Does Mod Organizer gives false information about potential mod order problem

[Culted]

when using mod organizer with requiem ( and some other script heavy mods) mod organizer gives a potential mod order problem depending on where requiem is placed i attached a screenshot to show you what i mean

 

the problem is placing the mods how mod organizer think's it should be breaks the some of the scripts from requiem

 

when i started using mod organizer i was wondering why requiem act's wierd

 

now i placed requiem at the bottom and it work's

 

this is only a small problem but i think it's worth mentioning it

 

maybe the mod organizer dev team could have a look at this and work something out

 

 

sorry if my english is bad

Edited May 8, 2014 by DoubleYou

[Tannin]

I didn't post the last comment because I was bothered by this thread, only to inform you that you shouldn't be expecting me to participate.

To clarify my point: I do not consider bsa extraction a good feature. I implemented it on request and had nothing but trouble with it. To this day I couldn't figure out the reason people extract bsas except for "someone claimed 8 years ago when Oblivion was current that it's a good idea."

 

You stated the algorithm checks scripts and esp files. Some mods which I had to rearrange do beside scripts have textures and hkx files also. Which means Skyrim could/can look/behave differently. I think (if I understand the VFS correctly) the following is possible but I would like to double check it. I move the scripts directory from mod X and move them to mod "X scripts only". I do this for the rest of the mods (Y Z etc if needed). The X Y Z mods retain there normal install order. I then place the ". scripts only" mods in the correct order

 

 

That's not really a question, right? ;)

What do you want to know? If this can be done? sure, why not? Would it be a good idea? I really don't know. I develop a windows application, I don't know more about Skyrim modding itself than the next guy. Could it be a problem that you'll be loading scripts from mod x which may refer to asset files from mod z? Prolly? I honestly don't know.

 

My advice would be:

• Don't start applying workarounds in your "productive" MO installation because you want to use the current Beta but can't wait for a bugfix.
• In fact: Don't use Beta software if you can't live with bugs

[rootsrat]

/snip

If we don't get this feature working I will just remove bsa extraction and separate bsa ordering from MO altogether and be done with it.

This wouldn't be great if I'm honest, Tannin. BSA extraction works great IMHO. 

 

I run a complex build of over 230 ESPs (including SkyRe) and don't run into many problems. I have every single BSA unpacked, which allows me for better conflict management! Without this feature I would be screwed. 

 

I'm sure there are many more people in a similar situation.

[Tannin]

In the same way BSA extraction allows you to resolve conflicts it allows you to cause new ones by loading scripts in different order than the esp which is 50% of the reason the feature discussed here exists.

If this feature doesn't work, BSA extraction doesn't work, they are dependent!

 

The fact that MO makes BSA extraction easy is part of the reason Arthmoor and other mod authors have been raging against MO and at times refuse to give support to MO user for the simple fact that - to the community as a whole - BSA extraction causes a lot more problems than it solves.

 

I don't want to piss off MO users but I want to piss off Mod Authors even less.

[Razorsedge877]

Hi Tannin. I have to quick questions. Do you personally extract BSA's? If you don't extract BSA's does BOSS and LOOT rearrange them as well as the ESPs? I am trying to learn as much as I can about MO and would love to learn the pros and cons about Extracting BSAs from you the creator of MO. Thank you for your time and input.

[DoubleYou]

I recommend to keep using the BSAs as much as possible, only extracting in cases where you need to hide files within the BSA.

[Razorsedge877]

What are some examples of why you need to hide files within the BSA? are these texture mods?

[fireundubh]

The fact that MO makes BSA extraction easy is part of the reason Arthmoor and other mod authors have been raging against MO and at times refuse to give support to MO user for the simple fact that - to the community as a whole - BSA extraction causes a lot more problems than it solves.

