z929669

From the tech readMe: DataFileExists - Tests for the existance of a file in the Data directory. If the file you are testing for is an ESP or ESM, this will also detected ghosted versions of the file. DataFileExists(file_name [, ..., file_name_n]) file_name - A string or variable holding a string, specifying the path relative to the Data directory to test. For example using "test.esp" would test for "[path to game]\Data\test.esp" Return values: True - All of the files exist. False - One or more of the files do not exist.

Yep, and I tried it in about 2 billion variations. I cannot get it working this way. There is something I'm overlooking but it is just out of my grasp. I already posted in the thread you quoted from about my issues. EDIT: Apparently the newer Wrye Bash versions don't support 64 bit python anymore... unfortunately. He mentions using his "Wrye Archive Version", which may mean that he was using v295. Not sure though, but I could have sworn that I have been able to run WB under 64-bit Python in the past, but that was Oblivion and probably pre v190. I also tried that method to no avail. Just get a cbash error in the Traceback. Try to see if any of these custom windows 64-bit binaries help.

Hmmm, sort of have to use the wizard or any available installer if it comes with the mod. If we detail the instructions for this "default", then we would have a precedent for doing the same for all others. Sounds painful to me. The wizards (and fomod) script is simple to read, and it contains all of the info necessary to determine the standard installation options (but I would rather use the installer, since it is so simple :P )

Anyone willing to test for STEP is welcome to do so. ENB is not really on our plates ATM (it is not so much a lighting solution as a general graphics solution), but lighting is. so if you want to look at the effects of Realistic Lighting and share some thoughts ans screens to that effect, that would be great.Â

Silver, Iron and Steel are all available now ...

Sounds fantastic ;)

There is a conversation on another thread around here (found it: Hardware thread beginning here) that is attempting to debunk the Skyrim-CPU dependency idea ... but it would seem that reducing the CPU clocks for any task would be overall beneficial ... ?

Same here. Not having to spend hours harvesting to make potions and actually playing the gaming is the improvement from this mod. I end up with a ton of potions anyway from looting, but alchemy is just much more useful with this mod installed because harvesting is not longer a chore. Before this mod I found myself actually going on harvesting "runs" for the ingredient. Now it's just more incorporated into the whole experience so it's not taking away from the rest of the game.To both of these valid opinions: Any professional in a trade must spend a major chunk of their waking hours engaging in the activities of that trade, with the majority of their time spent "in the field". Hence the term "alchemist" versus the terms "minstrel" or "ranger" or "barbarian" or "knight" or "wizard" ... The point is that some of us enjoy the respite of plant-hunting as a valid goal of exploration, and I personally like the challenge of alchemy with the possibility of being "powerful" in these terms ;) @ Monty I agree that alchemy, like all of Skyrim's leveling subsystem could use a complete overhaul, and this mod is currently addressing a single component of that. @Omeletter I like how you are thinking, and revision to vanilla alchemy is needed IMO. However the purpose of STEP is to enhance the vanilla game rather than change it much, so that is why I recommend this and other mods effecting the game mechanics to be compiled into a Pack (which is sort of like a mini STEP overhaul of sorts). Besidilo's idea makes sense, because you need to be able to convert aliquots of harvested ingredients into fractions so that they do not exist 1:1. However, it may be better to use actual decimals rather than increase all of the components of dependent systems. I really enjoy facing the dilemma of deciding whether to use an ingredient to make a potion or to sell it (i.e., very valuable ingredients). Ingredients should be valued according to their properties and modified by their rarity, so those void salts should have the potential to create a very desirable effect to the tune of the effect's worth in gold.

Yep, I believe we have just found a way to state the same thing in three different ways (this is probably the most explicit)

Modifying my previous statement: RL can and should be finished, unfinished, or stylistically altered in any way the design team desires. It will still be a serious consideration for Core STEP lighting, regardless. Just saying that such changes would prompt an independent evaluation.

