z929669

Yes, but not just remaster ... reMAKE of that game with updated game engine, models, and textures ... all true to the original look/feel. No better RPG has ever been made, IMO.

For custom stuff related to new content, you need to actually point to custom folders/files using the CK-created plugin I think. For asset replacements, you need to be sure that all file paths match vanilla exactly and that your archive root is the /Data directory. I also recommend using archive.exe to pack files ... or you can use BSAopt or DDSopt, but the fexibility they provide may make getting a working archive a bit more painful ... works though ;) EDIT: probably did not answer your question exactly, but maybe I am just not getting it :P

no, you can put everything into an archive as long as it has the file/folder structure same as under /Data and the packed BSA is under 2 gigs. Naming BSAs follows this pattern

Thallassa covered the gist ... but it has been covered in painful detail already with input from various modding 'experts' of various opinion. Here is --> another updated source of this info. Conventional wisdom states that archives are best (USP team takes this position as well as a great many other experienced MAs), but I prefer loose files myself, particularly for pure texture/mesh mods. Mods that also include scripts and other asset types allow the MA to ensure proper mod behavior (if they know what they are doing (e.g., see Arthmoor's mods) and reduce user error as well as increase compatibility with other mods. As far as speed in loading, I think the consensus is that there is no practical difference and that BSAs are potentially faster, IIRC. Probably not worth factoring into the equation. If you archive (or not), you would be doing it out of your own convenience, i would say. For 'dummy' plugins, I always make a copy of the bashed patch ESP that is bundled with Wrye Bash and simply rename it to same name as the BSA ... super simple.

Theoretically, it is a good idea and should reduce maintenance and increase consistency ... but PITA to set and for the less wary to edit unless they know how to trace to source. I thought there may be another reason why you did not set up this way, too. If you find that it does not cause more trouble, then it is probably a good idea to implement here and anywhere this concept applies.

thanks, much better ... no need to add this to the INI then ... it does not even appear by default

[screenSplatter] instructions are misleading. Should this be left at default or set to zero? Please state explicitly, thanks. Also, since we are duplicating in both the Skyrim Configuration Guide and the Skyrim INI Guide (along with many other settings from the main INI guides; verbatim is intended, I would think), then we should be ensuring consistency using transclusion so that we only need to edit one source and trust consistent propagation elsewhere. For example, main guide ini tweaks are defined in the Skyrim Configuration Guide and transcluded to the main guide, as follows: Transclude define page (SCG): <onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{{insert|SkyrimBriefINI}}}|SkyrimBriefINI| wiki code to transclude }}</onlyinclude>Display page (transclude call; main guide): {{Guide:Skyrim_Configuration_Settings|insert=SkyrimBriefINI}}Similarly, I think that the Skyrim INI Guide and SkyrimPrefs INI Guide should be the source of all analogous info presented in the SCG, as follows where applicable: In Guide:Skyrim INI/ScreenSplatter: <onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{{insert|ScreenSplatter}}}|ScreenSplatter| bBloodSplatterEnabled toggles screen blood splatter. Unfortunately, it also causes the map menu to CTD. (please define 'it' as bBloodSplatterEnabled = 1/0) }}</onlyinclude>Then call it in SCG: {{Guide:Skyrim INI/ScreenSplatter|insert=ScreenSplatter}}

[screenSplatter] instructions are misleading. Should this be left at default or set to zero? Please state explicitly, thanks.

Agree that MAs have zero authority to prevent listing/describing their mod in any articular context (except where basic human rights may be concerned ... e.g., slander). MAs seem to retain rights over their original and unique work as it relates to their mod (including total functionality of the mod, if it is original/unique) ... but they have no right to monetize (which is the real power behind copyright) ... effectively, they can't really control how Bethesda chooses to use their mod though, so the true extent of their 'copyright' is largely undermined. It is simple common sense and courtesy to respect the wishes of the originators of ideas/works in terms of their creations, and MP goes above and beyond the minimal requirements of courtesy to MAs ... even to the potential detriment of their own service. Nothing to complain about or be against as far as I can tell ;) PS: I edited a few of my previous posts to more accurately reflect reality and to correct some of my own personal misperceptions of the Beth CK EULA (and probably that of other proprietary games/tools related to modding). If some of my words concerning MA copyright remain flat-out incorrect, do tell and explain how/why, and I will correct those as well if the argument is not purely semantic or based upon opinion :D

