Skyrim Revisited Pre-Release Feedback

[Nozzer66]

Say Neo, just saw this on the Nexus: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/72991/?

 

Haven't used it yet myself but might be worth a look.

[GrantSP]

Guys, I think you may have found something very important here. Though I'm not too sure if the same process is handled upstream by the game engine.

 

It's really easy to check which BSAs are being used by xEdit. Load your order and once fully loaded invoke the context menu and select "Assets Browser" from the "Apply Scripts" option. Run it and another dialogue will open where ALL the currently loaded assets are displayed showing which BSA is providing them.

 

As an experiment I loaded in my current STEP 2.2.9 which uses the STEP Optimised BSAs. None of the assets shown in xEdit are from this BSA, they are all from Skyrim - Textures. I would assume if these BSAs are explicitly added to the [Archives] section of the INI they would load but that defeats the purpose of MO managed archives. I'm guessing the trickery of MO's VFS works on the game engine but xEdit is too simple to be tricked.

 

Just to verify that there isn't some internal renaming done, so although the files are said to be from Skyrim - Textures when in reality they are from the STEP BSA, I extracted the female archmage boots texture from inside xEdit and then compared it to the one from the STEP BSA, definitely not the same texture!

 

Since DynDoLOD uses xEdit and MO's built in asset management we really need further input from anyone that understands the workings of xEdit. This may have implications to Mator's tools as well.

[tony971]

Well the good news is I don't know of any other mods that depend on MO's BSA loading function. But it would be nice to see xEdit updated to accommodate. I think it was Sharlikran who helped me out last time I did something funky that needed a new xEdit function. I don't remember, exactly, though.

Edit: I've opened up a ticket with TES5Edit to request this functionality

https://github.com/TES5Edit/TES5Edit/issues/334

Edited January 30, 2016 by tony971

[nappilydeestruction]

Hey Neo, did you know that PapyrusUtil - Modders Scripting Utility Functions updated earlier this month.  Here's the update to 3.2 https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/58705/?

[Nebulous112]

Regarding DynDOLOD:

 

I use STEP Extended, which includes the vanilla High Res Texture Packs as well as the STEP Optimized Vanilla Textures. I've questioned in the past whether I needed to have the dummy plugins for the High Res Textures ticked for DynDOLOD generation, and at the time I was given conflicting answers.

 

I was first told that yes, dummy plugins needed to be ticked, as TES5Edit wouldn't load them otherwise. Later, I was told that in fact I did not need them ticked for a pure STEP install, as Sheson had included the relevant High Res files in a DynDOLOD update, and the Unofficial High Res Patch wasn't relevant to LOD generation.

 

Thinking about it now, as the STEP Optimized Vanilla Textures don't have a plugin to begin with, I'm not sure if they are being input into TexGen or not. Alternatively I assume it would be the High Resolution Texture Pack files which Sheson included that would be loaded in place, but I've never really looked too closely at the results. As long as I didn't get an error, I was happy. :-P

 

I should play around a bit with TES5Edit; this is interesting, and it's a good excuse for me to learn more about xEdit (of which I know very little).

[tony971]

Even the TES5Edit team doesn't know.

https://github.com/TES5Edit/TES5Edit/issues/334

[EssArrBee]

Just use the dummy plugins until after running DynDOLOD. ALso, I'm 99% DDL has the HRDLC LODs already included in the base pack. The different between using optimized textures and the vanilla textures for LODs is basically non-existent. xEdit is going to reduce them down regardless using w/e built program it supports. 

Even the TES5Edit team doesn't know.

https://github.com/TES5Edit/TES5Edit/issues/334

Yeah they do. I've talked with them about this before. MO only has the BSA feature for game's EXEs and not for utilities. You just have to remember to tick the dummy plugins to load the archives. We went over this when testing DDL.

[tony971]

Just use the dummy plugins until after running DynDOLOD. ALso, I'm 99% DDL has the HRDLC LODs already included in the base pack. The different between using optimized textures and the vanilla textures for LODs is basically non-existent. xEdit is going to reduce them down regardless using w/e built program it supports. 

