Drakonas

Congrats! Hope this brings amazing possibilities to both you and the community. Just curious though, is this possibly related to Mod Organizer failing to let me login to Nexus to download mods with a Premium server? Every time I download a mod as of today, MO responds with "Failed Login", no matter how many times I put in my username and password. I use a password manager, and I logged into the Nexus website many times successfully today, including installed NMM with no issues, so I'm not typing it in wrong.

I've downloaded the STEP Compilation patch 2.2.9.2i High Res patch twice and both downloads have an extraction error in Mod Organizer. Could you guys check the file? I don't ever have corrupted downloads anymore after switching to a wired network. UPDATE: This doesn't happen for me with the Normal Res patch. UPDATE 2: So after a computer reboot it wants to work, even with the same file. Never had that happen before. Odd...

I've downloaded the STEP Compilation patch 2.2.9.2i High Res patch twice and both downloads have an extraction error in Mod Organizer. Could you guys check the file? I don't ever have corrupted downloads anymore after switching to a wired network. UPDATE: So after a computer reboot it wants to work, with the same exact file even. Never had that happen before. Odd...

Damn. I was looking for a script like that.. Thanks so much.

I'm using Mod Organizer, so it would be easy to switch out the patches. I feel this is possible, but the ONLY thing I'm worried about is if there are conflicts that would arise in the STEP Compilation patch for 2.2.9.1. All I need to know is if the STEP Compilation patch interferes with the unofficial patches really. I used STEP Extended as my base install, and have added some mods... so no I am not following STEP to a tee. Hopefully someone here is willing to simply answer my question. I feel this question is best answered by someone experienced with STEP, rather than with general mod load orders. If you really need my mod order for a simple question like this (you shouldn't, imo), here it is just in case. I did a lot of testing and research, along with using a bit of common sense, to properly integrate my mods into the load order. (I've highlighted my added mods in RED): I do have very rare CTD's from time to time, but I'm sorting those out. I think I was not using SKSE Memory Tweaks properly, so I won't ask for support on that. Lately I've finally been able to play hours upon hours of playtime with no CTD's finally. It's just the occasional crash. I am also aware of the mega amounts of weather mods. Please disregard.. lol. And to those wondering why I won't update to 2.2.9.2.. this is my first playthrough of Skyrim. I am trying to keep it as vanilla as possible, while improving it here and there in the graphics and bug/AI/dialogue department, so I'd rather not restart my hours and hours of playtime just for a modpack update when my game is mostly smooth. (I am mainly just hoping that the USLEEP patches might fix my remaining CTD's)

Thank you, sir. I said in the OP I wasn't. My bad though, I didn't think the general section was for support. I am running a modified STEP build, yes. EDIT: Then again, I guess I didn't say that. I thought I mentioned it. My bad.

I normally use MO to launch the game. I meant that I accidentally opened the launcher through Steam a few days ago, and now when I run the game through MO, the game CTD's after loading a saved game. My loadorder hasn't changed, but here it is anyways: https://pastebin.com/69fcVUzH EDIT: Well, I just tried to open a slightly older save, and that one loaded. I've been running into save corruption issues now and again, but I usually can just load a save file a few minutes before and it will load. Sometimes I can shut the game down for a few days, and the same save file I had issues with will finally load. Usually these save problems only produced a "Corrupted save" error, though, and not a CTD. Can anyone guess why this is happening?

This is a serious question. I've spent days configuring a STEP Core install, and it was running beautifully and stable. Then I F***ed up and ran the launcher through Steam, because if you run the game through Mod Organizer, Steam places the game's launcher at the top of the list in Steam's recent games. My MO mod order has not changed, yet now I'm getting CTD's out the wazoo when I load any save file when running the game through MO, and I can't figure out what's causing them. Some Mods have become broken, unrelated to STEP, so I won't ask for help with those out of respect (As an FYI, one time my save file loaded, but seconds later CreatureFramework states an error regarding API problem, and then a CTD immediately after). I've checked the game cache integrity in Steam. No problems. I've checked my saves, and they are clean. The ini's are loaded from inside Mod Organizer's profiles, so even though the ini's were changed in my Documents\My Games\Skyrim directory, that shouldn't matter, right? I'm at a loss here, and I really REALLY don't want to spend another 3-4 days redoing an entire profile if I don't have to. I'm asking for sincere help here, not n00b hate. Please be mature about your answer. Thank you. ;) -Drakonas

