MonoAccipiter

I've updated Windows, but not my AMD display driver (it's still v16.7.3) and FNV is still working fine for me.

My only advice is asking on the Nexus page. Maybe the author knows, or at least can elaborate on the difference between the MCM version and the non-MCM version.

I could probably have done it differently, but when I started out there was really no precedence to follow, seeing as doctoring mods like I do hasn't been done all that much before. Not even sure if it has been done before, after all it just started out with me being slightly annoyed with Millenia's weapons having different names than all the other weapons. Then I realized it could also be a nifty way to reduce plugin count by integrating patches for what I consider to be pretty necessary mods for FNV (like CaliberX). It was only while working on that I realized how ridiculously much stronger most weapons from mods were than comparable vanilla weapons, especially in regard to WotNM which is wildly unbalanced. It seems that Millenia (or Naky) never noticed that vanilla reduces the damage for automatic weapons in comparison with single fire weapons of the same caliber. Instead they had all their automatics balanced around single fire damage, sometimes even more than vanilla equivalents, which gave them higher DPS values than most weapons already in the game. One thing I did notice while doing this was that Obsidian has actually done a damn good job when it comes to balancing weapons. Probably helped out that Sawyer apparently is a gun nut. I mostly used weight, firing rates, exit velocity, and impact energy statistics from Wikipedia in comparing mod-added weapons to vanilla ones, and they're mostly consistent with each other across the board. The thing to note is that fire rates have mostly been reduced by a percentage to help make it more suitable to an RPG environment, which is perfectly understandable. Most of the considerations important for the producing of a weapon in real life, like material cost, reliability in poor conditions, stability in accurate fire and et cetera, become rather inconsequential when translating them into a video game. Much more so when that video game is in a genre where people aren't supposed to be combat disabled from a couple of hits. Considering all this, I find myself continually impressed every time I open up the hood of FNV and take a look at what's underneath. These are relevant considerations to be made as to the cost of certain weapons as well. You will notice that the upgraded version of the AK-47, namely the AK-74 is hardly any better than it's predecessor after my balancing. This is because its improvements are mostly untranslatable to the game, but also because they are at times so small that they're only noticeable when employing these guns in numbers of thousands. As such they can scarcely be said to be worth the attention of any wasteland dweller. Project Nevada's weapons looked pretty balanced to me as well, upon some light inspection. What Project Nevada didn't do all that well, however, was implementation. The mod edits tons of shop lists directly, instead of adding the weapons using scripts. Something, which while it can be largely fixed by using a Bashed Patch, is not the best when considering compatibility with other mods, and in addition becomes a pain to remove further down the line. In order to avoid deleting the weapon records, I would have to dig through every damned leveled list and manually remove their entries. Whereas if I delete the weapon in the GECK, as well as the special leveled containers they make to get different conditions, it will automatically remove it from every leveled list as well. Not to mention the fact that in order to undo the changes to shop lists with a patch, I would basically have to make a patch consisting mostly of ITMs. This reduces my workload quite a bit, when you consider the fact that Project Nevada's other annoying aspect, is the fact that the equipment pack has a rather massive discrepancy in quality of the included mods. It always annoyed me that any "remedy" I could offer, both as a mod-user and a pack-creator, to help make Project Nevada as good looking as the rest of the game was at best a half-solution. You either had to live with certain guns looking like plastic, as well as some stuff being duplicated by other mods, or you could uninstall the whole thing and miss out on some great armors and weapons. In short — while everybody seemed interested in improving the vanilla game, nobody seemed interested in improving some of the older large mods that basically all modding packs were built around. This is why I have doctored the plugin so much directly, partly because of how it was made, and partly because adding another patch on top seems superfluous when I want to improve upon something that has become almost as essential to the modded FNV experience, as DLCs have become to the game itself.

That sounds dreadful. Did they sit down and ask themselves how they could make an online elite?

Load up all the plugins like you did before. Find the weapon you want to change. Click at the header of the column that is the furthest to the right (the "winning" record) and select "Copy as an override into...", then either select my merged patch from F&L or make your own merged patch. Then change the FOV there and sort that patch after the Bashed Patch.