Reviewed the links in your post, and good points made to support your assertion that assets created for the proprietary game are forever copyrighted to the creator; however, all opinions are unofficial and unsubstantiated. There has yet to be any clear legal precedent one way or the other. It is pretty much consensus though that the mod author owns at least the assets that he/she uniquely created ... but Bethesda does too, so you basically give up the 'meat" of your rights unless you can control Bethesda (or the new co-owner-by-proxy). I would not count on my rights as a mod author ;)

Ok, will take a look at those links ... not looked yet, but I have debated Arthmoor on some of this stuff, and I am left still thinking that nothing about this is certain, and I have little faith that mod authors truly retain full copyright to their work until there is sufficient legal precedent to bolster this. There are just soooo many mods and very few if any of them fully utilize 100% mod-author created content that is not derivative of other works (just try proving one way or the other ... not easy). Anyway, just wanted to point out what struck me from Uhuru's post ... not sure I would be so harsh on your implementation though. Not a whole lot of ways to embark on this, really, especially if it is open and intended always free of charge ... like Linux. EDIT: For posterity, I edited some of my incorrect statements to better reflect what seems to be the consensus over mod author copyright regarding content created for proprietary games ... MAs do retain copyright, albeit it is somewhat hobbled in my view.

I think that the point is that mod creators of content used in proprietary games have no few clear rights to anything. The same is true in some respects for the proprietor ... it is all still a huge legal gray area that lacks sufficiently-consistent legal precedent Regardless, one thing is almost certain: Corporations' interests supersede individuals' interests in the eyes of most law. I reason that it would be very hard if not impossible for any mod author to stake a legal IP claim and win, and it would be relatively simple for the game proprietor to do so. I think we should be creating and reusing mods without unreasonable restriction using the honorable "copyleft" philosophy unless you keep a work exclusively to yourself, but human ego is pervasive and persistent, and gray areas are prevalent, so we play politics and interpret EULAs in different ways (just remember, big dogs almost always win). Anyway, it's a shame that you need to allow mod authors the 'right' to have their mods removed from MP lists. It is just a text reference and not a mechanic or an asset. ... but I understand the political reasons for doing so ;) EDIT: For posterity, I edited some of my incorrect statements to better reflect what seems to be the consensus over mod author copyright regarding content created for proprietary games ... MAs do retain copyright, albeit it is somewhat hobbled in my view.

Actually, from the Creation Kit EULA (and EULA regarding all assets intended to be used by the game ... i.e., ESP/Ms): "New Materials" = antything referenced by the plugin ... the creator effectively does not own the full weight normally attributed to the concept of 'copyright'. Bethesda has copyright effectively shares much of the authority normally bestowed to copyright. If the content is not created with intent to be used by the game, then the content creator has copyright just like anything else. There can be gray areas, but effectively, all publicly-released Skyrim mods are copyrighted to MAs with rather undermining (in my view) authority inherently granted to Bethesda and not the mod authors. This is why MAs got only a small cut of the scraps from the paid mods thing ... incentive, not right. I suppose I could be misinterpreting a fundamental piece of this and other language these gaming companies divulge, but my gut tells me that the corporation has all rights over the individual, who has effectively none but those bestowed by the corp. EDIT: For posterity, I edited some of my incorrect statements to better reflect what seems to be the consensus over mod author copyright regarding content created for proprietary games ... MAs do retain copyright, albeit it is somewhat hobbled in my view.

