power remains no more proven by one religious text than another, the validity of which could be claimed by just about anyone. You probably also be knowledgeable of the fact that science is unable to fully disprove either of those suppositions, but is fully able to refute some their proofs, the others being refutable through logic, if they happen to be untrue. It would also remain of interest to you to determine whether the proofs for what seems reasonable as a belief to you can be refuted, because a follower of science would be interested in truth. There are several Christians who believe in science for instance. EDIT: Actually, that last paragraph is not really true, as I misread what you were saying as "If I only trusted science," which was clearly not what you said. It remains as an assessment of what reasonable doubt still allows you to hold though.

It's the ragdoll mod. Only happens to already dead creatures, such as the nightkin or brahmin. Use the scanner in the MCM menu, and try to grab/shake the things that it doesn't affect to make it go away.

I never claimed to be open. I even stated that I was sceptical. There is a pretty large difference between being sceptical of something and being convinced that everyone who does not share your view is mad. Talking about large open questions is not philosophical, that is a huge misconception. There is a method to it. There are proofs in philosophy, which can be assessed and refuted. They do not base their reasoning on the words of a potential being, with alleged superior knowledge. Even Socratic fables are not content to take the words of gods as proof for their reasoning. Take the Phaedrus dialogue for example, Socrates does not conclude that love is good simply because the gods say so, he instead assumes that they would perhaps say so for a reason, and then attempts to discover that reason through the use of dialectical logic, not being satisfied it is true until he can prove it to himself. Again, what would be the potential of something untrue? The question of its validity must come first. There is no point in assessing the potential of something that might not be true. Descartes does not conclude that their is an exterior world based on there being a benevolent God, before he has proven that God exists and is benevolent. He realises that the former argument relies on the latter, and as such cannot be deemed of any worth until the latter is proven. I do not think people can "harness more potential when it's not taken seriously" or any such thing. That is precisely my point. So long as most people are unconvinced of its reality, its potential is virtually non-existent for them. There is no potential in parapsychology until we are convinced of the truth of parapsychology, which is why its main concern should be establishing its own truthfulness. Assuming that it can simply ignore that step is preposterous. Why does it need to be a who? It can be your senses, your mental state, the world around you, your societal biases et cetera. Mator is right to assess that the opposite of sceptical is not open. The opposite of being sceptical is being doubtless, believing, unquestioning, or even gullible. The opposite of open, in the way that you seem to be using it, would be being unmovable in one's believes. I don't think requiring proof before believing in something such as this is being unmovable. Moreover, if there was no questioning of beliefs, every misconception would still reign wherever it had first occurred. This could be directly harmful to society, and a large deterrent on any form of progress. Never questioning self-held beliefs can also lead (depending on whether your first belief was the most true) to a state of being ignorant of oneself, which can be blissful, but it can also collapse in a rather disastrous manner. This is what leads to an existential crisis in some individuals. The fact that this doubt happens upon people differently is probably much of the reason for why the majority never questioned things such as god-invested power in the nobility over longs periods of human history. However, I maintain that anyone is more than welcome to believe in this, or any other form of religious knowledge, but expecting other people to engage in a conversation about its potential, or even alter society on the assumption that it is true, without questioning it, is what seems very strange to me.

That's a pretty huge assumption to make from what little I wrote on the matter. You don't see me describing what you are thinking, so why do you feel the need to do it with me? Ra was quoted. The book in question is a transcript of things Ra supposedly has said. Philosophical thought was brought up as a byword for being open to supernatural matters. It has very little to do with that. I tried my best not to, in addressing everything in a hypothetical manner. If that is commenting on its validity, then you read a lot more between my lines than I think between them. The first part of my post took problem with using the term "philosophical thinking" about something that has barely anything to do with philosophy or its methods, as I pointed out it seems more about being told truths from entities than attaining them through rational thought, which is what philosophy does. The second part addressed that it seems unreasonable to expect a discussion about the potentiality of something not commonly shared when that potentiality only applies if it is truth, and that if this were truth it is such an all-encompassing manner of truth that it reveals its own potential. Perhaps a discussion of interpretation would be more fruitful, but even then it remains that it is only interesting once you believe in it. You would hardly expect a firm atheist to be interested in how to be live by the rules of a god they vehemently deny, or vice versa. The real question is what the point of asserting what people would or would not do in the case of 100% verified evidence is, when 100% verified evidence of the matter does not exist. The fact that you think something is completely believable does not make it 100% verified. That would mean it is beyond even unreasonable doubt. The same would of course apply if it was me instead of you. The reason why people bother is because they often have a fundamental longing for answers about the world they live in, like Camus points out in The Myth of Sisyphus. They want purpose. That can be something simple, such as success, or something more complex, such as living according to the views of a religion, or how the universe works. Different people feel a different need to think through that, and arrive at completely different conclusions as to what it might be. My point was more that if ghosts are real, we have already had people using their "potential" for years. You seem to mistake my comment about what you can achieve in discussing the potential of something uncertain for being on the point of attempting to find out whether they are real. The latter was not at all what I was commenting on.

