DROPPED Immersive Citizens - AI Overhaul (by Shurah)

[Nazenn]

(I am SO sorry about the wall of text guys, I simply wanted to cover everything I could think of at once so I didn't forget things or make a mess of it, and didn't realize how much I typed)

 

Just to start with, if nothing else I please ask you to accept that fact that our comments came from frustration and confusion, rather then maliciousness as you seem to currently believe. A lot of the people involved in the main comments on the reddit thread I have had other private discussions with on the matter, and on other matters, and we all have the utmost respect for other mod authors and other people in general, and nothing was said out of hatred or in an attempt to purposefully malign you as a person. I would ask that you please do the same and instead of being dismissive and abrasive at any perceived incorrect info, you treat the person with respect and the mistake as what it is, a mistake.

 

Edit: I'll also note that if we do manage to get a lot of this confusion and stuff cleaned up here, I will be posting it over to reddit as well because despite appearances, the community over there has proven before that they really appreciate misconceptions being cleared up and do appreciate being given accurate information once its discovered

I understand that they are frustrated, but that doesn't justify their behavior.
If they have asked kindly and without stabbing me in parallel, I would have answered.
By spreading false informations and by giving value judgements against me (without presenting arguments or proofs), they don't improve my feeling toward them.

At least Nazenn started to withdraw his accusations.

I have made no accusations against you, and I'm sorry that you feel that way, I have only stated information that you have provided in our previous conversations on your comments and information provided to me on the functions of the engine by extremely knowledgeable people in the community.  If you do feel I have wronged you, please post out a post, in private message if you wish, and I will attempt to explain my actions or wording so that you can understand what I meant there if it was unclear.

 

The issue here is that we did ask. We asked multiple times. I asked about exactly what was wrong with the ETaC patch and never got a reply nor did the other dozen or so people who also asked at the time, I asked about what was wrong with my patch (which I can't link to as you deleted the comment), Thallassa asked specifically for information about how navmeshes interact with your mod because it DOES go against the widely accepted knowledge of how the navmeshes work with AI (which I cant link to because you deleted it and banned them from the page), Rusey asked very nicely as they always do for more information about JKs Lite specifically because they wanted to help with patching (which you deleted). Every time we asked we only got generalized statements ("Don't ask me to what extend, as I only tested 10 minutes, but it was enough to find several bugs") and also statements about the knowledge level required to do the patching ("The knowledge to create this kind of mod is not publicly available (I acquired it through several hundred hours of experimentation), therefore, I'm probably the only one having the skills to judge if a mod is compatible with my mod."). Both quotes were taken directly from you before you deleted those comments. Whenever we asked, the info wasn't provided, so the only info we did have was the information that the community has already accepted as accurate due to other peoples explorations in the CK. You can't claim we did this without consulting you when thats not true at all.

What? A quote from my article about compatibility:

 

The word incompatible is not really suited (but I use it for convenience). "Not designed to work with my plugin" is much more appropriate because most of the plugins listed here don't directly clash with my plugin. Therefore, for most of those plugins you won't see any incompatibilities by using TES5edit. However, in practice, the issues that you'll get by using my plugin along with one or several of these plugins are real. Here is a small sample of issues you can get: impossibility to complete some quests, quests not working as intended, NPCs performing actions with thin-air, NPCs having path-finding troubles, NPCs stuck forever (or for several hours) at specific places, etc.
The reason for these issues is very simple: to work, an AI uses one or several references, usually invisible markers (in my case, I use only extra invisible markers) positioned according to the layout of cities, villages, or interior rooms. So if a plugin disrupts my AI, it also disrupts the vanilla AI. Therefore, most of the plugins tagged as being "incompatible", also disrupt the vanilla AI in some way. Other plugins are listed here, either because they delete references edited by my plugin or because they modify several navmeshes also edited by my plugin or because they add static objects overlapping many of my markers.

At the time of the reddit thread and our previous conversations I don't believe that paragraph was actually in the incompatibility article as I know that you overhauled it quite recently, and it was a lot more bare before hand so that's something to take into account as well. I do like the way that article is evolving though so thanks for continuing to work on it.

I refused to give permission? I threatened people? Where are the proofs? Where are the evidences?

