kryptopyr

Yeah, I'm not at all interested in altering my mods or modding habits in order to maximize my chances for file of the month. It's just not that important, and certainly not anything worth worrying about. The majority of the mods that I consider essential to the game have never been featured in a file of the month list, and many of the mods that do end up making the list I have no interest in ever using (which isn't intended to put down those mods in any way, most just aren't my preference).

Yes, the month had some pretty stiff competition, that's for sure. It's never easy to make the list, though, and I always feel it's an honor when one of my mods does. I actually received a gem of a PM last night. Best hate mail I've ever received. The guy was gloating and taunting me because CACO got 5th place for file of the month, then went on with a bunch of insults to me and the mod. He seemed so happy and gleeful that the mod got 5th, said it deserved to be "last." By the time I was done reading it, I was laughing so hard I was crying. I mean it's last on the top five mods of the month list. Obviously I must feel horribly ashamed and defeated to have my mod place 5th on such a list.

At the moment it will conflict (overwriting CACO's changes to the harvest amounts), but compatibility with this fix is a top priority for me, so I'm hoping to have it ready soon.

Yay, it's out! I've been looking forward to this mod. :) Also, I've been talking with Wiseman303, and there are plans to make CACO compatible with this fix.

Thank you so much for testing and confirming this for me. I'm glad it worked. :)

Thanks, Neo. I'm beginning to suspect that the information on AddForm on the CK Wiki is not entirely accurate. Is there anyone who isn't experiencing this issue? Here's a revised script: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1P5VcgL895-eVNQQUY0X0RLSGc If anyone is willing to test this and report back whether it solved the problem for them, that would be much appreciated.

Please let me know whether the 1.03 update fixes the issues with the waterskins.

For better or worse, it seems to be limited to just a few users (most who have commented say that ineed works properly). I added a small delay in the script that is adding the waterskins, which will hopefully make sure they are adding in the correct order. I may also have the script double check the order after it is finished and redo it if the results aren't correct. With the next update, I'll force CACO to run this ineed compatibility again, and hopefully with the new checks in place, it will fix your issue as well.

Did you have any empty or partially empty waterskins in your inventory? If you have space in your waterskins, then they'll be refilled from the jug.

No, I didn't use anything from Radiant and Unique Potions. CACO will conflict with it. If you do use Radiant and Unique Potions, you should load it before CACO (though it's possible that CACO will completely overwrite it, so you might just want to remove the esp and use just the textures). Test this theory for me: empty waterskin = 3 water, 1/3 waterskin = 2 water, 2/3 waterskin = 1 water, full waterskin = 0 water. Try drinking out of different waterskins to get different combinations, then see if they add up to water equaling the amounts here. From what you said, I think the waterskins might have populated the formlist backwards.

If you don't have any perks in Alchemy and you get rid of any potions you previously made, then I think you'd probably be fine. CACO won't play nice with RND, though. There will definitely need to be a patch before CACO will work with RND. @Shadriss I don't know what to say about the waterskins. They work fine for me. I was waiting to hear if others have the same problem and if there's any other information that might help me figure it out.

Open your mods in TES5Edit. Go to Skyrim.esm or CACO and find the vanilla record for the Apple Cabbage Stew. You can check which mods have records that reference or use the Apple Cabbage Stew by looking at "Referenced By" at the bottom of the screen. CACO won't change recipes from other mods, so if one of them calls for Salt Pile, then it will still require Salt Pile even with CACO installed.

Check whether you have another mod overwriting the Apple Cabbage Stew recipe. CACO should change this and all other vanilla recipes to use a portion of salt rather than a Salt Pile.

That's a great point about the exploding crossbow bolts. Those bolts are simply crafted at the forge by adding elemental salts to regular crossbow bolts, nothing at all magical there except the properties inherent in the ingredients. I am now fully convinced that elemental salts must have some type of explosive tendencies. It's the LORE! :P

I actually call it "cacao." :)

I believe that traditionally Alchemy has been considered a magical art in the Elder Scrolls games. I think Skyrim is the first game to lump Alchemy in with Stealth rather than the magic skills. I have tried to provide fairly reasonable recipes for the bombs, so the bombs could either be seen as magical or as a physical utilization of an ingredient's magical properties.

Yep, that's it. :) You don't have to kill the spriggan with the dagger, but I think you need to equip it when you loot them. If I remember correctly, I think I decided to treat this feature the same way the vanilla game treats harvesting Dragon Heartscales. I haven't had a chance to look into Hearthfire Extended. I know I have that mod bookmarked and thought it looked really interesting. At some point, I'll take a closer look.

Thanks guys! CACO won't replace PondFish and Salmon Replacer. It will overwrite the River Betty, but none of the other fish. I'm thinking about giving the vanilla fish a makeover to something more in-line with the other CACO fish, but right now that's pretty low on my list of priorities.

