Jump to content

skaryzgik

Citizen
  • Content Count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About skaryzgik

  • Rank
    Citizen
  • Birthday 04/21/1988

Profile Information

  • Location
    USA
  • Favorite Mod(s)
    Morrowind GCD
  1. Emphasis mine: I think the concern here is that a novice will not be able to get by without the detailed instructions linked from the main guide, which can add up to a lot of jumping. I think it is good to have a main guide with the fast-instructions and the extra details on other pages so the novices can still easily get to the needed information while still keeping the main page uncluttered for people who have done STEP before and know the main ideas already but need the list to see to go through fast and be done with it. But I think there is a lot that can be done to make these secondary pages much more clear for those novices. For example right in 1.A. if you're starting from a cluttered and awful skyrim install and using this to start over "correctly", you will need to revert to vanilla first. The Skyrim Installation Guide linked in this way from the main guide still sends you to yet another page in the Troubleshooting guide before it even tells you how to do this. That is a second depth-layer away from the main guide. Additionally, when on the Skyrim Installation Guide, it is not clear exactly when 1.A. has been completed. It starts talking about a lot of other things, which, while useful and important, are not part of completing 1.A. of the guide. In fact, the Troubleshooting Guide tab on reverting to vanilla already tells you to run the launcher which as near as I can tell is all 1.B. is even for. And it seems likely a lot of users using STEP for the first time, would be because they're coming from a very broken setup and need to start over. It should also be made much more clear what is and isn't part of the official guide. For example, I had a question on the release announcement thread about when in the process to use ddsopt, and was answered that it wasn't really part of STEP. My previous impression had been that the main point of 2.2.9 was to nail down better what is and isn't part of STEP:Extended, and that the things marked in green were STEP:Core, and everything else should be assumed part of STEP:Extended. While in the specific case of DDSopt it was at that time added to the mod page that it is not officially part of STEP, it seems it should also be notated differently in the chart from the STEP:Extended mods. What other things listed in the main guide are not actually part of STEP at all?
  2. My concern was with keeping the vanilla install as vanilla as possible, which seems to be part of the main point of using MO. With that reasoning it would seem to me to make more sense to leave the auto-preset the launcher chooses completely alone, but have the AA change be one of the first things changed when making the STEP profile in MO. But if you are recommending to not ever use more than 4x AA ever, then it might make more sense to change it first, but in that case some of the other changes might make sense to make in the launcher in 1.B. as well, for things considered to be truly fixes rather than tweaks and optimizations.
  3. Nexus has been down a lot the last few days. I do not know if this trend will continue. If it does, it might be useful to have an alternate download location for MO so that it can be more reliably obtained. Is there or can there be an alternate download location for MO for when Nexus is down?
  4. I'm not sure if this should go here or the bug report thread, but it feels more like a question than a suggestion so I thought I'd try it here. I notice the Guide says when to install DDSopt, but not where in the overall STEP process is the appropriate time to *use* it. Is it recommended to do this at time of DDSopt installation, or at some later time? If it can be done at any time, perhaps a note to that effect could be added?
  5. I don't know if this is a "bug" in the guide-logic, or merely an easily misinterpreted instruction, but even if the latter then it can probably be improved. I haven't read the whole guide yet, but there are a few things I checked for since I noticed them in 2.2.8 and wanted to see if the new version would fix or improve them. The first section Skyrim Installation has a link to the Skyrim Installation guide which is needed if you need any detail regarding, for example, reverting to a vanilla install. This page has a section about HRDLC and what choices to make regarding it based on your VRAM. This section has an "Optional" side box briefly mentioning DDSopt and how for users with little VRAM it can help to optimize the textures in the vanilla BSAs. This in turn links to the DDSopt guide. This part might really be a bug: the link says it goes to the Quickstart guide, but when I click it it goes to the "Introduction" tab and I still have to click on "Quick-Start Guide" to get to that page. Probably either the wording or the link should be changed so that they match. This Quick-Start Guide says, under Setup DDSopt, "Before using DDSopt the first time make sure that step 1.B. of the current STEP guide has been completed." But I got here from 1.A. so 1.B. has not even been started yet (except for a redundancy I note below). Additionally, the Troubleshooting Guide section "Restore Vanilla Skyrim" already says to run the launcher to create the ini files and get the auto-chosen presets (in step 8) which appears to be the entire point of stage 1.B. of the STEP guide. I also am not sure why in 1.B. it says to make the change in the Antialiasing value in the launcher instead of waiting for MO to be installed to make the change there. While most of these things are able to be figured out with enough reading and thinking, if we are going for a guide that is easily followed, we might want to improve some of the wordings or logic structures to make the recommended course more obvious.