Just copy the record that would win as an override into the Merged Patch and make your changes there. It is supposed to be sorted after the Bashed Patch anyhow.

Kind of OT, but I wanted to give you some praise for your NV Let's Play, GP. Really enjoyed the episode! Gave me the push I needed to update my pack for CaliberX's new version.

Not sure I understand what "Toggle 1" is, but glad you solved it. Be aware that other mods might override the FOV changes you make unless you make the Bashed Patch integrate them (which should be alright if you use the bash tag script).

Working on this now. Should be out later today. Seems they haven't changed the FormIDs, just the EditorIDs, meaning that I only need to change the scripts. I'd have to redo the plugin completely because the errors probably come from me deleting certain records. Couldn't you just remove all the errors from the TTW patch? EDIT: It's been updated.

What is rWeapon set to at the top of the script? GetEquippedObject or something? You need to use the GECK because FNVEdit won't compile the script (i.e. translate it into number code). You can make the changes in Notepad++ and paste it into the built-in editor later, but you need the GECK PowerUp to save it, since it uses NVSE commands.

Check the PPA mod and see if it mentions the EditorID of one of the guns in any of the scripts. Then see if that command (i.e. the line) changes FOV, and change the number to whatever you want. Probably easier if you copy it into Notepad++, and I'm not sure FNVEdit can compile scripts, so you'll have to go into the GECK to save them. It's easier to find the scripts added by the mod in FNVEdit though, so open that first, find what you need, change it in Notepad++, then open the GECK and save the changes there.

Seems some of your problems are pretty common bugs as well: https://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Hardcore_mode According to the discussion page (click on the "Talk"-button) messing with the values (like PN does) or the timescale (like F&L recommends) can make vanilla bugs more pronounced, which I'm guessing is what happened here. Since you completed the playthrough, I'm gonna go ahead and hazard a guess at it being somewhat less noticeable when you hadn't played as long. The game gets decidedly less stable the longer you play because of more scripts running in the background, especially when mods are involved. Very many modders also use scripts that don't end themselves when done, which I can't imagine does the engine any favors in the long run.

It should be using the MO files, but they are generated from the default .ini files, so could be that something happened wrong along the way. Just edit the ones MO use in the future.

Realized I didn't explain earlier, what you're experiencing is a crash at startup (hence why steam says it starts). Have you tried deleting your ini files? They're in "Documents\My Games\FalloutNV" usually. Steam won't replace those when you verify the cache IIRC, but if you start the game with them deleted, the launcher will make new ones.

The bug where they stop might be caused from entering a DLC, where they are stopped until you go to sleep again in the normal game world. Changing the timescale too low sometimes causes issues. Try setting it up to 20. RoyBatty over on the TTW forums speculated that it might be caused by changing it while using the stutter remover tool.

Are all the .bsa files ticked in MO?