My statement about you threatening to ban people was horribly worded and I apologize for that, the word 'threaten' was the wrong word for that statement and was not used maliciously at all. I was purely referring to the fact that you had not given permission for anyone else to make edits to your esp when asked and anyone who did try you said they were exposing themselves to a ban, but that's certainly not a threat so my sincere apologies for that.

My alias are filled with unique actors and not with specific references. This is easy to check by yourself.

So according to the official wiki, Arthmoor lies.

So, nothing concrete supports Arthmoor theory.

The wiki is not always correct, it has a lot of errors, and a lot of poorly written pages. For example, the page that shows how to apply a cloaking script uses a permanent effect as an example, however that effect, when used with a cloaking script to apply to NPCs, will never be removed from those NPCs even after death unless the author adds in additional code to make it unload which can cause save bloat due to endlessly adding references to the save game. I have found other such incorrect information in the past as well, and had it linked to me by others knowledgeable in the subject so I know its not just a one off occurrence. Annoyingly, I don't know how easy this information is to edit, or if anyone even can edit it any more at all, which makes it hard on new people coming into the modding scene and also even on older authors who may not have found this out themselves.

When people point out this stuff its not an attack against you or a slight against your mod in any way, its attempting to share and correct a lot of the misinformation and incorrect data that's out there about certain CK and engine functions and make sure that everyone's mods are better for it. And I know it sucks to be told there's something happening with your mod that's wrong, or something was implemented bad or you've misunderstood something, I regularly get corrected on things and have to correct others, but isn't it better to have an open and intelligent discussion on that now rather then have it become a real issue later down the line when it may be too late to change it?

 

In regards to this image you linked and the info provided in it: https://postimg.org/image/4oi6rgknd/full/

I don't see how that's a cylindrical process. For the patches, you don't have to patch patches together, all you would have to do is make one patch that solves the conflicts for CRF for example with both ETaC and ICAIO in one plugin. Theres no reason to then patch the patch. Similar with navmeshes, as long as the navmesh allows the NPCs to get where they need to go and interact with all the right markers and objects that ICAIO adds to their AI, there shouldn't be an issue with a navmesh that has additional parts or a slightly different shape so that should be easy to patch or have you uncovered new info in the CK to contradict this info, and can you provide a detailed technical explanation of that info if you have? If so I'd love to see/hear it because that would be fantastic for the modding community across the board to be able to work with each others mods better. TechAngel also asked if a navmesh that isn't yours but is very similar in shape and design would be fine to use with ICAIO, and as far as I understand yes that would work with no issues, but I'd love your input.

 

With this image and the information provided in it: https://postimg.org/image/czruazf9x/full/

Again, if you have information that this is incorrect, please share it rather then just dismissing the information and knowledge that others have. The more information you share, the better for everyone because it not only shows the quality of your mod, but it can help correct any misconceptions or misunderstandings in the communities knowledge. If you aren't willing to share your knowledge and you only say others are wrong without saying why, how can we take your word over their detailed technical explanations and PROVEN expertise in these areas? You can't expect every single person to spent 4k hours in the CK to discover everything themselves with no idea what they are looking for, that's unreasonable. Please do not throw around words like 'hoaxes' if you aren't willing to say what is wrong, it comes across as extremely rude when you refuse to offer any proof as to these claims.

They will get nothing from me by behaving like that. Either they offer me a win - win deal, either they learn by themselves as I did.

We have offered you a 'deal' as such, in the form of taking all the patch requests and questions etc off your hands so that you don't have to deal with it because all of us fully accept the fact that you don't have time and you have enough other work to do with the main plugin :)

Again, expecting everyone to be able to spent 4k hours in the CK to rediscover all this info you already know appears to be unreasonable. Wouldn't it be better to spend a few hours sharing what you know and let someone else spend 4k hours discovering new info about a DIFFERENT part of the game and then engine, that then if they share you could potentially use to benefit your own mod as well. That's the sort of thing I love to see in the modding community, sharing knowledge for everyones benefit.

Jawz is the one who has made the installer and I'm fully satisfied by his contribution. I prefer when the users don't complain that they get a CTD at the main menu.

