Originally macrads posted this in the Nexus MO forum. So that this discussion will not get buried on the nexus forums I created the question here and will respond to it here. Spoilers edited for clarity.
Edit. Sorry I forgot to include your original Post.
Sorry if this has been mentioned before...
This was posted by author of USKP,
"Then you need to make sure Mod Organizer isn't subverting the BSA load ordering - it's notorious for that, and it doing so tends to lead to people posting about how everything is set right but still not working.
If everything is set right, every other mod management tool will deliver a proper result. MO is the only one where this breaks down because of the daft feature where you can change the order that BSAs load in - or worse - force them all to unpack loose into MO's phantom Data folder."
If I correctly understood the issue here, BSA could have a different priority with respect to ESP loading order due to VFS feature, correct?
I believe it would be beneficial to all to explain in description, that once esp plug-ins have been sorted with BOSS, the user should then manually place the files containing bsa's in the same priority/load order the esp's have been setup. Maybe also add in future version an optional automated function for this if possible.
Edit: the upcoming uskp's will be ordered directly under each corresponding esm. Although uskp's will still be named as esp they are virtually esm's. How does MO deal with this? Since I can't see the official esm's in MO and can't order the USKP's manually under them.
It is my understanding that as long as the Mod ESP is checked and sorted in the load order the the corresponding BSA will follow suite. This was discussed on the Nexus forums and I have that discussion in the Spoiler below.
Um, I can't get my head around the BSAs tab. I mean, if installation order has priority, what's the point in ordering the BSAs?
Also, MO enables the files inside a BSA(installed as it is, not unpacked) to override loose files, so long as the bsa mod is further down in the Installation order. Is this correct? (How does it do this by the way? Some hidden Skyrim setting? Sorcery? I'm awed)
If so, then I could uncheck a bsa in the BSAs tab, and it would revert to normal behavior and be overwritten by loose files no matter the installation order, right? But why would I want that?
I'm so confusedÂ
posted @ 10:22, 13 Aug 2013
a) If a Mod has multiple bsas you can change their order in the bsa tab.
b) Yes, MO enables files from bsas to override loose files. To do this, all checked bsas are added through the ini files (through very dark magic) and the overridden loose files aren't added to the virtual directory at all.
c) If you check a bsa it is loaded (with the above described magic). If you uncheck a bsa and there is an active esp by the same name it is loaded but overrides all loose files (default behaviour). If you uncheck a bsa and there is NO active esp by the same name, the bsa is not loaded. Why would you want that? Don't know, but who am I to judge?
Please note that for some users, for unknown reasons, the above described "dark magic" does not work thus MO can only load around 60 bsas through the ini file. These users need more manual control over how bsas are loaded.
osted @ 5:40, 14 Aug 2013 So with MO I can also load bsas without a plugin! You wield mighty magic indeed, Tannin!Â
1) I assume in point c) of your post you meant: "If you uncheck a bsa and there is an active esp by the same name it is loaded but overridesis overridden by all loose files (default behaviour)".
2) What happens when bsas are both registered (in the .ini) AND loaded by a plugin? EG how do they interact with a bsa that is registered later, but does not have a plugin?
3) asinine question: in the BSAs tab, which is registered first, the one on the top or the one on the bottom? (I assume the top one, but I don't (yet) have enough conflicts to test reliably)
4) Could Nitpick help those users who can't register all their bsas? Or is MO's dark magick the same as Nitpick?
5) According to Lojack: "Pre-1.4.26 for Skyrim, you couln't replace a Vanilla Script file with one in a Plugin BSA. This is no longer true, it has been fixed, and script replacers should work as both Loose Files and Plugin BSAs now".
But could it be that script replacers don't work if they are in a REGISTERED bsa though? That would explain Thyrandor's issue with the UDBP.
Sorry for asking so many questions.. I'm done, I promise! And BTW the program is awesome. It makes even me feel like a wizard when I switch some mods aroundÂ
Edit: added links, butchered the post somehow.
posted @ 11:01, 14 Aug 2013
1) Umm, you're right actually. This was changed in a patch. You're right then: If you check the bsa, MO makes it so the load order corresponds to to your mod order. If you uncheck, it is only loaded if there is a corresponding esp and then loose files always override.
2) Good question actually. afaik the bsa in this case is loaded as a registered bsa, therefore: if the bsa is not checked in mo but there is a matching plugin, that bsa will override.
What do you mean by "registered later"? They can only be registered in the ini and those get loaded first.