Yes, because advocating that one should vote in favor of a politician that acts a certain way instead of voting on their campaign promises is surely not adapting to reality... Talk about a straw man. EDIT: I should clarify that I don't argue to ignore campaign promises and act on things like face value, but rather to take political ​endeavors as evidence of their political acumen and standing, insted of lending a vote only to forward a motion that might easily be defeated. What is a "true democracy"? Are you talking about direct representation? Yes, that would probably be worse because there would be no way to get anything done. I fail to see what that has to do with anything I described though. To assume that a democracy works better with an informed populace is the foundation of most educational systems in Europe. The average citizen is the person supposed to cast the vote for a representative, hence the average citizen should attempt to attain an understanding of important questions. If you remove the citizen as the elector, then you run the risk of politicians acting in favor of their particular stratum of society. Because they are the leverage that ensures a politician will be held accountable to their decisions, they need to be informed. Otherwise they won't be able to assess whether or not that decision was right. These things people don't have the time to research are usually the responsibility of politicians, or occasionally the news, to inform the public about. There is no gridlock in the rest of the world's political systems. There's been progress and regression in both directions, but not stagnation. You're pointing to correlation, not causation. The fact that the US is largely bipartisan probably doesn't help much either. Politicians being forced to do what their voters want them to is not necessarily a bad thing. "Progress" shouldn't be forced on the populace, than can go disastrously wrong because what constitutes progress is largely disputed. If we managed to educate the voters more on how things work however, they might stay approach political issues more consistently. Then you could work on some of the issues with your system, which again, are not at all inherent to democracy as a whole. Do you mean the glorious dawn of American history where a huge portion of the populace wasn't even allowed to vote? Where you chased Indians off their land to ensure economic providence for whites? When things like child labor were still in practice? What exactly did it mean to them that they "were all Americans"? You realize it took you over 70 years to abolish slavery, right...? One one side you're arguing that voters are not qualified to make decisions on important subjects, on the other hand you argue that politics should not be a job. So neither the voter, nor the politician should have time for politics then? "... it's to keep their jobs". Yes, their jobs which are to make the country better or get something passed that their voters want. That's how the voters leverage their duty. This doesn't necessitate stagnation, but having a bipartisan system where one party runs on promises of stopping the other party does. Several things can get rid of career politicians. Term limits; multiple party representation making it harder to sway from the party stance because they are more unilaterally aligned towards certain ideologies; informed voters that hold politicians accountable to their accomplishments et cetera. Manipulative media, as you mentioned, is very emblematic. And it becomes all the more so because most of the media is owned by a particular stratum of society. The easiest way to combat bad arguments has always been more understanding though. Want to know something that really helps you see things from other perspectives? Novels. Some films too. Art. Poetry. What society? You're painting the whole thing black and white. I bet there are tons that hold an opposing, equally as extremist view. Besides, most of the arguments I've seen regarding this issue doesn't state that racist cops are the reason blacks aren't "successful" in your country, but rather that racist cops are a problem. Which they are. If you attempt to bring up issues such as the crime rates in those neighborhoods you are deflecting from the real issue. Which is that several acts of a detrimental nature have been perpetrated on people because they belonged to a particular race. Then again you present these things as facts, as if they don't have an interpretation bundled along with them. I don't find it at all surprising that the portion of the population exposed to more poverty also has a proportionally higher crime rate. Especially seeing as your public education system doesn't support most people through college. Not sure how someone like George Washington would be possible today... It probably helped him that the slaves he privately wanted to set free, but publicly kept buying, had no votes to cast. Oh, wait. Does that mean he changed his political opinion because it allowed him to keep his job? Crap.

You can mark a post as solved if you started the thread in a support sub-forum. Alternatively a moderator can do it (I sometimes do it for F&L threads when people forget it).I upload pictures to imgur and use the direct link with the forum's image button (right next to link in the toolbar). You can get this direct link by right clicking on the image and selecting "Copy image address" if you use Chrome (probably the same for other browsers); this would work regardless of preferred uploading site by the way. Then you paste the link into the box that appears when clicking on the image button and voilà ! They'll look really large when you're writing your post depending on the size of the picture, but will appear in neat little boxes when you finish posting.Just tag the topics with whatever game they are related to if you post in a shared (i.e. by several games) forum. If you post in one of the sub-forums specific to a particular game, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Hell, it's probably not a problem if you forget it in a shared forum either. I'm pretty terrible at using them. I think you'll eventually agree with me that this is one of the kindest forums on the net.

Maybe we need to take a cue from Aristotle and ask ourselves: what are politics for? I would personally rather vote for a politician whom I can trust to want a similar thing for society as me, than I would want to vote for one who promises victories on issues that might be important to me now, but are heavily opposed by other parties. Four years is a long time. In my mind, most realizations like this (i.e. that politicians often don't get traction on their campaign promises) can be turned to our advantage, instead of just acting as an excuse for apathy. Turning to fear mongering political figures that argue that they are "different" than the rest simply because they're louder is not the way to change the system. I think it's important to remember that politics is in the end just a channel for public opinion, and as such the debate and actively putting important issues on the national (or regional) agenda becomes not only important, but imperative. If we are to aspire to an ideal system (not saying we can achieve it - but that should not keep us from aspiring to it) we have to understand that seeking apprehension of important political topics is as much our job as it is that of the politicians. Wisdom is ultimately what helps push society in the right direction, and that needs to attained and promoted by society, not just the political establishment (which I would argue becomes much less sensible once we stop expecting it to be that). This is why I am a propagator of lifelong learning, not because knowledge is power, but because wisdom helps strengthen society at the foundation (i.e. the people in it). I find it important to say that I use the word wisdom as opposed to knowledge because to me, it's not just knowing that is important, but understanding also. One might say that in modern society we know far too much, and understand far too little. One might even say that's where the Socratic method would come in handy, but sadly that was not even mentioned to me in school until I took a philosophy course (at the high school level). EDIT: Changed "is" to "are" in my question. According to the dictionary you can use both singular and plural verbs with "politics", but it looked better to me like this.