On the installer, I think Thallassa's point, and one I agree with, is that for a lot of the people that use MO as their mod management tool, we often have multiple profiles set up with various different mods installed for different reasons. Having a mod that locks out patch options simply because they aren't currently installed make it very hard on those people to accurately update their mod because they have to go to a profile and get it to load before installing the update when they might be in the middle of other stuff, and often that's not a thing that's immediately present and will start up the installer forgetting they have to fiddle around in MO first.

If you wanted to do an auto detect option, a better way to do it would be to have it as an option on the main menu and just have a warning under the 'custom' option that people have to be careful as installing a patch for a mod they don't have will result in a CTD. Then you accommodate both styles of modding. Hope that makes it more clear. If you would like, I would be more then happy to implement that for you in the installer, its an easy fix as far as I know depending on how the auto detection was set up. :)

The quest alias stuff that Thallassa posted was incorrect, and corrected by Arthmoor, which Thallassa accepted, so you can also ignore that part. One mistake doesn't discount any other information that they provided though, we all make mistakes from time to time and as long as people are learning from it that's all that matters.

Markers colliding with each other: https://postimg.org/image/g3wwgmk0z/
Marker hidden by a stair, which causes Aela to throw arrows against the stair: https://postimg.org/image/ev8sr8b13/
Static object overlapping a marker: https://postimg.org/image/6n8vrfofr/
Marker which is no more accessible due to the presence of a wall: https://postimg.org/image/eigpll6kf/
Note also that the extra smelter will cause issues, because NPCs will try to use it while the area around the smelter is not navmeshed: https://postimg.org/image/k2tng2rqb/.
For the smelter, the mod author could at least turn "on" the flag 'ignored by sandbox"

Thank you, this is the sort of information that I needed and that I asked for on your page, that everyone was asking for, and I am sincerely grateful that you have provided it. This is hugely more helpful then just posting how theres 'a lot of bugs' without any extra info.. Now I can set out on fixing it and making sure that it all works properly and these sort of things are fixed. This is the sort of thing that lends credibility and reliability to you :)

All this issues are easy to spot, you don't even need to use the Creation Kit, all you need to do is to turn "on" bShowMarkers=1 in your skyrim.ini under the display section.

(-below line copied from another post for convenience-)

Besides, I don't even think that they spent more than 1 hour to analyze my mod.

While I knew about the ini tweak, you stated you found them 'in game' so I was looking specifically for issues with stuff that can only be found by running the game, like AI and the actual NPC movement, rather then CK stuff like markers. I actually spent four hours in game in whiterun specifically looking for things, and another hour in the CK, however like I said, I'll fully admit that I was looking for the wrong stuff based on your comment.

I so ask that if these issues were so easy to spot though, why you'd claimed that only you had the knowledge to spot them?

 

Id also wish to say thank you to TechAngel. I know this sort of discussion is a bit out of sorts for STEP, but I really do hope that we can get to the bottom of a lot of this and hopefully any knowledge shared will be able to benefit the entire community as a whole rather then just this mod alone.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Nazenn

[TechAngel85]

The information that Shurah has already provided is very useful for all the mod authors and should be added to the compatibility file for ICAIO. Turning on the markers in the game is a quick and easy way of spotting issues fast. As for the navmeshes, I'm still leery of this due to how I know they work (I think most of us that's worked in the CK are very familiar with Navmeshes as it's a basic part of building most mods). To me, it would seem that as long as the navmesh doesn't prevent the NPCs from reaching any of the markers, then that is basically all that is required. I do pathfinding every time I work with navmeshes to verify that there's no issues for the NPCs navigating the environment. This is basic practice that should be done any time navmeshes are messed with. Specifically I do pathfinding for rabbits, then an elk, and then an Argonian NPC. If all of those can get around the environment, then all the rest of the NPCs shouldn't have any issues.

 

I'm also leery of the aliases. Can these be dropped from the game upon an NPC's death via scripts? If so, I think it would round things off nicely if ICAIO incorporated this. Shurah might not have any papyrus knowledge so any user that might be willing to do this should contact him, if it's even possible.