3) yes, they are loaded top to bottom. Those from the data directory (vanilla bsas should be at the top)
4) MO's "dark magic" works very similar to Nitpick. While Nitpick has MO finds the correct "hack position" by searching for a pattern and thus supports basically any skyrim version (actually it also works for oblivion and the fallouts) whereas nitpick requires a new release for each update.
HOWEVER it's actually the searching that fails on affected users so nitpick will either crash skyrim on the affected systems or it will actually work.
5) good questions, I didn't have an opportunity to check that issue.
posted @ 10:22, 13 Aug 2013
a) If a Mod has multiple bsas you can change their order in the bsa tab.
b) Yes, MO enables files from bsas to override loose files. To do this, all checked bsas are added through the ini files (through very dark magic) and the overridden loose files aren't added to the virtual directory at all.
c) If you check a bsa it is loaded (with the above described magic). If you uncheck a bsa and there is an active esp by the same name it is loaded but overrides all loose files (default behaviour). If you uncheck a bsa and there is NO active esp by the same name, the bsa is not loaded. Why would you want that? Don't know, but who am I to judge?
Please note that for some users, for unknown reasons, the above described "dark magic" does not work thus MO can only load around 60 bsas through the ini file. These users need more manual control over how bsas are loaded.
posted @ 5:40, 14 Aug 2013
So with MO I can also load bsas without a plugin! You wield mighty magic indeed, Tannin!
1) I assume in point c) of your post you meant: "If you uncheck a bsa and there is an active esp by the same name it is loaded but overridesis overridden by all loose files (default behaviour)".
2) What happens when bsas are both registered (in the .ini) AND loaded by a plugin? EG how do they interact with a bsa that is registered later, but does not have a plugin?
3) asinine question: in the BSAs tab, which is registered first, the one on the top or the one on the bottom? (I assume the top one, but I don't (yet) have enough conflicts to test reliably)
4) Could Nitpick help those users who can't register all their bsas? Or is MO's dark magick the same as Nitpick?
5) According to Lojack: "Pre-1.4.26 for Skyrim, you couln't replace a Vanilla Script file with one in a Plugin BSA. This is no longer true, it has been fixed, and script replacers should work as both Loose Files and Plugin BSAs now".
But could it be that script replacers don't work if they are in a REGISTERED bsa though? That would explain Thyrandor's issue with the UDBP.
Sorry for asking so many questions.. I'm done, I promise! And BTW the program is awesome. It makes even me feel like a wizard when I switch some mods around
Edit: added links, butchered the post somehow.
1) Umm, you're right actually. This was changed in a patch. You're right then: If you check the bsa, MO makes it so the load order corresponds to to your mod order. If you uncheck, it is only loaded if there is a corresponding esp and then loose files always override.
2) Good question actually. afaik the bsa in this case is loaded as a registered bsa, therefore: if the bsa is not checked in mo but there is a matching plugin, that bsa will override.
What do you mean by "registered later"? They can only be registered in the ini and those get loaded first.
3) yes, they are loaded top to bottom. Those from the data directory (vanilla bsas should be at the top)
4) MO's "dark magic" works very similar to Nitpick. While Nitpick has MO finds the correct "hack position" by searching for a pattern and thus supports basically any skyrim version (actually it also works for oblivion and the fallouts) whereas nitpick requires a new release for each update.
HOWEVER it's actually the searching that fails on affected users so nitpick will either crash skyrim on the affected systems or it will actually work.
5) good questions, I didn't have an opportunity to check that issue.
As to the false ESM question Tannin responded to a similar question on 9 Sept 2013 on the nexus forums and is investigating that.
A 'false esm' is an esp with the esm flag set. The problem is, with version 12.9, I can't move the USKP up in the load order with the other esms after setting the esm bit. The edited file is in the over-write directory. Wondering if 0.99.6 has the same issue?
Fallout needs to use false esm's a lot too. Especially Fallout 3. So MO needs to recognize them and let you adjust the load order up amongst the other esm plugins.
posted @ 23:18, 8 Sep 2013 by wolverine2710
The 0.99.x series change report does not mention changed behavior. Do you have an example of a mod which has a 'false esm' or can you provide me with one (PM me), then I will test it for you. Reason: I haven't used CK or Tes5Edit that much. I recommend switching to 0.99.6 anyway, its for me as stable as 0.12.9 BUT has a slew of new features (see change button at top of this forum).
If it does not work in MO 0.99.6 please be so kind to create a ticket for it in the issue tracker. Login first.
posted @ 12:53, 9 Sep 2013 Tannin42
No version of MO recognizes false esm's right now but I realize this is becoming important. I'll see how hard it would be to add it for the next release.
Hopefully as time goes on and more information becomes available, this thread will contain the updated information.