You're right, but it's important to note that these genetic "errors" are overall seen as detrimental first and foremost to the child itself. Therefore, even though I share your fear of what might happen once this kind of technology is "unlocked" so to speak, I don't think these two cases are directly comparable in terms of ethics. Then there's also the fact that as I mentioned there are no magical genes we can just alter to make someone "better", that's why CRISPR has been largely over-hyped, because people seem to assume that knowing that genes in general have an effect on certain attributes is the same as knowing what genes are related to what attributes. Which is not at all true, and is unlikely to be answered very soon, especially considering the fact that the nature versus nurture debate is still very much alive. For all we know the nurture side of that debate might even be right, which is what has dominated the scientific environment in my country for over forty years, party due to how theories on the predominant effect of nature has been used in support of atrocities in the past (by Nazi-Germany). Remember, this side rarely dismisses nature outright, instead they often think it might have a comparably small effect on intelligence (20% is an oft-repeated figure). What this means to me is that we have still have a lot of time to make the ethical debate about this a part of the political agenda. Sadly, in a time where an organ like the UN could not be more needed, it seems to be losing its political influence by the day. North Korea is testing new weapons they have agreed not to develop every month or so, and just yesterday my own government announced that they were going to push for opening of new oil fields in previously protected areas. Something which was not only in violation of the promises they made to the two parties that put them into power, but also clearly ignoring the climate goals we signed onto with the Paris Agreement. When it comes to China, western corporations have been pouring their money into that country and other NICs for decades because of the money they can save on not having to deal with ethics, so if we want to maintain the standard of living we have (although even that is endangered because so many jobs have been moved to cheaper areas) and keep capitalism, then having them out-compete us in terms of sciences because of their disregard for boundaries is not only something we will have to live with, but also something we actually paid for. Not that this hasn't happened before. The US made sure everyone involved with Unit 731 got diplomatic immunity after World War Two in trade for their research on biological warfare. It still makes me sick to the stomach every time I think about that. Be warned that it is a rather graphic read. And don't think for a moment that any such technology will be available for everyone, it will probably just cement the power of a small rich upper class. Which as we know is a problem in democracy because they do not have the vote to protect their interests, but with how easily people turn to demagogues for answers these days, I'm not sure what to think of that system anymore. It's like we rather want the easy answers than the true ones. In the UK they voted in favor of a campaign led by the man who got thrown out of the EU Parliament for making a speech where he said the President of the European Council had the "charisma of a wet rag" and the "appearance of a bank clerk", and went on to say that he was convinced he intended to be the "quiet assassin of European democracy" and perhaps it was because he came from Belgium "which of course is pretty much a non-country". I must admit it gave me a good chuckle, but I still find it discomforting that these people seem to get more traction with the masses than politicians presenting real arguments.

Which is the entire point of there being ethical considerations in science... not to mention that there is no consensus on what genes are related to what attributes, or the several important discoveries in modern psychology that indicate nurture has a lot to say (the Bell Curve and the Flynn Effect). Moreover, like Schopenhauer pointed out, the way we choose partners can't exactly be said to be an entirely flawless process, neither for our potential kids or for us. Nor can the subconscious mind be attributed with a perfect understanding of what genes are "best" for their potential offspring. That is, as far as I know, very rarely claimed to be the driving force behind natural selection. You make several rather significant leaps of faith to arrive at that conclusion. There is also the historical argument that presents a fairly good reason for why eugenics movements (like Nazism) have fallen out of favor. These things weren't abolished because they were proven to be an unfruitful idea, at least not the idea that one could (technically) spur the evolution of our species, but rather because they were inherently abhorrent in their consequence. I, for one, am rather glad that history took that turn. EDIT: Added a second paragraph.

