z929669

hmmm very confused still. Perhaps we should test if there is an in-game diff? If not, then we can be rid of the whole recommendation :P

a good point, but at the end of the day, consistency (precision) is probably more important than realism (accuracy) ;)

Yep, please make it separate, thanks ;)

I've programmed C# before' date=' so this would be a good field for me. I also have access to Mod Organizer, which I can use to test the installer. That would be awesome and much appreciated ... credit to you on the thread and here if you do ;) I meant for Neo's mod, since he asked for a simble, bundled package fit for all users (but I suppose this would be an elegant solution for SGD as well )

We need to parallel the vanilla config ... to confirm, are you saying that moving this edit recommendation to the Skyrim.ini from SkyrimPrefs.ini will correct it?

I think he meant he put the optional packs into an installer. If someone also knows how to make a NMM installer that would work with said BAIN installer I would host a combo installer (if thats possible). That way I could remove the optionals and put them into the main file as part of the installer. I'm sure it's not hard to maintain once built. Very simple to maintain if file names/paths remain consistent. A wizard is a very simple script that you would understand even more effortlessly than a fomod XML script. I have never found an easy way to create a NMM installer ... you would think that it would be simple to do with NMM itself, but I cannot see it. If anyone knows of a tutorial for creating fomod scripts, it would be helpful. (WB doc has details on wizard scripts).

Thanks Vond. This looks like it can be tentatively accepted

This sounds right for STEP by the sound of it. Just a couple of loose ends. OP updated

Thz for the answer^^The problem now is that Wyre Bash do not understand that 10 is after 9 xD There is a way to make it understand that? Until now i forced the mod order manually so that the tenth file of section D (i renamed it D10-etc) is after the ninth one (D9-etc) instead of after the first one. I just finished updating much of the WBG and figs. It goes into exactly how to get the package order correct using a combination of file naming, sorting by name and sorting by section. All sorting is based on strings, not numbers.

Draugr greatswords were 0.75 which, as USKP states, might suggest that this was suppose to be the correct value for greatswords. My choice however was to make the speed consistent with the pattern suggested by the other weapons... The difference in speed between other 1H & 2H weapons are as follows: Swords = 1.0, Greatswords = ? War Axe = 0.9, Battleaxe = 0.7 (difference of -0.2) Mace = 0.8, Warhammer = 0.6 (difference of -0.2) Also, the difference in speed among one-handed weapons is a consistent -0.1 decrease in speed (Swords = 1, War Axe = 0.9, and Mace = 0.8). The difference between Battleaxes (0.7) and Warhammers (0.6) is also a -0.1 decrease. Given both these progressions, I felt that the correct speed for the Greatswords should be 0.8 instead of 0.7 or 0.75. This maintains both the -0.2 difference in speed between Swords and Greatswords, and the -0.1 change in speed between the different 2H weapon types. I completely agree with this reasoning, both in terms of the apparent existing pattern (but for this one inconsistency), as well as basic physics, A sword's center of gravity is proximal to the wielder, whereas an axe (and hammer and mace) CoG is distal to the wielder. This means more force is required to swing the latter, which should move more slowly and with more inertia (I'll ignore the diffs in length for simplicity's sake ... and because that might drive a wedge into my neat little rationalization ... :P ) This appears to be well analyzed. How about someone reports back after running the appropriate config under STEP? Marking for testing, OP updated.

OP updated

OP updated

Oh man... I just got a lot of weird looks from people in my office after reading this due to the fact that I guffawed mid-drink and then choked on my redbull. Thank you for this z929669... even though I'm certain half my office now thinks I'm a lunatic, it did in fact brighten my day. :D @Kryptopyr Good job lady! Can't wait to download the new version! :D (once I get internet back at my house again...) Happy to help ... Do you mean "lady" or "laddie"? NM, got it

I'll see about updating the figs, but they will always be outdated, so maybe a not about this in the guide is warranted.

Well Stopping would rather we keep the Notes section locked up so that we can better manage published content; however, the new practice will be for community members to add Notes updates to the mod thread, and moderators or admin will add these notes to the thread OP and from there to the mod page.

@Kryptopyr Add the fixes separate or include them ... the choice is yours (:P). I can say for certain that we will include into STEP whichever plugin contains the fixes (pending verification that it does not conflict with anything else in STEP). Thanks ;)

SR is a grand testing ground of sorts. I'd like to integrate SR workflow into STEP soon as much as possible. Same goes for the forums (a lot of unnecessary redundancy now, particularly with regard to support and certain guide topics (e.g. DDSopt). Need to think about this more once I get my STEP install updated.

Yes, they were put there so that we could maintain sanity with regard to the notes, since they appear in the guide; however, we stand to gain a lot with community help in this regard, and many eyes will keep this in line I think.

... risen from the ashes after 4+ months ... woa Good to know though. I use Radeon, so it would be good to know that a driver update could fix this.

It is OK to create a BCF (and announce it). Agree though that we need to keep vigilant on the testing data requirements such that we vet each mod on the respective mod thread before accepting into STEP. This way we keep an organized record of exactly why a given mod was accepted (believe me, it is a question that comes up often about certain mods!). However, I am inclined to consider creation of mod pages for mods that are not necessarily accepted. Particularly regarding mods that are being used in Skyrim Revisited. More on this stuff later though ... For now, we should stick to the MT protocol stickied on the MS forum (let me know if that needs revision)

Anyone can update the notes ... I'd like the general community to get the hang of the interface. Just go to the mod page, click "Edit With Form" and update the notes on the 4th tab ;) I'd like to put it out there that I can't. The checkbox is not check-able for me and I can not type in the textboxes.OK, restrictions were set on those attributes. I removed them, so let's see about it now ;)

Anyone can update the notes ... I'd like the general community to get the hang of the interface. Just go to the mod page, click "Edit With Form" and update the notes on the 4th tab ;)

Thanks for the detail ... It will definitely be considered for Packs and watched for Core STEP.