  6. When I click the "Advanced" button, then the Grass section only shows bAllowCreateGrass. Clicking on "Basic", then the Grass section shows b30GrassVS and bAllowCreateGrass, but still nothing besides these two things. I wonder if a version difference may be at work causing us to see different things. I am using MO version 1.1.2 installed from the installer version, downloaded from the Nexus page today. 1.2.1 is labeled as Beta, so I have not yet tried it. Is 1.2.1 the version I should be using?
  7. I am seeing similar behavior with respect to the setting not showing in the Configurator. I am currently attempting following STEP Core 2.2.8 and at 1.D the iMaxGrassTypesPerTexure setting is not appearing in the Configurator even after I add it into the skyrim ini via the ini editor in MO. I am leaving out the commented part of the line. The only things in the Configurator in Advanced mode in the Grass section are b30GrassVS and bAllowCreateGrass. In the ini editor, the Grass section of skyrim.ini currently reads as follows: === [Grass] bAllowCreateGrass = 1 bAllowLoadGrass = 0 iMaxGrassTypesPerTexure = 3 === I am not sure why iMaxGrassTypesPerTexure is not showing up in the Configurator. The other ini values that were not previously present, once added with the ini editor did show up in the configurator (I think this was f3PBoltTiltUpAngle from the Combat section). I am not sure what is different about iMaxGrassTypesPerTexture. Since as near as I can tell, this is the only setting affected, I am continuing with my STEP install, but am very curious, and also thought I'd chime in at least so Simon doesn't think they're the only ones seeing this. I am also curious what DoubleYou is doing differently. Since more than one person has seen this during a new STEP install, I am curious if perhaps there is information missing from the guide on something we need to do earlier that could cause this setting to appear in the configurator, if this particular setting should be changed later in the process (which would also recommend a guide change) or if there is some bug in the configurator where under some circumstances it does not recognize all the settings. If there are tests I can do or different information I can provide that would be useful, please let me know. If my internet connection continues working (I have been having trouble with it the last few months but think it might be fixed now) I can probably run some tests later today or Monday if I know what tests need running.
  8. OT: I think this is probably the best line of that. Using pacman for Mint sounds interesting. phazer, I think at times I aspire to be you. You do not need to cry in a corner. :-)
  9. I'm guessing by the pin on this thread that we're still supposed to read the pages behind those two links, but when I try to go to either the "Pack modding area" link or the "Pack support area" in the original post, I get "404 Not Found nginx". I think the links may be broken.
  10. Oh, I just found this from the "Third Party Programs" tab of the MO guide (italics are mine for emphasis):=== Originally BOSS was supposed to be installed inside the data folder. Later that was changed so BOSS got its own directory; therefore, there are two locations MO looks in currently: the BOSS folder inside the game's base directory and the data folder inside the base directory. === This neatly explains why MO wasn't finding my BOSS. It was loose in the skyrim folder, not in a BOSS folder in the skyrim folder. Yes, I should have done more reading first, but now this is here too in case someone else having the problem finds this thread. EDIT: by "wasn't finding" I am referring to the auto-detection. The manual setup worked fine, other than the seeming quirkiness of BOSS itself not finding skyrim before I accidentally ran it from the start menu instead of from MO.