I agree with both of you. I guess I just got ahead of myself. UAC is more of a n00b prevention tool than a security tool, in my opinion though, as this flaw is easily exploitable... and pretty much renders UAC useless for security for a lot of malware. I prefer my Antivirus and understanding of where to go on the internet (plus an adblock) than having UAC, but I guess that's just my preference. Well I guess that's a better reason.. :/ lol. Edit: Still 0 posts... yay I'm totally not providing good input here. XD

I did not realize this. However, my main point was the incorrect statement that disabling UAC is a security risk. Could that at least be changed? A lot of people seem to think it helps with security, but in my experience it never does. (The fact that UAC in 8.1 can still be exploited proves it) EDIT 2: Granted, a lot of malware seem to not take advantage of the exploit. However, I've only seen a handful of malware produce a prompt for UAC. UAC really only protects the system if the slider is at its max setting (Always notify). Edit: Lol, I have 0 posts. XD

Before you all assume I am simply making an unprepared statement, please read this post. I am suggesting that the third bullet underneath the "Setup DDSOpt" header (found on this Wiki page) be changed to recommend disabling UAC. I shall explain why. User Account Control (UAC) is a Windows feature built to, in layman's terms, request users to allow a program Administrative access. It was first seen in Windows Vista, in which it was at its most annoying form. Every time a program asked for Admin access, UAC would prompt the user. This changed when the Windows 7 beta rolled out. Microsoft made UAC a little less annoying, allowing most Microsoft-signed programs to run without asking the user for Admin rights, but still requiring a UAC prompt for anything else. UAC was now less annoying, however this change set the path for the majority of the world's malware to obtain access to every Windows computer's system. In 2009, a UAC bypass proof-of-concept was announced. This bypass only worked for Windows 7 at the time, but newer UAC bypass concepts have been created for Windows 8 and even Windows 8.1. You can see an example video of this flaw in UAC being used to remotely obtain access to a fully-updated Windows 8.1 system with enabled antivirus, and UAC set to default settings, here. Microsoft refuses to fix this issue. In fact, they very well shouldn't, because fixing the issue would most likely require a complete rewrite of how programs obtain access from UAC, and thus breaking compatibility with nearly every program available, requiring every developer to change their code to reflect Microsoft's changes. The only way to prevent the bypass from working is to set UAC to the highest security level (which prompts for every program's initial access to admin rights, meaning every time a new program is called (Even when that program starts another process), it prompts for access. If you have ever tried using Windows with that security setting, you will agree that it gets annoying...fast. This flaw in UAC is real, and renders UAC pretty much useless. More than that, UAC by itself is quite intensive on resources, especially for low-end systems. I personally recommend everyone disable UAC. Considering that performance will increase and security will be essentially no different than when UAC is enabled (because every real hacker knows of this flaw), there isn't a reason not to! In any case, even if UAC prompted a user for giving Admin rights to a piece of malware, most malware are designed to look like real software. They even hide in other legit program's locations to make you think they are not malware! My point is that most end-users won't know the difference between a real process or malware. In fact, I have met many people that just hit "Yes" on any popup without even reading what the popup said. UAC doesn't know the difference between a virus and a legit program. It just asks the user whether to allow it or not, so if the user always clicks "Yes", why are they leaving the UAC feature enabled? It's called User Account Control for a reason. I can say I'd expect that a lot of people playing around with Skyrim mods don't know when to say yes or no to a UAC prompt. I, personally, prefer to have it turned off because I get better performance and a good Antivirus generally blocks malware anyways, so UAC is pointless... for me at least. The main reason I initially decided to suggest this is because of the ending phrase on that Wiki page that states you can disable UAC, "but it is also a security risk". I'll respond, and conclude, with the following statement. Based on the information I've provided above, the statement on the STEP wiki, that states "disabling UAC is a security risk", is quite false, and gives an idea to users to leave UAC enabled (usually at the default, flawed setting), which in turn decreases overall system performance and provides virtually no extra security. I recommend changing the way that bullet is written. You can find more information regarding the UAC flaws and bypass attacks on an originating page found here; and you can find a more recent article explaining in layman's terms how the attacks work, as well as information regarding Windows 8.1 vulnerability, on the article found here. Thank you for your time. In any case, I hope I have educated some people.