GrantSP

As I posted in the Bug Genie, there is no issue with the installers in the 1.3.x series with regard to this mod, except that the external version incorrectly omits the text that defines the 'Full of Half Res' options so that the main menu just shows two versions of the same options. However since the internal installer works just fine that isn't an issue. I will also reiterate the statement above: don't use the 1.3.x series unless you are testing its capabilities, 1.2.18 will do all that you want for setting up your game.

Yeah, maybe for version 2.0?

I reckon the reason will have something to do with memory overheads. That 'Contents' column is populated on each MO start so I would guess doing a search through each BSA would add a fair amount of time and memory to an already lengthy process. I do agree with you though, if all the types of files could be displayed easily and clearly then that would add to an already good system. Regarding viewing the contents of these files from inside MO. If you configure a default viewer for BSAs in Windows, something like, BSA Browser or BSAopt or even DDSopt, then you can right-click for MO's context menu and select 'Open' and the file will be opened by whatever Windows sees as the default BSA program.

BSA handling is much improved in the 1.3.x series so once that leaves beta you will be able to load all the bsa files you want.

You will need to cleart the setting from FireFox if the instructions in the page @GSDFan are not working. From what you are describing, FireFox is still looking to find the protocol handling code for 'nxm' by looking at your old MO install. Try the suggestion here in the 'Troubleshooting' section of the MO wiki.

Delete all the current logs and run MO once to generate the error and submit that log. If it is still exceptionally large just zip it and post the link. Is that all that is in your interface log? Seems to be somewhat empty. This is the content of a working interface log.

Actually I think the text inside the MO fomod installer that mentions not being able to see installed mods is a left-over from previous releases and should probably by taken out. There was a plugin developed that specifically looked at installed mods and MO has had that plugin as part of it's install for a handful of versions now.

Should you switch between BOSS & LOOT? Short answer: No Long answer: No, never Even longer answer: Well you could, but if you are not sure as to why either is sorting the plugins in the way that they do, then it will likely cause you angst and a search for reasoning as to why. The crux of the matter is what ever method you choose, stick to it. The same team of programmers are handling the software and there is still an active development stage happening with LOOT. In the long run LOOT will win out by shear weight of numbers, but in the meantime, save yourselves the anxiety and stick with the SR suggestion of BOSS.

The full discussion of this subject was done in the Mod Organizer forum and any further questions on this matter will probably be more easily seen there. @Tannin, MO's author started this thread: How to use the CK in MO.

If you are thinking of using the papyrus logs as some form of error-checking system, then I think you will be mislead. Those logs are not providing the information you think they are. By definition, papyrus logs are directly related to the operation of the Papyrus Script engine used in Skyrim and will only provide information about mods that call that system. However since you could be having problems with mods that don't use that system, it will never tell you about them and alot of the information it does tell you is just spam and has no bearing on the stability of the game. Additionally, a perfectly functional game may still give a log filled with useless information that causes many to spend hours searching for solutions to non-existent problems.

What is the state of your OS? Do you have all the necessary drivers and updates for Win7 (or greater)? If MO is not initialising then the condition of SKSE or Skyrim won't be an issue, you haven't even proceeded to a stage where these can be called. In the MO folder there should be a folder called "logs". Can you post in spoiler tags the contents of the last log created? Both the mo_interface.log and the ModOrganizer_<timestamp>.log

The way I read that instruction is that you should review the instructions for installing FNIS as described in the MO wiki. For clarity I've added a small notice immediately after with a link to that section.

Probably getting to the stage of development now that a dedicated wiki could start to be developed. From what I have gleaned over watching this thread over the last few months, the actual process, and the code, is at the stage that even those considered 'newer' modders might be able to generate LODs as long as the setup is outlined in a clear manner. I am in no way saying this task should fall to the developers, you have enough on your plates as it is. Maybe some of the testers could start some ideas and that way others might be able to chime in and everybody can share the load. Once I get back into Skyrim testing again I will of course try this tool out myself, as opposed to just watching others, and then I will also try to assist with any documentation. Just an idea.

It is there, but it isn't the most obvious thing to see, as evidenced by this thread. As it is the toolbar has a defined button for Twitter but not this oft-used bit of BBCode.

@Xaviien, you're on a roll today. That's two things I've learnt from you about what is and isn't available in the forum software. Well done.

Well knock down with a damp cloth! I have learnt something new today. Thanks Xaviien.

There isn't a button on the toolbar that does it, you will need to remember a bit of BBCode (Bulletin Board code) to paste in everytime. It's pretty simple, once you know it. [spoiler]text that you want to be in the spoiler[/spoiler] For the sake of easing your mind, just stick with this thread that's already started, if it gets too specific, we can move it later or ask you to create new ones.

This is another one of those little tidbits that escaped my notice. Brilliant. How many times I have needed to do this and didn't know of the ability.

I voted a 'positive only system' for this reason: It is the simplest way to say 'I agree with that comment or that the comment answered the question in the best manner' without having to post a new comment with just: +1 or Agree! in it. For the same reason, removing the 'quick and dirty' option of disagreeing with that comment, forces the user to stop and actually formulate their reason in words and then post that, which in itself may incur some response. We are encouraged to take a break before posting something we are probably aware we shouldn't. Removing the quick -1 button makes each user evaluate whether what they want to say actually needs to be said. In short if the intention is to be spiteful then removing the negative action may encourage a rethink on the part of that user.

What files could a pirated copy affect? No idea! Well, some idea, but nothing definite. Since your game would have needed to circumvent the Steam checks, any of the code in either the game executables, Steam executables and/or registry settings could be off from what they should be. Just what and where is not an easy thing to check from over a forum discussion. I'd probably put that on the back-burner for the time being and try working with things you have control over and follow through with the other advice. For all I know I could be 'barking up the wrong tree'.

Well I've finally pulled my finger out and released what I've got so far. Its by no means a complete work, I keep fiddling with it and don't get anything finished. As you will see it is at version 0.4 already, changed my mind on a number of aspects with this and it has undergone a complete re-write twice already. It's my first release, so be gentle with me. If I could edit this thread to reflect the new mod I would do that rather than starting a new thread, if one of the mods could tell me how to do that. Descriptive Icons for Fallout 3

When I read your post I took it that you have a scheduled backup program that automatically polls those folders and makes backups as needed. If that is the case then that is the issue that I see. If however you are just making user-controlled backups that include those folders then I too am at a loss as to why the continued issue.

My comment about 'fixing binaries' is about your previous pirated copy. Not knowing which version it was based on and where it left its files when it installed, you could be trying to run the latest legit version of the game engine, TESV.exe, but it might be looking at older or foreign language versions of *.dll files. I don't know either, I've never had any pirated games, but I'm assuming whoever copied it made a copy from an older version, purely because the latest version available in retail is so cheap! Additionally, each ENB preset might need to have a specific version of the ENB binaries, enbhost.exe, etc. You might have version 0.266 when you need 0.262.

Can you explain this comment some more? Are you referring to a Windows error message advising on the correct use of this file? Perhaps it is saying something about missing components? Maybe inadequate access rights? We appreciate these concepts may be new to you but if you can provide exact wording and specific details then you will find greater chances of answers.

You will face issues for the exact reasons users that install MO into a UAC managed folder or those with restricted access rights get issues. Anytime two or more programs make claims on a file/folder one of them will lose. Sometimes the loser will error nicely and relinquish access, other times they will fight 'tooth and nail' to hold on and then errors happen. I would urge you to not have an automated backup system running on folders that are needed by either your games, or tools designedto manipulate those games, ie. MO.