 

The best reason to remove BSA extraction, or conceal the feature behind an "advanced mode," is to eliminate Arthmoor as a critic. His word carries a lot of weight with a lot of people because they assume he's solely responsible for the unofficial patches. Plus, if you remove BSA extraction, it's not like anyone who needs to unpack BSAs loses anything; there's always BSAopt.

Edited May 9, 2014 by fireundubh

[Astakos]

Well, TBH, I really do not understand the actual reasoning behind removing BSA extraction. It is such a powerful feature, especially when it's built-in a very powerful mod manager such as MO.

If people do not know how this can be used to their advantage then they are better off using it and just stick to normal BSA loading.

But nobody can deny that unpacking BSAs greatly assists the users that want to mix/delete/not install various files from a mod. Or at least that want to just see which files from Mod A conflict to which files of Mod B.

This is a great feature and I strongly vote for maintaining it.

Of course there is BSAopt...but why having to run an external software, wasting more time for the same job?

 

If it is that Tannin wants to stop having to put up with complains (which i cannot blame him for) then perhaps the BSA extraction feature would be under an Advanced users tab and when enabled a notice pops-up saying i.e.: "This feature is ONLY for advanced users and/or Mod authors. It is not generally recommended to use it unless you know exactly what you are doing"...or something like that.

 

There are A LOT of people out there that they know exactly what they are doing and have so much enjoyed this powerful feature of MO (among other features ofc).

 

Just my 2 cents!! :)

Edited May 16, 2014 by Astakos

[Tannin]

If you mix/delete/not install files from the mod then you're modifying the mod (heh) and you have to take full responsibility of the problems that result from that.

And people don't do that. They mess around and then contact me or the mod author that their game is broken.

 

There already IS a dialog saying "Extract BSAs only if you know what you're doing." That doesn't stop anyone. Every user who has been using his computer for more than five minutes thinks he's an expert.

 

I've been thinking about requiring users to solve a quiz before they can activate BSA extraction.

 

> There are A LOT of people out there that they know exactly what they are doing and have so much enjoyed this powerful feature of MO (among other features ofc).

 

I doubt it. There are very few people who actually know what they're doing in regards to BSAs. And those people don't extract BSAs...

 

Btw.: In MO you don't need to extract BSAs to see conflicts. MO shows conflicts for files in bsas (except for the vanilla bsas because that would be silly). Which goes to show that you yourself don't know as much about MO and BSAs as you think. Just saying.

[MadWizard25]

Thanks for this thread everyone. I never took these warnings seriously, and now Im going to take a look at them.

 

Additionally, I thought BSA unpacking could have an in game impact in term of performance, but not that it could impact the game processes in such a way. I have unpacked all my BSAs by default. If i solve the MO warnings on script order it should be ok right?

[Astakos]

 

If you mix/delete/not install files from the mod then you're modifying the mod (heh) and you have to take full responsibility of the problems that result from that.

 

Did I say otherwise? I fully agree!!

 

 

 

There already IS a dialog saying "Extract BSAs only if you know what you're doing." That doesn't stop anyone. Every user who has been using his computer for more than five minutes thinks he's an expert.

 

You are quite right on that. Perhaps I did not express myself properly. I was talking to some sort of "more persistent" dialog window/notice. Not once in the beginning and then gone.

 

 

 

I've been thinking about requiring users to solve a quiz before they can activate BSA extraction.

That would be extremely interesting and pioneering! :)

 

 

 

Btw.: In MO you don't need to extract BSAs to see conflicts. MO shows conflicts for files in bsas (except for the vanilla bsas because that would be silly). Which goes to show that you yourself don't know as much about MO and BSAs as you think. Just saying.

 

 

Well, i thought it was very clear that I was just stating some of the advantages of having a built-in BSA extraction feature. Of course there are advantages and disadvantages. Of course one can view conflicts within BSAs as well. After all it is your software and you judge what is the best for it!

 

Btw: Thank you for your opinion abt me!!!

[Aiyen]

My sole reason for not using the BSA´s is that I actually edit files quite often be it textures or meshes etc... and I prefer to have all files as loose. 

