Mator

I noticed the XPMS/E requirement issue. I'm still thinking about how to handle that cleanly. Yes, we could come up with some kind of way to "OR" between requirements, but it introduces a lot of complexity in a number of different systems. I'm still thinking about whether or not there could be another way to do it. I've noticed the difficulty with reordering mod lists myself, and that is something I have been wanting to add. It should be pretty easy to do, so I'll get on it.

Thallassa tried it with SSE BSAs and it worked, so I think we're in the green! I've made a new release on GitHub and Nexus Mods.

TechAngel: I think I figured out why libbsa wasn't working properly in the latest build. Please try using the latest version of Mod Analyzer with the dlls in this archive (libbsa.dll and zlib.dll). I'm not certain, but I'm hoping this will fix the problem.

It seems that there are some issues with Merge Plugins handling certain assets, so I'll be making an update to fix the problems sometime soon. Sorry for the inconvenience! - Mator

I'm cautiously optimistic. If AMD can deliver I'll probably be making an AMD build for my next PC.

We'll be out of beta by 2017 at the latest. There's a few big features that we're working on that I'd like to finish, and there's also some server architecture stuff I need to address for scaling. Thallassa will be verifying the issue you encountered with Mod Analyzer today. If she can recreate the issue I'll have to do some deeper investigation into the root cause.

Huh, very odd! I'm not sure why that would happen. You should be fine using 1.7.3. I'll see if anyone else is having this problem and try to get to the bottom of what is happening! EDIT: You could also try installing 1.8.1 in a separate directory and using libbsa.dll from 1.7.3. That *might* fix the issue. If it does then I'll know that the DLL is the problem!

I'm not sure what's going on, it analyzed fine for me: https://puu.sh/sITYC.json Try completely reinstalling Mod Analyzer from the latest archive, and maybe check your folder permissions (take ownership, unset read-only). EDIT: Here's my setup as well: Running Windows 7 (probably the biggest difference). You may also want to make sure your Antivirus isn't interfering. They seem to do that a lot. X_X

Yeah, there should be a way to do them as separate pages. That's odd. I'll test with the same archive you're trying to analyze to see if I can recreate the issue. Yeah, all of that should be accessible from the API. Literally everything will be accessible from the API in well formatted JSON. Our platform basically is a single page application sitting on top of a RESTful API. So the API is already there for every page on the platform. We just need to make a manageable way to distribute and manage API access (API keys or something similar). We already have full load order sorting rules rolled into our sorting algorithm. The algorithm is slightly different from LOOT's, but I'm fairly confident it should produce valid load orders (some more Load Order Notes are probably necessary). Yes it's supposed to store the BSAs, though we should have it automatically delete them after each analysis. They don't need to be kept after the analysis is complete.

Alright, we'll keep an eye out for mods with incomplete analyses. (Mods currently tagged as having incomplete analyses). Alternatively you could make separate mod pages for the mods and we could use custom sources that link to the STEP wiki. Sounds good. :) It sounds like libbsa.dll is missing from the ModAnalyzer folder. Did you extract everything from the update archive? It does contain an updated version of libbsa.dll. It also could be that you set Mod Analyzer to start a directory other than its root directory from Mod Organizer. Even better than that, I can just make you a moderator on Mod Picker and then you'll have access to edit all mods on Mod Picker. You won't have any official moderator responsibilities. I can also add maybe one or two other STEP staff members as well, if desired. - Mator

Most likely the issue with parsing nested dependencies. I'll push an update to Mod Analyzer in just a moment... EDIT: Try Mod Analyzer v1.8. If it's a complex FOMOD installer you can (and probably should) parse it as a BAIN installer instead (from the classify archives view, uncheck FOMOD and check BAIN). EDIT 2: Error still occurs in Mod Analyzer v1.8 when parsing as a FOMOD installer. I'll figure it out. ;) EDIT 3: Fixed error and some other things, pushing a hotfix to Mod Analyzer. EDIT 4: Mod Analyzer v1.8.1 works. :)

You checked all the BSShaderTextureSet nodes? If so then I'm not sure. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Sorry I can't help more, but nifskope really isn't my area of expertise. Maybe someone else can chime in. (you could also try posting on r/skyrimmods, the Nexus Mods forums, or the Bethesda forums)

This is happening due to a bug which lets you add a tool to the Mods section. (they are actually added to the tools section, they just appear to be added to the Mods section). If you reload the page you should see them move into the tools section, I think. EDIT: Hotfixed. You'll need to reload because the fix was in the frontend javascript. The way Mod Picker classifies things is anything that requires files to be installed outside of the Data directory or involves a standalone application is an "External Utility", which appears on the "Tools" tab on mod lists. I realize it's a bit inaccurate, but this was the best solution we could come up with. No need to apologize, I really appreciate the reports! It gives me an idea of where you are at with using Mod Picker. And having issues properly reported to me is really important, because I can't fix bugs that I don't know about!

Oh, ok, that's possible I guess. I think you could use nifskope to change the texture on the model if that is indeed the issue. You probably want to look for the TriShape node and the diffuse texture path on it. There may be more than one texture path. Just expand the nif tree until you find a file path to a texture. :)

Awesome! :D Yes - a mashup is totally viable and I am looking forward to working with you guys to get things figured out. :)

It wouldn't be a NIFskope fix, it would probably be an ESP fix (in TES5Edit). If it is actually that the guard armor meshes/textures were overwritten you can just delete the nif/dds for each armor.