Question
GSDFan
Originally macrads posted this in the Nexus MO forum. So that this discussion will not get buried on the nexus forums I created the question here and will respond to it here. Spoilers edited for clarity.
Edit. Sorry I forgot to include your original Post.
It is my understanding that as long as the Mod ESP is checked and sorted in the load order the the corresponding BSA will follow suite. This was discussed on the Nexus forums and I have that discussion in the Spoiler below.
Um, I can't get my head around the BSAs tab. I mean, if installation order has priority, what's the point in ordering the BSAs?
Also, MO enables the files inside a BSA(installed as it is, not unpacked) to override loose files, so long as the bsa mod is further down in the Installation order. Is this correct? (How does it do this by the way? Some hidden Skyrim setting? Sorcery? I'm awed)
If so, then I could uncheck a bsa in the BSAs tab, and it would revert to normal behavior and be overwritten by loose files no matter the installation order, right? But why would I want that?
I'm so confusedÂ
posted @ 10:22, 13 Aug 2013
a) If a Mod has multiple bsas you can change their order in the bsa tab.
b) Yes, MO enables files from bsas to override loose files. To do this, all checked bsas are added through the ini files (through very dark magic) and the overridden loose files aren't added to the virtual directory at all.
c) If you check a bsa it is loaded (with the above described magic). If you uncheck a bsa and there is an active esp by the same name it is loaded but overrides all loose files (default behaviour). If you uncheck a bsa and there is NO active esp by the same name, the bsa is not loaded. Why would you want that? Don't know, but who am I to judge?
Please note that for some users, for unknown reasons, the above described "dark magic" does not work thus MO can only load around 60 bsas through the ini file. These users need more manual control over how bsas are loaded.
osted @ 5:40, 14 Aug 2013 So with MO I can also load bsas without a plugin! You wield mighty magic indeed, Tannin!Â
Anyway, sorry to bother you, but I've read the last issue on the bug tracker and Lojack's post about BSAs, and they spark a few more questions:
1) I assume in point c) of your post you meant: "If you uncheck a bsa and there is an active esp by the same name it is loaded but
overridesis overridden by all loose files (default behaviour)".2) What happens when bsas are both registered (in the .ini) AND loaded by a plugin? EG how do they interact with a bsa that is registered later, but does not have a plugin?
3) asinine question: in the BSAs tab, which is registered first, the one on the top or the one on the bottom? (I assume the top one, but I don't (yet) have enough conflicts to test reliably)
4) Could Nitpick help those users who can't register all their bsas? Or is MO's dark magick the same as Nitpick?
5) According to Lojack: "Pre-1.4.26 for Skyrim, you couln't replace a Vanilla Script file with one in a Plugin BSA. This is no longer true, it has been fixed, and script replacers should work as both Loose Files and Plugin BSAs now".
But could it be that script replacers don't work if they are in a REGISTERED bsa though? That would explain Thyrandor's issue with the UDBP.
Sorry for asking so many questions.. I'm done, I promise! And BTW the program is awesome. It makes even me feel like a wizard when I switch some mods aroundÂ
Edit: added links, butchered the post somehow.
posted @ 11:01, 14 Aug 2013
1) Umm, you're right actually. This was changed in a patch. You're right then: If you check the bsa, MO makes it so the load order corresponds to to your mod order. If you uncheck, it is only loaded if there is a corresponding esp and then loose files always override.
2) Good question actually. afaik the bsa in this case is loaded as a registered bsa, therefore: if the bsa is not checked in mo but there is a matching plugin, that bsa will override.
What do you mean by "registered later"? They can only be registered in the ini and those get loaded first.
3) yes, they are loaded top to bottom. Those from the data directory (vanilla bsas should be at the top)
4) MO's "dark magic" works very similar to Nitpick. While Nitpick has MO finds the correct "hack position" by searching for a pattern and thus supports basically any skyrim version (actually it also works for oblivion and the fallouts) whereas nitpick requires a new release for each update.
HOWEVER it's actually the searching that fails on affected users so nitpick will either crash skyrim on the affected systems or it will actually work.
5) good questions, I didn't have an opportunity to check that issue.
posted @ 10:22, 13 Aug 2013
a) If a Mod has multiple bsas you can change their order in the bsa tab.
b) Yes, MO enables files from bsas to override loose files. To do this, all checked bsas are added through the ini files (through very dark magic) and the overridden loose files aren't added to the virtual directory at all.
c) If you check a bsa it is loaded (with the above described magic). If you uncheck a bsa and there is an active esp by the same name it is loaded but overrides all loose files (default behaviour). If you uncheck a bsa and there is NO active esp by the same name, the bsa is not loaded. Why would you want that? Don't know, but who am I to judge?