That said then the debate of BSA vs loose files have been going on for a long long time. Other then slight differences in loading times depending on hardware then I have never seen any reliable tests on the topic... And the differences are mostly so small that the main reason to do it is not because of that, but mainly if you want the convenience when you want to edit files. 

For end users who do not make altered versions of their files then using archives should be the way to go I guess. 

 

If the feature was not in MO then it would be in another tool that is easy to use as well. As long as MO does not force one to use BSA then I do not see the issue.  (Most likely I would not really be affected in many ways since I stick to older versions of MO regardless... I do not have bugs with the version I use atm, and all features work as they should.)

[Tannin]

Did I say otherwise? I fully agree!!

Maybe you do but far too many don't.

Btw: Thank you for your opinion abt me!!!

I wasn't making a statement about your person.I think this topic has been derailed a bit, it was actually about the mod order suggestions made by MO? BSA extraction is part of the reason this feature is necessary and even if I hide BSA extraction so only advanced users use it, those advanced users will still need to fix their mod ordering => this feature will still be necessary.Thereforce, if we're keeping BSA extraction in whatever form we will need to fix the suggestion algorithm.And I still don't have a bug report in the issue tracker actually explaining what's wrong with it.Btw. @wolverine: You were asking if MO does a hash check on the scripts. No it doesn't because, apart from making things more complicated, checking the hash of files inside a bsa would probably be very costy performance wise.

[Razorsedge877]

I'm not able to go into MO right now but I was wondering. Do Texture mods like book of silence have BSAs? I have always used loose file till very recently. Also if I do not extract BSAs I am sill able to go into a mods file tree and hide texture files that I do not want. I am new to this but I don't see any reason to change any file that are in ESP type mods for example run for your lives. The only mods that we are having issues with the mod order warning tab is ESP type mods. So why do we need to extract BSAs because esp files don't get changed you are still able to hide textures. And it there is an ESP type texture mod maybe those are the only ones you would have to unpack. Did any of that make sense?

[wolverine2710]

I think this topic has been derailed a bit, it was actually about the mod order suggestions made by MO? BSA extraction is part of the reason this feature is necessary and even if I hide BSA extraction so only advanced users use it, those advanced users will still need to fix their mod ordering => this feature will still be necessary.

 

Thereforce, if we're keeping BSA extraction in whatever form we will need to fix the suggestion algorithm.

And I still don't have a bug report in the issue tracker actually explaining what's wrong with it.

 

Btw. @wolverine: You were asking if MO does a hash check on the scripts. No it doesn't because, apart from making things more complicated, checking the hash of files inside a bsa would probably be very costy performance wise.

 

Tannin you have a very valid point with regard to useful bug reports. Might I suggest to users who want the BSA extraction to be available in future MO versions to take some time to torture test this 'warning algorithm' and create bug reports for it. I personally like the future and I'm willing to invest time in it, just like I did with the NMM importer.

 

Problem is that I'm on 'holiday' (actually helping Rosi my ex-gf with home decorating stuff etc) and I basically have not a single free minute and no access to Skyrim. Things have changed and I will be reurn later then planned, next thursday. This is my first opportunity to login and comment

 

With regard to hashes (inside BSA files). As a laymen of the algorithm and without having looked at the code I thought it would simplify things (guess I'm wrong). Also I didn't realize that scripts inside BSA have to be taken into account as you said. Can you explain why that is as I thought that scripts inside BSA's were already in the correct place (synced with the esp file) ?  Wouldn't it be possible to cash the hashes so that only on startup of MO or after adding/removing/enabling/disabling a mod they have to be calculated? They could (I think) even be put in a mods folder as a file which contains hashes for the script (psc/pex) files. But that would need extra coding of course.

 

Long story short: Users please invest time in this and provide Tannin with reproducible bug reports so that with our combined help he can perfect the warning algorithm so that BSA extraction can stay in MO (if he chooses to do so).