RE the query: Yep, speaking of the effect rather than the means RE the FAQ: at least the information should be mostly consolidated due to the forum layout, and tech has been reading that thread and tagging as [sOLVED] where applicable. That will make the task simpler

Yep. I think that this should be seriously considered for 2.2.2 and definitely for a later release. Just would like one more admin confirmation and confirmation by JaWs that nothing about their current methods will change much (i.e., that we can depend on a full Skyrim + DLC update at some point in the same style as current).

I am very interested in the dark mountains. The dark will improve sky texture rendering dramatically I think (if they are good enough). I will also be reducing them to 1k :P

The performance game is almost strictly in terms of load times, so FPS and VRAM will not be affected. However, you will notice an increase in speed mainly during Skyrim init and moving between cells in game. This gain is especially helpful for HDD (but I still use this on my SSD, since I can still avoid processor usage burden and time by avoiding decompression) OK, based on alt3rn1ty's conveyance of Ethatron's testing, I can see now that BSAs will often enhance load times, especially with HDD (my experiences must have always been placebo ... erroneous placebo, too :P ) However, I prefer the enhanced conflict resolution of loose files --and the ability to control outcome. Using an SSD makes loose files even more sensible, since defrag is not an issue (my brain cannot perceive millisecond diffs between data accesss from SSD versus from decompression from SSD anyway).

Your primary group wasn't "Registered" which is why you couldn't log-in. You should be good to go now.I always set up the primary as "Registered" and use the "Additional User Groups" to hold extras beyond that. I also use the latter for "Display Group". Admin is the exception though (i.e., we each should have only admin as primary with nothing else defined). Agree with that; however, it may be even better to use a "Solutions" tab to hold a list of links to subpages of the TG, as too many tabs can be difficult to scan. In fact, we could eventually have a form-based query of the subpages based on user input, no? The TG should articulate neatly with the Support forum (links to/from each the other).Â

Well two things stop me. 1. I don't want to install the python version of WB because it only uses 32 bit applications - just like the standalone 2. I don't know whether I can just port my bash.ini file to the mopy directory of the python version without issues. If you could provide me with a detailed step by step tutorial how to set up WB Python to use only 64bit applications, I'll do it. Otherwise... rather not. I spent too much time reading too many forum threads about too many too vague things that had literally nothing to do with what I intended to find out via google. I just don't get why the official WB readme doesn't tell ya how to get it to work in 64bit mode. Even how to set LAA flags for the standalone version I had to find out myself with google which took ages by the way, since apparently nobody ever thought it might be worth mentioning how to do so in these really awfully helpful readmes. Edit: Oh a 3rd reason is, that I don't know whether all of WB functionality is the same when running WB or if there are things that are different and you have to note so that you don't run into problems. Edit2: Replaced WB.exe with the original exe since my antivirus doesn't seem to be able to remember that this exe is no virus and informs me every 2 seconds that it has found a new virus. have you read this? Also quoting the Nexus thread referenced:

I think that you had better start over from the beginning. The post above is not making any sense to me :confused: Most users around here are on 64-bit, so I'd like a definitive and tested and reproducible procedure for getting 64-bit functionality out of WB and 7z under WB. Python 64 seems like a prerequisite, but I am pretty sure that the Python extras do not have 64-bit versions available.

On that note, we need editors to begin correcting and adding to the Troubleshooting Guide per the [ SOLVED ] threads in the support forum.

I actually unpack all BSAs (vanilla and mods) and repack into 7z for load with Wrye Bash. This way, I can see all of the conflicts and load times are not reliant on decompression of the BSA archives. BSAs are nice for mod authors and distribution and patches, but loose files work best IMO.

Replaced with Brows by Hvergelmir

Thanks for the info, alt3rn1ty

OK then ... This mod has been accepted int STEP We need a Mod Tester familiar with this mod to create the wiki mod page using the name in the OP

This mod has been accepted into STEP