Please note that for some users, for unknown reasons, the above described "dark magic" does not work thus MO can only load around 60 bsas through the ini file. These users need more manual control over how bsas are loaded.
posted @ 5:40, 14 Aug 2013
So with MO I can also load bsas without a plugin! You wield mighty magic indeed, Tannin!
Anyway, sorry to bother you, but I've read the last issue on the bug tracker and Lojack's post about BSAs, and they spark a few more questions:
1) I assume in point c) of your post you meant: "If you uncheck a bsa and there is an active esp by the same name it is loaded but
overridesis overridden by all loose files (default behaviour)".2) What happens when bsas are both registered (in the .ini) AND loaded by a plugin? EG how do they interact with a bsa that is registered later, but does not have a plugin?
3) asinine question: in the BSAs tab, which is registered first, the one on the top or the one on the bottom? (I assume the top one, but I don't (yet) have enough conflicts to test reliably)
4) Could Nitpick help those users who can't register all their bsas? Or is MO's dark magick the same as Nitpick?
5) According to Lojack: "Pre-1.4.26 for Skyrim, you couln't replace a Vanilla Script file with one in a Plugin BSA. This is no longer true, it has been fixed, and script replacers should work as both Loose Files and Plugin BSAs now".
But could it be that script replacers don't work if they are in a REGISTERED bsa though? That would explain Thyrandor's issue with the UDBP.
Sorry for asking so many questions.. I'm done, I promise! And BTW the program is awesome. It makes even me feel like a wizard when I switch some mods around
Edit: added links, butchered the post somehow.
1) Umm, you're right actually. This was changed in a patch. You're right then: If you check the bsa, MO makes it so the load order corresponds to to your mod order. If you uncheck, it is only loaded if there is a corresponding esp and then loose files always override.
2) Good question actually. afaik the bsa in this case is loaded as a registered bsa, therefore: if the bsa is not checked in mo but there is a matching plugin, that bsa will override.
What do you mean by "registered later"? They can only be registered in the ini and those get loaded first.
3) yes, they are loaded top to bottom. Those from the data directory (vanilla bsas should be at the top)
4) MO's "dark magic" works very similar to Nitpick. While Nitpick has MO finds the correct "hack position" by searching for a pattern and thus supports basically any skyrim version (actually it also works for oblivion and the fallouts) whereas nitpick requires a new release for each update.
HOWEVER it's actually the searching that fails on affected users so nitpick will either crash skyrim on the affected systems or it will actually work.
5) good questions, I didn't have an opportunity to check that issue.
As to the false ESM question Tannin responded to a similar question on 9 Sept 2013 on the nexus forums and is investigating that.
Posted 8 Sep 2013 by rickerhk
The USKP will be going to a 'false esm' for the next releases. https://forums.bethsoft.com/topic/1472909-relz-unofficial-skyrim-patch-thread-36/?do=findComment&comment=22996329
A 'false esm' is an esp with the esm flag set. The problem is, with version 12.9, I can't move the USKP up in the load order with the other esms after setting the esm bit. The edited file is in the over-write directory. Wondering if 0.99.6 has the same issue?
Fallout needs to use false esm's a lot too. Especially Fallout 3. So MO needs to recognize them and let you adjust the load order up amongst the other esm plugins.
posted @ 23:18, 8 Sep 2013 by wolverine2710
The 0.99.x series change report does not mention changed behavior. Do you have an example of a mod which has a 'false esm' or can you provide me with one (PM me), then I will test it for you. Reason: I haven't used CK or Tes5Edit that much. I recommend switching to 0.99.6 anyway, its for me as stable as 0.12.9 BUT has a slew of new features (see change button at top of this forum).
If it does not work in MO 0.99.6 please be so kind to create a ticket for it in the issue tracker. Login first.
posted @ 12:53, 9 Sep 2013 Tannin42
No version of MO recognizes false esm's right now but I realize this is becoming important. I'll see how hard it would be to add it for the next release.
Hopefully as time goes on and more information becomes available, this thread will contain the updated information.
Top Posters For This Question
6
4
4
4
Popular Days
Oct 29
17
Feb 23
7
Oct 26
5
Oct 30
1
Top Posters For This Question
DoubleYou 6 posts
torminater 4 posts
GSDFan 4 posts
byrondominguez 4 posts
Popular Days
Oct 29 2013
17 posts
Feb 23 2014
7 posts
Oct 26 2013
5 posts
Oct 30 2013
1 post
31 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now