 

I light of compatibility and the aliases, as well as a PM with Nazenn and one I've personally had with Arthmoor, I feel it would be best to move ICAIO to Extended and out of Core for STEP. There is still more I want to know about ICAIO and compatibility because I'm planning on reviving REGS so the more information I can get, the better.

[Greg]

I think moving ICAIO to Extended is a good move anyway because it improves the compatibility with Core as a base for other packs, even if only the perceived compatibility issues. I'm leery of the aliases as well based on the information I read from Arthmoor on the subject. I have no idea how much of a problem this may be with a STEP Extended setup, but I imagine it's exacerbated with packs that add lots of additional NPCs.

[TechAngel85]

I ask Arthmoor and it is possible to clear the aliases with a script when the NPCs die; however, it would have to be attached to every single alias in ICAIO. This in done the the CK and ICAIO, apparently, adds a lot of aliases so this would be a butt ton (a the technical term for 'a whole lot' for you that never heard the term) of tedious work to do. However, I think it would be worth it as it would improve ICAIO's resource usage a lot on any system. It's how BOYD is set up now so it is possible to do.

[hishutup]

I ask Arthmoor and it is possible to clear the aliases with a script when the NPCs die; however, it would have to be attached to every single alias in ICAIO. This in done the the CK and ICAIO, apparently, adds a lot of aliases so this would be a butt ton (a the technical term for 'a whole lot' for you that never heard the term) of tedious work to do. However, I think it would be worth it as it would improve ICAIO's resource usage a lot on any system. It's how BOYD is set up now so it is possible to do.

One could automate it in xEdit, you could even compile the scripts but that is still a lot of scripts over all.

[Nazenn]

As for the navmeshes, I'm still leery of this due to how I know they work (I think most of us that's worked in the CK are very familiar with Navmeshes as it's a basic part of building most mods). To me, it would seem that as long as the navmesh doesn't prevent the NPCs from reaching any of the markers, then that is basically all that is required.

Well, in short, just to sum up the info I posted above for those that don't have time to read my huge wall (which I completely understand although I did raise these points in more detail) is mainly just a question on wanting some more actual technical proof to be provided about the claims Shurah has about how navmesh and AI interact, and other things he claims the community has wrong but hasn't provided technical details about. A lot of claims have been thrown around from both sides and a lot of contradictions have been stated over the course of ICAIO development as far as the compatibility and sometimes just the quality of other mods that I could point out, and I'd love for that to stop and for actual fact to take its place if Shurah would be so kind.

 

I also would support moving it from Core to Extended. The mod is good quality, that's certain and I have no issue with it being involved in STEP in some way, its just these claims and misunderstanding that need to be fixed, and the compatibility issue that while it doesn't even need to be 'addressed' as such, but needs to be accounted for as far as people who build on and extend off of STEP.

 

One could automate it in xEdit, you could even compile the scripts but that is still a lot of scripts over all.

Indeed thats very easy to automate in xEdit. Even if the Automation Tools struggled with it, a new script could easily be written to apply the relevent information and I'd be happy to consult with mator on getting that set up as well if Shurah wanted to do it.

 

Edit: Also I wanted to post this, which is the actual conversation thread where Arthmoor was discussing the memory so you guys have the full context: https://www.afkmods.com/index.php?/topic/4215-immersive-citizens-ai-overhaul-by-shurah/ I was going to post it in my original post and forgot, so I'll just toss it in now

I would also want to encourage Shurah to if possible show a complete set of screenshots of conversations rather then just sections in future, or post to the full link, especially when making statements about peoples reliability.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Nazenn

[shurah]

I'm leery of the aliases

As I said, there is a ton aliases running permanently in Skyrim vanilla (I gave several examples of quests). Besides, if it was really an issue, Arthmoor would have already fixed these aliases through the USKP.

Currently, there is just no evidence at all that it's a problem. Besides, Skyrim performance monitor doesn't show any anomaly.