Not sure I want to get into this. I am a sceptic myself, and the discussion about that kinda died out a few pages back. I do encourage you to practice a distinction though: this is not philosophical thinking. Philosophy is based on a rational and logical approach to fundamental problems, not being made aware of said problems and their solutions in conversation with a "higher being" of any sort. That would perhaps be more aptly described by the term spiritual thinking. When discussing philosophy we should be quoting the likes of Descartes and Schopenhauer, not Ra. Besides the fact that much of this sounds like someone took a literal interpretation of the platonic steps and exchanged the Olympians with cosmic entities, it has few similarities with the philosophical method. What is the potential of something that is untrue? At best it will be a broken clock being right twice a day sort of situation, but I'm fairly certain there are more "options" in life than there is on a clock face. You must be well aware that most people do not believe in this, regardless of its actual validity, and as such, expecting to discuss something's potential based on the assumption that it is true, seems a very unreasonable expectation. I make no stance on whether this is true or not, but its potential seems only limited to a situation in which it is the truth, and even then, what would it contain besides the potential of absolute truth? If we learned (irrefutably) to live in harmony with ourselves and the universe, we would probably live in harmony with ourselves and the universe. If we learned (irrefutably) that when we die we are reincarnated, we would be reincarnated when we die, and would stop worrying about that. If we learned (irrefutably) that ghosts are real... we could make TV-shows about talking to them? Haven't we already done that though?

I've never encountered this. Did you tag them using FNVEdit? Because several of those are not merged for me, and if there was an issue I would have solved it when making my merged patch.

You don't.

Actually, ENB is not doing it to you, since "use effect" was unticked when it happened. I'm fairly sure this is just how RWLE looks (since it's the way things would look in a desert where everything reflects light). You can try to use an ENB, I think there are some different ones on display in the screenshots thread. There are tons of them that tone down the harsh lighting, the thing is, that's an acquired taste, so it's much better to have the realistic lighting as a baseline and let people get whatever kind of ENB they might fancy.

Well, it's not Electro-City on its own, usually. It's in the combination with another mod. Lets say a vanilla location has two shadow casting lights within the given square. Then Electro-City adds three more, no problem. Then Mod ABC adds one more, now you have an issue.

It's not the ENB's fault, Genius384. The engine has a limit of 5 lights casting shadows on the same area at the same time, and when there are more than that, it freaks out. Sadly happens in some areas because Electro-City adds a lot of lights.

As I said, looking in that direction when a problem occurs is completely natural. Up until then it varies a lot for different setups though. I've never had this issue, and I've been playing both Oblivion and Fallout on different setups over the years. It seems to me something that will make it a bit harder to get things going as a newbie, and adds a lot of steps for something that quite often is not an issue. I am glad you managed to fix your problem with it, GP, and it is worth keeping in mind if we encounter any issues of the like.

I disagree. There is almost no risk involved. If you begin crashing, that can be fixed. What is believed, without knowing by whom, sounds like speculation. Which is fair to do when you have little solid evidence to work with, but rarely something you need to trouble a new user with. The point to leaving a bunch of inactive plugins is that you don't need to write a list, unhide, and re-sort them every time you need to make a new Bashed Patch. If it's true, of course there is little point to leaving them, but that's entire point of this argument: that it is an if.

Haven't seen this mentioned since Oblivion, and even then, it was not a problem encountered by everyone. I have never had an issue with it in FNV. It is a good tip to check out if you have crashes, but until then it is nothing solidly affirmed in terms of whether a small amount of files affect it or not. Gentle reminder that correlation does no equal causation. There is a connection there, but the theory is not formed on the basis of verified truth, and as such there is no real evidence that it counts minor amounts of inactive plugins in that fashion. The PM listed on the source for directory thrashing mentions hundreds of inactive plugins, and ten thousands of useless files, WB leaves you with about a dozen. Now to answer you question about plugin limits, Dr_Herbert_West, the game does not count inactive plugins for that. You can see the amount of plugins you have by looking at the hex number reflecting its position in the load order. Hex works with a root of 16, viz. each slot is worth 16. So 20 is 32, 30 is 48 etc. Because it needs six more digits, it uses letters from A to F, viz. A is 10, C is 12, E is 14 etc. I have 76 as my lowest active mod, meaning (7*16) + 6 = 118 active plugins.

I added it, and wasn't aware of the error. It should be added as a note, yes, but I have to go to sleep right now.

Forgot to mention that you also need to remove CaliberX calibers from various leveled lists.

There is only one way, really. Change the various CaliberX calibers to something from vanilla NV, there should be a list of which ones were changed on the pack page. Then you clean masters with xEdit.