I was under the impression the evolution in a species occurred as the portions with certain advantages out-competed the other portions, which is impossible now that we do not eliminate the weak in society (and why Social-Darwinist movements have sought to use eugenics as a means to "continue evolution"). i.e. as long as we do not keep certain parts of our species from having children, which I'm rather glad we don't, there won't be any particular strains of genetic changes that endure while others fade away. As such, couldn't one claim that there is no "evolutionary pressure", or at least that it has been highly randomized by genocides aimed at ethnic groups for example? Perhaps that's what you refer to as messing with dials? In any case, I guess what I meant was that natural selection has stopped, and as such deferring to what it did way before we even approached the same kind of social context (modern society) seems as pointless to me as revisiting tribal structure for advice on how to organize society. I think a world where we all had an immense capacity to perform logical computations would be rather boring. Like E.E. Cummings, I strongly believe that some emotions are perhaps best left to their mysterious and enchanting nature. Might just be because I write poetry, but in that case it's a bias I'm sticking to with great conviction! To quote Oscar Wilde: "Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast." There is an old Russian saying that Dostoevsky brings up in one of his books, that says altruism is the most selfish thing of all. Much like him, I have no idea what led to that notion. I'm no utilitarian, but I think that some form of altruism could help make society much better. Sympathy and empathy are two very important emotions. Of course you could be motivated to be altruistic just by a selfish desire, but that has more to do with how complex human motivations can be. Two people could be motivated to hold the exact same attitude for wildly different reasons. The negative aspects of altruism (as a "complete" attitude) seems to so often be on the person practicing it, that labeling it as selfish by nature becomes rather absurd. When I argue against altruism it is more contingent upon the fact that it seems to ignore how humans aren't at all perfect beings, they are built upon desires and fears which are as much a part of their existential situation as morality or any other universal (or the absence of them). Now morality is something that I have not personally decided exactly what stance I hold to. It is one of those areas of philosophy which only seems to grow in complexity upon each additional foray into it. I am an existentialist, and as such I do not think there is any universal ethic forced upon us by the universe, but that also means that any approach to this subject (for me) should spring from our existential situation. As such, I could argue that some degree of altruism (although that degree is almost impossible to pin down) would be advisable, perhaps even moral. By this I mean that in realizing how randomized my involvement in any situation is, I can also realize that the attitude that would help make this situation better for all parts is a partly altruistic one, while still being aware that as a human part of what makes me able to "help" others is that I in turn satisfy my own needs. This is why Nietzsche suggested that one should live by a doctrine wherein one is born again to the world one leaves, because even if that were not to be true, it is a doctrine that makes the world ​more accommodating to everyone. Buddhism also got this right several thousands of years ago, in acknowledging that there might very well be gods (which could be seen as an allegory for universal morality) in some part of the world inaccessible to us, but they are highly inconsequential to the human situation. As such I like to think of Buddhism as an existential religion, because the Buddha saw several negative aspects of the human situation, and sought a means to alleviate that - an idea that would work if it was practiced by everyone. Another example of this is Sarte, who throughout his career argued in favor of communism, because he saw it as a system where everyone could be allowed to pursue their dreams (which was what would give them happiness) as opposed to the capitalistic system which in his eyes functioned by having some people "climb" and some be "stepped on". It's important to note that when it comes to dreams, he was also very concerned with a way of viewing them that would work for everyone. e.g. If you have a dream of making music, it's important to understand that in essence that dream has very little to do with the size of your audience, and everything to do with what you are doing. Not saying I agree with his assessment of communism, by the way, I just find what makes him argue for it very interesting. I guess what I am getting it is that although I have not found any "moral system" that I can lay out in detail, I would think it important that any such system would work if everyone was practicing it. Hence my problem with altruism is more that it does not really work as a "complete" attitude, than that it is in any way selfish. This also has to do with how inherently hard it is for humans to understand each other, if not to mention themselves, and thus how impossible it would be for someone else to fully take care of your needs. I would champion empathy to the end of the world, and I would hope our increased fondness for novels has means we have become much more comfortable with imagining ourselves in other people's shoes, but not to the subversion of everything else. @Grant: That sounds like a nice day. I have also stored your "... I do it because I am a gentleman."-quote deep within my dusty dome. ::

For a second there I thought you meant an actual steam whistle, and I imagined you mounting one of those large railway things on your house just to pull it every now and then. Then I was profoundly confused as to why that would be banned... and then I realized you had used capital letters.