We all need to throw away the notion that mod authors have any the 'true power' of copyright on the content they create for proprietary games (like Skyrim) ... even content they create from the ground up. As it relates to the game for which it was created, the mod author has no claim to stake limited authority, and any claim they may have is tenuous, because it is granted authority over use is effectively co-opted by the game proprietor at the proprietor's exclusive and ultimate discretion. As soon as I publicly release a mod I create for Skyrim, it is effectively not 'mine' ... it effectively also belongs to Bethesda, and Nexus ToS has no authoritative power either ... violating the Nexus ToS just means you lose your Nexus privileges (kind of a big problem, eh?), but Bethesda could not care less. They are the sole proprietor of have meaningful power over use of all mods we create for Skyrim, and I agree with Uhuru in that granting mod authors the privilege of having authority over whether or not their mod is even listed in a Mod Picker list is simply a "respectful gesture" to prevent mod author alienation and hard feelings. I agree that this is a flaw in implementation, but you either risk alienating some great mod authors or weaken your tool by giving them faux authority. STEP removed SRO at the request of starac, because we are nice/respectful (and don't want to undermine Nexus ToS). Pure politics and zero authority involved. Like other community modding services, we want to be amicable to those that make the modding community possible ... the mod authors and the mod hosters. Neither has any rights at all all of the normally-assumed copyrights with regard to the content they create/distribute as it relates to a proprietary game. Likewise, neither would have exclusive rights to content created even for an open source game, unless that game adopted a legal license that transcended to all content created for that game (being open source though would mean that only a requirement for contributor credit would transcend). ... all that said, I think Mod Picker could be a very useful tool and would enhance the modding community, which is ultimately held together by politics and at the benevolence/discretion of the proprietor. EDIT: For posterity, I edited some of my incorrect statements to better reflect what seems to be the consensus over mod author copyright regarding content created for proprietary games ... MAs do retain copyright, albeit it is somewhat hobbled in my view.

Thanks for contributing, Uhuru ... long time, no see ;) Anxious to get Mator's input ant that of others regarding your approach. Seems reasonable to me, but I am not yet an 'expert' at using mator's tools.

Moved this to the proper forum ... "Guides and Resources" forum is not the place for getting help to correct general issues ;)

Yes, "why on Earth" encompasses "why would we" and beyond ... meaning that there is absolutely no reason at all to include mention of mods in the STEP guide that are not included in STEP. It is the "STEP" guide, right? A pack author could provide instructions on installing outlier mods with STEP, so that is where it needs to go. We leave that to the community to undertake if anyone so chooses. Your reasoning on adding mention of outlier mods in the STEP guide is beyond our purview, so it is not a valid use case for STEP. Sorry, but it is what it is. ... you do not need to be an 'elite' modder to install STEP, because we lay it out for anyone with basic computer skills to install successfully; however, I could argue that it might be helpful to be an 'elite' modder in order to successfully get Falskaar and Wyrmstooth working correctly within ANY modded setup. Our guide(s) allows anyone without modding skill to install STEP ... that's the whole point ;)

Can't modify that behavior without modifying the underlying editor code, sorry ;)

... or point MO to various MO Mods locations as applicable at any given time.

The beauty of Mod Organizer is that you can install STEP as we direct in the guide and later insert mods anywhere in the 'install' priority in the left pane to test/debug. Why on Earth would we mention how/where/when to install mods that are not included in STEP? That only adds confusion and complicates an otherwise relatively simple process.

Google is your friend (and mine). all you need can be found by searching: "remove bloatware from windows 10" ... unfortunately, certain Windows updates undo the manual removal of this useless bloat, so you need to run some of these commands intermitently.

Any user-side updates on this? Are you experiencing any more 504 or other major slow-downs ... anyone?

It is likely the daily backup or other daily routine that is causing the slowdown (5 GMT = about Midnight US time). I will ask s4n to maybe run the maintenance stuff a few hours later ... not sure if this is the issue or not though right now.

^ Tech is exactly correct. Since we and many others who have installed STEP:Core and STEP:Extended do not encounter this issue, then we cannot rule out that the 'foreign' dialog mods you have installed are the root cause rather than STEP. Please install only STEP:Core/Extended completely using the guide, then report any issues you have here. If no issue is encountered until after you install your added dialog mods, then you need to post on the support forums or sites associated with the mod authors. As of now, we cannot consider your report to be associated with a "STEP bug"

^ These are not STEP bugs but rather bugs in your particular setup, since you are using mods that are not in the STEP guide, and these or your general non-STEP setup are likely the source of your issues. Please repost in the support forums under a new topic.