Yeah they do. I've talked with them about this before. MO only has the BSA feature for game's EXEs and not for utilities. You just have to remember to tick the dummy plugins to load the archives. We went over this when testing DDL.

Well now that the question is raised, it's not just limited to the vanilla textures. It applies to every mod that uses a dummy plugin.

[Neovalen]

Lesson I'm getting out of this is... stick to loose mods, screw bsa. :)

 

That's been my standard for years, why change?

[GrantSP]

Just use the dummy plugins until after running DynDOLOD. ALso, I'm 99% DDL has the HRDLC LODs already included in the base pack. The different between using optimized textures and the vanilla textures for LODs is basically non-existent. xEdit is going to reduce them down regardless using w/e built program it supports. 

Yeah they do. I've talked with them about this before. MO only has the BSA feature for game's EXEs and not for utilities. You just have to remember to tick the dummy plugins to load the archives. We went over this when testing DDL.

That is odd because looking at how MO tricks the game into seeing those BSAs you would imagine editors would also fall for it. I would like to see that discussion if it isn't on PMs. Was that discussed in an open forum somewhere? Bethsoft perhaps or AFKMods?

[EssArrBee]

That is odd because looking at how MO tricks the game into seeing those BSAs you would imagine editors would also fall for it. I would like to see that discussion if it isn't on PMs. Was that discussed in an open forum somewhere? Bethsoft perhaps or AFKMods?

Actually MO lets the game see the INI loaded BSAs as the archive tab in the order they are listed in the archives tab. It also changes the names of the archives to remove the 256 character limit, so they are aaa, bbb, ccc... It's basically a hack on the game executable if I understand it correctly. You'd have to make it dynamic for everything to see it that way. xEdit is often used without all the plugins loaded at once. I use it with only one or a few plugins loaded more often then I do without. If it loaded unnecessary BSAs then it could break functionality that is extremely important to both patching and LODGen. 

 

I'll have to dig up the conversation about it, but it was mostly just being reminded that xEdit loads BSAs by plugin or INI just like the game does. MO doesn't change that either, it just subverts the INI mechanism already in place.

[tony971]

So the obvious question is "why doesn't MO use the same INI loaded BSA for executables that it uses for Skyrim?" And would having unnecessary BSAs loaded break any more functionality than loose files?

Edited January 30, 2016 by tony971

[GrantSP]

Actually MO lets the game see the INI loaded BSAs as the archive tab in the order they are listed in the archives tab. It also changes the names of the archives to remove the 256 character limit, so they are aaa, bbb, ccc... It's basically a hack on the game executable if I understand it correctly. You'd have to make it dynamic for everything to see it that way. xEdit is often used without all the plugins loaded at once. I use it with only one or a few plugins loaded more often then I do without. If it loaded unnecessary BSAs then it could break functionality that is extremely important to both patching and LODGen. 

 

I'll have to dig up the conversation about it, but it was mostly just being reminded that xEdit loads BSAs by plugin or INI just like the game does. MO doesn't change that either, it just subverts the INI mechanism already in place.

Ahh... of course, the hooking only occurs in the game executable. I knew that, just had a 'senior moment'. :confused:  Perhaps another reason why @Tannin is dropping the BSA management in version 2? Don't worry about digging anything up, I'm on board with it now.

 

So the obvious question is "why doesn't MO use the same INI loaded BSA for executables that it uses for Skyrim?" And would having unnecessary BSAs loaded break any more functionality than loose files?

Because as SRB notes, MO circumvents the naming structure to call those BSAs: aaa,bbb,ccc, etc. to limit the length of the paths. The INIs use the actual names and to tie it into the "hooking" would probably require on-the-fly edits. Not a very satisfactory way to go.

[Yippee38]

When I get to the final LOOT sort, then do the TES5Edit Sort Master step, I get no message saying it's done, or that it's doing anything for that matter.  When I click the X in the upper-right corner of TES5Edit, it doesn't give me the option to Uncheck the "Backup masters" checkbox.  That whole window never even shows.  I click the X in the main TES5Edit window and TES5Edit closes.

Is that right and the guide is wrong, or am I doing something wrong?

[Pretendeavor]

That means nothing has changed and no masters needed sorting. If masters had been reordered, TES5Edit would have given you the option to save.