The amount of money sex reassignment costs the state is probably infinitely small, and in this case the physicians consider it a medical necessity, since they consider gender dysphoria a condition, and it is the internationally approved treatment. It's also worth noting that most modern tax systems have moved beyond the definition of tax as something you pay to get services in return. It can be used for everything from alleviating public issues (e.g. income disparity or general poverty) to making sure the people who earn the most on state-provided services pay the most. In my country we have a man who got rich by providing cheap air travel, and every year he complains about the amount of taxes he pays on the basis of him getting the same services as everyone else, and his creating of many jobs. However, he always seems to be completely oblivious of the fact that every Norwegian pilot that works for him has had their education paid for by the Norwegian government, which has also built the airports, and the infrastructure there, and provide healthcare for all his employees. As such one could easily make the case that he gets much more from the government than the average person, and his increased tax rate suddenly doesn't look all that unfair. Sorry for digressing, but I find this is a very common misappropriation of what tax should be for. "It doesn't affect me, so why should I care?" This sounds like a healthy attitude most of the time, but it's important to understand that in this case, not caring helps nourish a harmful system (particularly in relation to sexism). Society is in many ways built upon trust, hence caring is done because you would consider it good if someone cared about you in the case that you were oppressed by something. This is especially true when it comes to minorities, which don't always have the "manpower" to champion their own issues. I like to think of from the existentialist point of view: I didn't choose to be born with my characteristics anymore than someone else chose theirs. So as far as I can consider it reasonable, which the point of this discourse has been to establish, helping others with their problems seems the right thing to do. It's also important to me that it's a maxim whereby everyone else could have acted without that giving me any discomfort personally or morally (basically the Categorical Imperative). I am completely without sympathy for someone demonizing you for not being part of a minority though. Or for anything about any "group" or "category" you belong to at all. This generalization is as ridiculous no matter what you apply it too. You're absolutely right that people should be seen as individuals first and foremost. Then again I am not very fond of ethnic nationalism (i.e. being fond of your country solely because you were born there) either, so this might be more natural to me than to a lot of people. This (the demonizing - not the nationalism) is as far as I know, pretty absent in my country. There are some fringe groups, but they don't really get that much attention.

It's pretty commonly held in psychology that the parent that only provides love and no boundaries create secure, but passive children (underachievers) which is what I believe you're getting at. Baumrind called this the permissive parent (Maccoby and Martin called it indulgent parenting). What is important is that they do not advocate that one should be aloof instead, but rather that one should be both demanding and responsive. Hence, it's not as simple as saying that just because punitive parenting often results in troubled children it means that one shouldn't be caring in these things at all. That often results in its own demons (to borrow one of your expressions). There is a middle ground in these things, that I think you're aware of (judging by your first paragraph). You do seem a bit out of touch with your own words though, because arguing that people should be able to take harassment (which I do think most of these LGBT people are) does not really condone "that we as a society should (not) treat and refer to a trans-gendered male as a woman" (added the not in parenthesis you were suggesting this was childish) or "pointing out that they are not actually the sex they identify". Saying "People grow by struggle" can also be used as an argument for closing down almost any kind of debate on this topic, which is rather brash, if not to mention dangerous. Arguing that one shouldn't react to a misdeed if it goes beyond the average person's understanding of the subject just seems like promoting ignorance, which is no way to make anything better at all. The "average person's understanding of gender dynamics" comes from somewhere too, and it won't change if we don't point out its flaws in public discourse. There's also a fundamental difference between "whining" and taking issue with a commonly held attitude. One can be ready to get over these things on a personal level while still wanting to change it on a societal level, because attitudes are things to be changed. I have also been the target of gay slurs, which I hardly paid or will pay any mind to at all in the future, but I still take issue with my friends using "gay" as a synonym for something stupid or "jew" as a synonym for someone being greedy.