The CaliberX problems are there because the author decided the best way to handle the current situation was to take the mod down for some reason. It will be up again soon. WFO doesn't need the update for the dead version anymore, I just made some minor changes to the plugin for the most recent version. There was a flying cactus outside of the NCR prison, and some conflicts with New Vegas Uncut (Cactuses growing inside re-added buildings). I'm still unsure about YGT. It does contain a lot of great mods, but there's just so damn much, which seems like both a potential incompatibility feast, and very hard to customise. Let's say I don't want Quantum to show up in vending machines for lore reasons, or would like to avoid having Nuka-Cola Cinnamon be something I can craft, or I don't want Pre-War Money to have a coin icon when it consists purely of bills. All those things are fair to include in the YGT mod, but not necessarily things I would have backed for inclusion in F&L without it being part of a larger package. I know I'd probably chop it up a bit before adding it to my own game, at least. There are still some incompatibilities not fixed by WB, I can add my merged patch (the one I used for the Wasteland Edition) to the guide as a starting point, if you'd like. @Mortercotic: Lots of good suggestions. The optimized textures can often get corrupted when downloading if you have a slow connection, so I'd be careful with recommending that. It's certainly a timesaver if it works correctly, but it doesn't always seem to do that. Enhanced Highways probably either screws up most travelling NPCs, or edits a ton of navmeshes, which means it needs patches, and not the easy-to-make stuff. I considered adding the Armored Vault Suit retexture, but I figured it would be a bit annoying to have different textures for different vault suits. I would also argue against the Mysterious Broadcast extension, as that, with its relatively small selection of tunes, might be the best station in the game. It has a very distinct feel that I think every player should be able to experience. The mod seems to add a lot of songs which belong to much more upbeat part of jazz, like Happy Feet by Fletcher Henderson. The mysterious broadcast is generally much smoother and softer, kinda like Autumn Leaves or the like.

AGH, I'm so tired of people losing their head over this Lutana thing and pulling triggers way before the smoke cleared up. Roy wouldn't let me touch that plugin for my pack, so I doubt he'll let me host it until it's up again. Wait, why does Book of Steel Compatibility Edition, and now F&L, have retextures for the FO3 Tesla Armor required? Last time I checked, it didn't distribute non-existing content into the Mojave, and the Gannon Family Tesla Armor uses a very different set of textures.

You'll notice I removed some Millenia's weapons in my pack for that reason (them not meshing well). PushTheWinButton doesn't seem very fond of making stuff compatible with things he doesn't use, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Bashed Patch issue remains "a problem with Wrye Bash". I'm unsure what to make of it. Had a look at the bosh.pyo file for the specific lines and it looks like all it is trying to do is loading the records. Line 8009 for example, says: records.load(ins,unpack and (topClass != MobBase)) 6960 just defines what the load command does: elif ins is not None: self.loadData(ins, ins.tell()+self.size-recHeaderSize)

Save the game. Remove the merged mod. Open the game, make a save. Re-merge the mod without the overlapping mods, add UP+, and you're good to go. Probably best to make the clean save in an interior. That being said, if they just do the same thing to vanilla records, there is no harm in just adding them on top. They won't change the FORMIDs. If they add something though, do what I said.

Cleaning the DLCs, while no longer necessary with YUP installed, will not lead to problems. Instant CTD is usually an INI problem. Go delete the default .ini files in "Documents\My Games\FalloutNV" and start the base game from Steam to remake them. Then copy those new .ini files to the MO .ini files. Either that's the issue, or you have .bsa files unticked, or plugins unticked (masters).

I updated CaliberX, transposed some relevant mods from the Wasteland Edition, which I now consider absorbed again; and added my hand texture tip for roberts (written by boycad). I still think the Holster mod should be removed, since they only fit with about two guns, and one of them looks far too modern for Fallout. That being said, I've not taken the liberty to do that in case someone feels strongly opposed to it. I feel the same way about the Dragonskin Outfit, it could be included in a pack, but for a general improvement of the FNV experience, it's very out of place with the style and aesthetic. Last night I updated my New Vegas Landscape Overhaul Remastered mod, and fixed a ton of bugs. So, if anyone was using that, I'd recommend the update. Also, if anyone intends to make a mod like that in the future, for the sake of humanity, please do not use that accursed "generate navmesh" button in the worldspace!

WotNM, and the unmerged mods, uses vanilla scripts, not NVSE ones, so it has a tendency to mess with your saves if you remove the plugins/renumber the IDs while playing. Also doubt you can reach Millenia, I've been trying to do that for over a year, he has yet to reply to that initial PM. Tried Naky too, later on, since I thought I had the ability to make the fabled cancelled update ready to release. No luck there either. Perhaps you'll have more luck than me. Weijiesen released a new mod called EXE, with effect textures he made for The Frontier. I highly recommend it. Jack is a wizard.