Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About NameTaken

  • Rank
  1. It's been helpful to me ;) I had the same issue and I found a bit vexing that despite using 30 GB worth of hi-res textures my character's lips were so pixelated, so thanks for pointing towards a solution. Just installing the Hi Res Female Lips for SKSE file from the Better Makeup mod solved the issue. Maybe it would be worth adding in a future STEP release.
  2. That's heartwarming. I hope it will allow the wounds caused by the harsh words of the last few days to heal faster. Now may be a good time to promote donations in a way that is convenient for both authors and supporters.
  3. When I read on another forum that Steam was now allowing mods to be paid for I did not really understand what it meant or how it would change things. Needless to say, when I went to find out more about it I was appalled by the sheer amount of bile that flooded forums & comment sections. Still, it's hard to dispute that Steam did a terrible job regarding communication around this new feature. I mean, they basically told mod users "We are thrilled to announce you that you can now pay for what has always been available for free!". Seriously, what were they expecting? To a certain extent, the same goes for the mod authors who participated in the initiative. There is, obviously, nothing wrong with them being retributed for their work if they choose to, but how could they not think that announcing overnight, without the slightest bit of preparation, that some mods would now have to be paid for would generate a strong backlash? (maybe they did, told Valve about that, were told that it would not be a problem, and choose to have faith in the community; in that case, fair enough) This do not warrant the disproportionate response, and I am saddened by how the community was torn because Valve and Beth decided that there was something to milk out of it. The good thing, however, is that the amidst all this mess one thing has been made perfectly clear: some mods authors are interested in being compensated for the amount of energy they put into their mods. Maybe there are "donation" links on some mod pages that have ben saying the same but they are really easy to overlook. Well, not anymore. I think that every problem with paywalls have been exposed here, both for mod users and mod authors, so I will not labour the point. Donations have problem too, but I believe they are easier to overcome. The main one is — well, first, which mod author do I want to donate to, and where is that donation link? How much will I give? Let's say $5. Alright, but that mod author really deserves it too, and that one too, so, er, either I'll give $1.5 each or $5 to the first one this month, then the same to the other next month and so on. Alright, so where is that "donate" link again for the first author on my list? Perhaps I am pushing an open door, but what if there was a global donation system to mod authors that allowed mod users to donate a certain sum each month, and to specify a list of authors they want to donate to? Let's say I want to give $10 each month to the authors I want to support (anyone is free to choose a sum that will not hurt his wallet), and put five authors in my "supported" list; each month, each author would get $2 from me as long as I keep them in my list (let's say a small % or a fixed fee would go towards maintaining the donation platform). If I remove one of them by the next donation day, the remaining four would get $2.5. If I add more authors, they will get less. But they will get my support without me having to fiddle with the technicalities of micropayments. And above all, the monthly sum is small enough for me to keep donating even when I stop playing Skyrim for a few weeks/months, while still being contributive. It would make donations easier (and help systematize them) for people who want to support authors but are put off by the details; it would allow authors to be paid if they want to, while not preventing anyone to try/use/enjoy their mods if they cannot/do not want to pay for them. Also, it avoids the problems of paid mods (mentioned earlier in the topic): you do not pay for a product, you give money to support its author (the difference being that in one case you expect something as a customer, while in the other you do not expect anything in return — you are already giving in return). In an ideal world, both mod users and authors win. The only losers would be Valve and Bethesda who would not get their cut. Oh, and maybe something like this exists, but if that's the case, I have not seen it promoted as it should be.
  4. You must be right. I have played a bit more with the feature and although it seems to work without issues with all recommended STEP parameters, it does not make much sense to manage them this way, so I'll go back the the standard way and use this feature for mod-specific parameters. Thanks for the answers guys.
  5. I just stumbled on the info box about managing .ini files with MO ("Some context on in tweaks") and it looks like a great way to quickly toggle parameters without editing/commenting the .ini files proper. The info box suggests to use this feature for mods that need a specific parameter to be changed (like SFO), but is it safe to use this feature to make all mandatory STEP modifications to the .ini files? Meaning, the files in my ModOrganizer\Profiles\STEP Core\ folder will remain in their vanilla state and the tweaks will be handled by MO. I have given it a quick try and it seems to work (additions and modifications in both Skyrim.ini and SkyrimPrefs.ini are taken into account in-game), but is there a reason I should stay away from this way of handling these parameters?
  6. They are indeed, and this is for the best. Thanks for your work. I have one last question: the detailed instructions state that Is this still relevant ? With the prior instructions, I had, from top to bottom, the user-created Cleaned Dawnguard ESM mod, then the Unmanaged: Dawnguard and then the Unofficial Dawnguard Patch. Now that the Cleaned Dawnguard ESM mod is not needed anymore, should I still have something Dawnguard-related above Unmanaged: Dawnguard? In other words, here is the top part of my left pane, is anything missing ?
  7. As silly as it sounds, check that your antivirus is not deleting the modlist.txt file. Bitdefender kept deleting mine for no reason until I added the ModOrganizer folder to the exception list.
  8. Yes, that's what was bugging me too, but as you say, once or twice, as long as it works... thanks for the input guys.
  9. I am pretty sure of this, but I will give it another try tomorrow to be sure. One the one hand I do not understand why one pass would be enough today while two were needed a few weeks ago (and I do not think TES5Edit has been updated in-between, I am using 3_0_32 fwiw), on the other hand if it works for you and the guide says it should, I admit there must be something wrong with my setup. I will try again after a good night's sleep.
  10. Alright, thanks. I am a bit surprised still that the guide does not mention anymore that Dawnguard.esm has to be cleaned twice — I just re-did the procedure and had to do it twice for LOOT to stop warning me about this file — and still refers to a Cleaned Dawnguard ESM mod although the details about it have disappeared.
  11. Sorry for the bump, but I just went through the current version of the guide and it looks like some details about cleaning .esm files (which were still there last October) have been edited out. Most notably, the detailed part about moving the cleaned .esm file to a folder inside \ModOrganizer\Mods and placing back the original .esm in the Skyrim\Data folder has disappeared, and so has the recommendation to clean Dawnguard.esm twice : https://wiki.step-project.com/Dawnguard#Recommendations Am I missing something? Has cleaning mods been streamlined by newer versions of MO or TES5Edit, or is essential info now missing? edit: the changes have been made two days ago, and can be seen here. Can we just rely on the new instructions and do nothing else, or should we proceed as before?
  12. If you need more details, it's well explained in CCO's nexus page: I am using both CCO and Bandolier in my current playthrough and they indeed integrate seamlessly.
  13. With pretty much the same specs as yours (stock i5 3570K, GTX 660, 1920x1200) I top 60fps most of the time with STEP Core (baseline) and no ENB. Sometimes the framerate drops briefly, but nothing that prevents me from enjoying the game. Maybe you could use Skyrim Performance Monitor to see what acts as a bottleneck on your system.
  14. Thanks for your work! I have given it a try, and installed it as shown here, but Skyrim Performance Monitor does not report any kind of vram savings. With or without optimized textures, Skyrim still uses around the same amount of memory (around 1.6 GB), is that normal?
  15. Since Bandolier is partly integrated into Complete Crafting Overhaul (STEP Extended), maybe you could add something like "Only install the textures and meshes (not the esp) from Bandolier if you are also using Complete Crafting Overhaul, and activate Bandolier from CCO's in-game MCM menu" in the "notes" column?
  • Create New...

Important Information

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