Well, they don't actually have an API at all. Every time Mod Picker interacts with the Nexus we're actually pulling an HTML page and parsing stuff from it. It's not pretty, but it works. :P Ahh, derp. I'll run the reputation worker to update your reputation. (it runs automatically once per day - reputation isn't tracked live for most things currently) -- You now have 27 reputation, Milk Drinker! -- EDIT: And I noticed we aren't creating intermediate reputation milestone events. Because of this you didn't get the 10 reputation milestone notification, "You can now use a custom avatar and create help pages.". I fixed the bug in my development environment.

Per the page I linked: If you aren't the uploader we cannot grant automatic authorship because there is no way for us to automatically determine what Nexus Mods user account(s) have been given access to edit a mod page. If you know of a some kind of hidden Nexus API call we could use to determine who has been given access to the Nexus Mods page I'd be willing to look into incorporating that into our automatic authorship system, but to my knowledge no such route exists. Yeah, it could create some work. The main concern I have is IF users are able to use dummy masters they will ALWAYS do so without fail. This could become a problem if users would have gone to the trouble of acquiring the mods that have the master plugins if they didn't have the dummy masters option. On the other hand, it could get more mods submitted to Mod Picker faster (because it'd be easier to submit mods). The cost of not having accurate error information for patch plugins isn't too high, so I most likely will be fleshing this feature out sometime in the next few weeks. Curator Requests are working just fine (I just submitted one to test). It may have been that you tried to submit it at the exact moment I was rebooting the server (a 15-second window). I added you as a curator for WATER anyways. If you'd be willing to try submitting a curator request for another mod on the platform that would be great (to see if there is some kind of browser bug or something). - Mator

You can always try tweaking your monitor's brightness/contrast settings. :)

I figured, still odd that the fomod info.xml file was left over. And honestly, they have a right to be naggy. While FOMODs can be a better user experience for mods that have a lot of options, the fact that you have to download ALL of the mod options in order to run the FOMOD is really annoying (all that wasted bandwidth, poor Nexus ). A better installer would allow users to choose their options and then download the mod files needed based on the options the user chose. See the Mod Authors Help Page. Yes, I'm aware of this. It's true that some mods can be a pain to analyze. I analyzed AOS the other day, that was tough. X_X Mod Analyzer has a hidden setting which tells ModDump (the library which produces plugin dumps) to use dummy master plugins if a plugin master isn't found. This setting is off by default and can only be turned on from the settings.ini file found alongside ModAnalyzer.exe. The reason this setting isn't on by default is because certain plugin errors cannot be determined properly if a dummy master is used (any references to records in the master file will be unresolved unless the record was overridden). This option should be a last resort to be used only if a master plugin is absolutely unobtainable. We could potentially determine the masters for plugins before performing an analysis and check to make sure they are present and activated. This would at least improve the UX for analyzing mods with multiple patches, though it doesn't fix the fact that the mods the master plugins are from need to be present and activated on the user's machine. Yup. That's why we really need to get Mod Authors involved on Mod Picker. But you also have to remember, each mod only needs to be submitted once. Once submitted, their analysis will need to be updated when the mod updates, but asides from that the job is done. This is handled through the curator system on Mod Picker. See this imgur album for how the system works: https://imgur.com/a/CwNVw You're not wrong, it can be kind of tedious. However, it's not really something we have the power to change... Actually, I may be able to add a flag to plugins that were analyzed with dummy masters that indicates we don't have error information on the plugin. That would allow users to analyze plugins using dummy masters if they are too lazy to get the mods the master plugins are from and the fact that they used dummy masters would be known (so someone else can come and do a proper analysis at some future point in time). I'm fine with adding the image myself for every mod that is submitted to Mod Picker. I have a pretty quick process figured out. I've added thumbnail images to 835 mods so far.

I don't know man. If the ESP files aren't in your data folder anymore you may need to re-sync Skyrim from Steam.

check the "overwrite" mod in MO EDIT: no wait, the ESMs don't appear in that screenshot of your data folder... and if they were in overwrite they'd still be listed in your load order in MO

I'll take care of it. EDIT: Handled. I wonder why fadingsignal put a fomod\info.xml file into the archives when they don't have fomod installers? We already do have some things, actually! See the Reputation Help Page. As an example, Enai Siaion has 124 reputation. He's getting 50 reputation from his Nexus Mods account statistics and 63 reputation from his authored mods (Apocalypse has 52 reputation and Ordinator has 11).

Deployed a hotfix for accidentally leaving a mod list while there are unsaved changes. A dialog will now appear if you click a link on the mod list page while there are unsaved changes: EDIT: You will need to reload the page in order to get this update. :)

There's no delay but the mod has to be approved by Mod Picker site staff before it becomes publicly visible on the platform. This gives us an opportunity to verify the entry is correct and add anything that was missing. Users with 160 or more reputation don't need to have their mods approved by the site staff. EDIT: Approved both of the mods you submitted.