I studied graphic design in college and worked as a typesetter for 10 years. For the past eight years, my primary job has been freelance graphic design and vector illustration using Illustrator. I've used InDesign and have it installed, but I'm much less familiar with it than I am with Illustrator (the place where I worked as a typesetter primarily used Quark). I'm not great with logos or webdesign, and it's been quite awhile since I've had to deal with classwork. That being said, if you think I can help as a sounding board, then I'd be happy to do what I can. Feel free to email me at kryptopyr@gmail.com.

I looked into this a while back. It seems like all the errors people report refer to a missing sound property from the FXBirdFleeSCRIPT. I've never had any problems with this mod myself, but I would suspect that removing just the records using the instance of the script with that missing property (or filling the property with a sound record) would fix those particular problems.

I disagree that these aren't worth getting excited about, and I think what's already released is certainly worth including in STEP. The improvement is significant over anything else that exists, and while it might not cover all clothing yet, the textures that have been released are in a finished state. STEP similarly includes other mods that aren't yet "complete" in coverage and sometimes even mods that retexture a single item.

Thanks for letting me know about my mods. I'm not sure why I received several comments about LOOT warnings, but if there was an issue at least it looks like it's been addressed. Thank you. Believe me, I know that you shouldn't load and clean multiple mods at once. But some people either don't know this, or they get lazy, or otherwise think that because they've been told that it's perfectly fine to ignore what a mod author has stated on their mod's description page, that it's probably also okay to ignore those other "recommendations" about cleaning mods one at a time. I don't know why people do it, and I agree that it's dumb, but people do it. I'm aware that you "can't fix the users," but you can avoid breaking them further by making generalized statements telling them it's always perfectly safe to use "Remove Identical To Masters records" to clean files even if a mod author says not to do this. There is no good reason to clean my mods. If I make a mistake and a dirty edit gets past me, then this should be brought to my attention so I can properly fix it. My point here is that there's nothing to be gained, and only the possibility of screwing something up, if a user goes against my recommendation and decides to clean my mods. The earlier posts in this thread seem to suggest that it's fine, perhaps even advisable, to ignore a mod author's statement regarding cleaning, and that mod author's who make such statements should always be suspect. I feel that making a blanket statement like that is wrong and will lead to trouble for certain users and mod authors. It's that particular advice and line of reasoning that I'm objecting to. I stated in my original comment that if everything is done correctly, there shouldn't be any problems created by attempting to clean my mods. But encouraging a general disregard of a mod author's directions is dangerous and will only lead to more stupid users who feel justified that they know better than the mod author does. Are there cases where a mod author says "don't clean my mod" and the mod should still be cleaned? Sure, of course there are; mod authors certainly aren't infallible. But recommendations to act counter to an author's directions should always be handled on a case-by-case basis, and with clear and justifiable reasons for doing so.

Is LOOT recommending to clean any of my mods? I suddenly started getting some reports a few weeks ago that it was. I think I received similar comments concerning WAF, SPO, and CCO. I haven't had the time to pursue it, and given that I haven't updated any of those mods within that time period, I can only assume it was a change made to the LOOT recommendations and not something I've missed in one of my files.

Load any combination of WAF, CCO, SPO, CCF in Tes5Edit and clean any one of them. I don't remember the last time I tested this, so perhaps it's changed in the last update, but I've been able to use "Remove Identical To Masters records" on any of these mods when they are loaded together to remove the injected records from all but one of them. Most of the injected records shared by these mods are identical, so they show up as ITM records and are "cleaned" with this option. They will still work as long as there exists one mod in your load order that is injecting the records they rely on. However, if you remove that mod, or create a new profile using one of the cleaned files, or load the cleaned files into TES5Edit individually after having cleaned them this way, then you're going to run into issues By "cleaning" these files, you've actually created a set of broken files with the potential for missing records.

Injected records can show up as ITMs. Cleaning these won't always cause issues, particularly if you are following good practice and make no changes to your load order once you have cleaned the mods. However, removing those records from their files, or any other files built to be compatible with them, could create trouble if you then add or remove files from your load order, or create a new profile using some of the same plugins. If you do everything correctly, making sure to load and clean each mod one at a time, then I still don't think you'll have any problems, but there is no reason to remove those records, and it's much safer to leave them there. That is why I recommend that people do not clean my mods. Guard Dialogue Overhaul also uses injected records, so the warning to not clean that mod may be for the same reason (I haven't looked into this personally, so I'm not certain about GDO's reasons). I think the general statement that using "Remove Identical To Masters records" is safe in every situation and for every mod, even against the recommendations of the mod author, is a dangerous thing to say. No mod user should be blindly cleaning mods without any thought or consideration for the records they are removing. As someone who has had to deal with the repercussions of people mis-cleaning my mods, I find this assumption and advice really aggravating.