  11. Looking at their respective pictures from the third set, which is more suitable for looking at makeup, MS has much heavier eyeliner, and a much darker tone of lipstick than WoS. I think MS may also be wearing significantly more blush, but, not being overly familiar with the effects of The Elements on skin, some of that might plausibly be due to that. But if you look closely at the eyeliner, I'm pretty sure that can't be from The Elements. That's got to be makeup, and it is much heavier eyeliner than WoS. However, it is better camouflaged/obscured by the dirt, making it much less obvious if you're not looking closely. So if you're not looking closely, you might think MS has no or little makeup, however, I'm reasonably sure she is actually wearing a lot more. As far as the shine on WoS, I would like to see a comparison of MS and WoS in different lighting conditions. WoS doesn't look *too* shiny in *these* pictures, but I'm not sure how much of that is because she's standing right next to SG. Also, I'm guessing these were taken in middle lighting conditions. I am a little nervous what the shine might be in more light. Certainly still much better than, for example, SG, but if it's still too much, that would tip me in favor of MG, despite how much makeup she is wearing. I could try to get the pictures, but I'm still working on the core install (I'm mostly hanging out here during breaks between attempts/sections), and I'd also have to learn how to actually make the screenshots. It would probably be a few days before I could get them, and this discussion seems to be moving much more quickly than that.
  12. Mod Organizer found both Skyrim and Skyrim launcher fine. MO has a Mod Organizer folder which is sitting in the Skyrim directory next to the tesv.exe. BOSS when I installed it did not make a folder, but threw all its stuff loose in the Skyrim directory. (That is, my skyrim directory, the one with tesv.exe in it, has "boss gui.exe" as well as boss.exe and bosslog.html, and boss's uninstall executable. I am not sure why MO didn't find BOSS, but even after I added BOSS GUI manually to MO and it can now be launched from MO, it says skyrim is "not detected" like it does for the other games. Update: I just now accidentally clicked BOSS (regular, not gui) in my start menu looking for MO and ran it that way. Now when I run BOSS through MO it can find skyrim. It got identical results run both ways, but that is probably expected in this specific case since I currently have no mods installed and have all the DLC deselected both in the skyrim launcher and in MO. It would appear that there is something BOSS is looking for to see what games are installed that it cannot find from within the virtual file system, but also that when it does find it it writes something to somewhere it can read from within the virtual file system. Not knowing how BOSS decides what it can detect, I do not know for sure if this is correct, but it would explain my observation (and if anyone has more details on this, I would probably find it a fun read). I may end up starting over if I can't find why there are loose folders named after other games in my skyrim directory. I bet they were added by either MO WB or BOSS but I do not know which. If it helps, the folders are called "Fallout 3" "Fallout New Vegas" "Nehrim" and "Oblivion" and each has a folder ".git" inside. But then so does the skyrim/skyrim directory (ie, inside the skyrim folder that has tesv.exe, there is a skyrim folder which contains the .git folder) but it also has a BOSSlog.html masterlist.txt modlist.old SkyrimPrefs.ini and userlist.txt. I am suspecting these are BOSS folders. Should I delete the ones that are not for skyrim? Or did I do the installation wrong? I'm currently thinking I should read the whole guide two or three times before next attempt and take notes to look for anything else that might catch me by surprise. Once I've got an install of STEP:Core, I may have some suggestions for guide clarity. (I'll try to find the right thread for them.)
  13. Looking more closely at my skyrim directory, I also seem to have a Fallout directory inside it and an Oblivion directory and a Nehrim directory and such. I think I may have done something wrong somewhere and may need to start over once I look carefully and try to find where this happened.
  14. My opinions, some of which may sound a little harsh, and for this, I apologize in advance to the models: Vanilla: does she *ever* bathe???XCE: see aboveSG: by far the shiniest of these.XCE clean: looks washed out, possibly anemic or vampire in disguise.WSCO: possibly also too shinySeems to come down to Mature Skin or Women of Skyrim. Mature skin appears to have a bit more dirt to it, but no where near as badly as vanilla. But the dirt hides the makeup a little. I didn't notice how much makeup she was wearing till I looked closer.I think Women of Skyrim may be the winner, except that I'm not sure if she might also be too shiny. She looks a little shiny in the chest and arm area, and I'm not sure how much more shiny there would be in actual sun. That might tip the balance to Mature Skin.I think I would like to see a face-off between Mature Skin and Women of Skyrim in a variety of lighting conditions, to get a better idea of whether the slightly-more-dirt or the slightly-more-shine is likely to be more problematic.
  15. I'm not sure if this is a BOSS question or an MO question. I installed BOSS in my Skyrim directory but MO still didn't see it (I closed and reopened MO and it still wasn't in the list). I found the executable and added it as described here in the "MO Users" section (even though it *was* in the skyrim directory) and now it's in the list, but when I try to run BOSS from MO it can't find my skyrim. It asks me what game it's supposed to be used for, but it says all of them are not detected, including skyrim. It didn't mean the skyrim/skyrim directory did it?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.