Jump to content

z929669

Administrator
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    13,028

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by z929669

  1. z929669
    Well, I stand corrected. Thanks! Fixed
  2. z929669
    Yes, should be close to WYSIWYG, but not exactly due to lighting/weather ... but these screens look like very different textures than your previous from NifSkope. Either way, there is definitely no mesh in that black area (and same is true of vanilla mesh), so it must be UV map wizardry covering this up in the game. The 'fix' may correct the map in one place only to exacerbate the issue in this area, IDK. I see what you mean. Overall, the 'fix' is better, but not really fixed. I think the mesh needs edits, so maybe the MA only messed with UV mapping in this mod and didn't do any mesh work?
  3. z929669
    Thanks, I changed the label. I had grabbed the FMF FOMOD as a basis and forgot to update the label. As far as radio buttons vs checkboxes, those should be accurate and reflect the FOMOD I used as reference in MO. No radio button in that as I recall. Not at my gaming PC, so please post screens to verify in case I am wrong.
  4. z929669
    Has anyone investigated the two Optional Files for this one? It seems like they both apply to 2.0.0 and the texture replacer should also apply to 1.0.0
  5. z929669
    Added Wiki mod instructions. Someone verify please.
  6. z929669
    I think it is the UV map on the mesh. Looks like it wasn't done right in this mod. Also note the texture on the crack at far bottom left. Again, looks like a UV mapping issue with this mod vs vanilla Looks like this mod did fix that. I think the gap is still there in both shots, but not as evident in vanilla. I assume the same exact textures are used in all of the above, and the only diff is the mesh (not mesh texture paths)
  7. z929669
    Should be good now
  8. z929669
    I'm all for this one. Marked for Testing.
  9. z929669
    This had been correct, but @TechAngel85 had updated the 1.0.0 instructions with CC content and then split out the 2.0.0 instructions while leaving the CC content in 1.0.0. I reverted the changes to instructions for the current guide. As I mentioned, we are focusing on 2.0.0 for SSE v1.6.xxx, and the current guide (1.0.0) is for SSE v1.5.97 ... and compatibility of all mods with that version of SSE is waning. I really don't want to support 1.6.xxx in 1.0.0, which is what we would be doing by adding CC patches from this mod. People will need to manage mod versions and patch themselves to remain compliant with 1.5.97, as I don't think any of us are committed to supporting the outdated game version. Our 1.0.0 guide is effectively deprecated by the SSE update, which is why I placed the note at the top of that guide.
  10. z929669
    Why not just check the plugins in the MO right pane? And the mods in the MO left pane? There are filters, just start typing a keyword for plugin or mod name in either pane.
  11. z929669
    Make sure the plugin LOOT is complaining about is installed and enabled. Sometimes plugins are not enabled if a mod is disabled and reenabled, so you always need to check plugins are activated in MO to be certain
  12. z929669
    kryptopyr's Patch Hub FOMOD should not be used as stated in our instructions for that mod. The Step Patch FOMOD should be used. If the Step Patch FOMOD is working correctly, it should detect if you meet requirements for it's dependencies in the options you choose (including kryptopyr's Patch Hub). If you think the Step Patch FOMOD is incorrectly detecting or not detecting dependencies correctly for a given option chosen, that that is something we'll need to verify and fix if true.
  13. z929669
    You can simply increase the book/note font size in your setup.
  14. z929669
    I vote to include this one. It's arguably a 09-Fixes mod though. Fine in Extenders too.
  15. z929669
    Yes, you can mark a post as solved in a forum with question format. I moved this into that subforum, so go ahead and mark as solves as you please.
  16. z929669
    Yeah, AA uses the vanilla 'animations', which are more like branches shaking from ADHD squirrels or something. I just ignore it. The HLT aspens are more like vanilla but look good. I can't recall the anims, but they are almost certainly better.
  17. z929669
    Are you running SSE 1.5.97 or 1.6.xxx? Do you have more Informative Console installed? That was just updated for the latter and will help you determine the model and textures for those. Once you have an idea of what mod provides them, you can look at conflicts in MO. I am not at my gaming PC, so I cannot check. I would check SMIM and how you installed that. We recently made a change to mine wood textures in that one. you can also look at the changelog for the guide to review mods affected in "post-release changes" section at top. It's linked from the top of the guide.
  18. z929669
    While these trees are performance optimized, I think EVT is a bit more performance friendly. These trees look fantastic, and I may run them in my personal setup if I ever play (which I don't really since 2013 ... mostly just loading, testing mods, and website dev for the past 8 years). The add-on DynDOLOD works fine with 1.0.1, because T4 did not alter any of the full models other than some logs/stumps, most of which have no LOD. I probably created LOD for stumps in the 'quality' file, because I wanted to provide the option, as I don't like to see stumps popping in while testing tree LOD. these won't be generated though in most cases, since they are below the size threshold. A custom rule file is required to generate them, as I have done in Aspens Ablaze add-on.
  19. z929669
    We actually don't use nexus Cats but our own. Any overlap is coincidence.
  20. z929669
    I've been missing this one.
  21. z929669
    We use CACO. JK's is a deviation from vanilla, and doesn't meet our mandate for modding the game. Our other mods take care of the issues you mention with respect to the rest of these mods. Install Step SSE and you will see.
  22. z929669
    It may be a small convenience in your workflow, but using your clipboard seems slightly redundant, since MO remembers your custom mod names for a given modID, and those are available for all subsequent files installed from same mod page in the alphabetized dropdown menu when installing the mod and choosing a name. As soon as you install the main file, the name is available for any optionals via that dropdown.
  23. z929669
    I split relevant posts from the RWT topic onto this apt topic.
  24. z929669
    This one looks good, too. Marked for Testing.
  25. z929669
    If I want to create a mod for which I want to have persistent, static object LOD, and this mod is replacing existing statics in SSE, then I do not need to use "Create Mod Mode", correct? This is only for new lands/objects (records that neither SSE or DynDOLOD are aware of) in order to set up the new plugin records with the proper flags for LODGen? Rather, all I need to do is create the full and LOD models using the file-naming and path conventions, and DynDOLOD will take care of the rest? I have read through the doc, but I am still churning around what I have read. My questions will get more intelligent as I understand more. PS: Disclaimer ... my questions may not get more intelligent either way
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines, Privacy Policy, and Terms of Use.

  I accept