[shurah]

 

In regards to this image you linked and the info provided in it: https://postimg.org/image/4oi6rgknd/full/

I don't see how that's a cylindrical process. For the patches, you don't have to patch patches together, all you would have to do is make one patch that solves the conflicts for CRF for example with both ETaC and ICAIO in one plugin. Theres no reason to then patch the patch. Similar with navmeshes, as long as the navmesh allows the NPCs to get where they need to go and interact with all the right markers and objects that ICAIO adds to their AI, there shouldn't be an issue with a navmesh that has additional parts or a slightly different shape so that should be easy to patch or have you uncovered new info in the CK to contradict this info, and can you provide a detailed technical explanation of that info if you have? If so I'd love to see/hear it because that would be fantastic for the modding community across the board to be able to work with each others mods better. TechAngel also asked if a navmesh that isn't yours but is very similar in shape and design would be fine to use with ICAIO, and as far as I understand yes that would work with no issues, but I'd love your input.

 

Sorry if you don't understand the problem. This is the best I can do right now. It's not easy to explain simply a complex problem even in your native language. It's even more difficult through a forum. I worked on this problem during a whole month. In the current state of ETaC, it's more easy to do a towns overhaul similar to Arthmoor rather than to try to find a solution to make ICAIO and ETaC work together.

 

 

Edit: Also I wanted to post this, which is the actual conversation thread where Arthmoor was discussing the memory so you guys have the full context: https://www.afkmods.com/index.php?/topic/4215-immersive-citizens-ai-overhaul-by-shurah/ I was going to post it in my original post and forgot, so I'll just toss it in now

I would also want to encourage Shurah to if possible show a complete set of screenshots of conversations rather then just sections in future, or post to the full link, especially when making statements about peoples reliability.

The source is easy to find (the adress is on the SS), besides the whole context is not in Arthmoor favor, specialy when he says things like that:

 

Arthmoor: Shurah said somewhere that he's spent nearly 4000 hours on this mod. I barely have half that time logged in the CK + game for everything I do with Skyrim.

 

There is quite a gap between what he said and the reality: https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198051804717

And laugh at me just because I spend more than 4k hours in the CK is not a good way to invite me to collaborate with him.

Edited January 7, 2016 by shurah

[Shadriss]

Shurah, none of what I posted had any direct reflection on you. It was a simple question concerning the use of this mod in the STEP process, given that there is (quite demonstrably, as this thread proves) a great deal of misinformation, ambiguity, and confusion surrounding this mod. I spend quite a bit of time in and around Whiterun, and have not seen anything that jumped out and said 'Hey! I'm new!'. This is not to say that they aren't there... in fact, if they are and I'm not seeing them, it's a credit to you for making it that seamless.

 

My concern is not simply based on the above however. I did go back and confirm your addition of items and buildings to Rorikstead, and this is of concern to me (and others) because a great many of us like to use mods that alter the towns and villages. While I do not, in any way, take away from your right and ability to alter these same locations, it does a fair bit to limit the usage of the mod itself. I have not yet gotten to Rorikstead in my current playthrough, but I have no doubt at this point that there will be buildings and areas conflicting, such that I will be forced to make a choice between a better AI package and the town arrangement that I have come to like and enjoy for that area (and, by extension, other towns and villages that you may, in the future, do the same to.)

 

I would argue, as a matter of maximizing compatibility, that not altering these areas may be the better path, and then providing some level of documentation of how to best make use of the new packages you provide to other authors, such as MissJennaBee of EtAC, so they can also make use of your work to the betterment of all.

 

You ask for respect for your work, and you have that. I find it disturbing, however, (though in light of all the other discussions I've read, not surprising) that you have chosen to take all of this as an attack on you or your work, which is most definitely not the intent. I understand frustration on both sides of this - I've been there, though not with this particular game. Anytime conventional (and accepted) wisdom is challenged, this kind of thing happens. It would be far more constructive to address the questions themselves rather than take the stance of proving individual statements incorrect or misleading in the fashion you have, to this point, chosen to do so.

 

Tech - I have to go with the others that have posted and agree with Extended for the compatibility reasons I mentioned above. Core, as I understand it, is supposed to be baseline, and if this issue persists... well, it becomes self evident, I think.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Shadriss

[shurah]

 

My concern is not simply based on the above however. I did go back and confirm your addition of items and buildings to Rorikstead, and this is of concern to me (and others) because a great many of us like to use mods that alter the towns and villages. While I do not, in any way, take away from your right and ability to alter these same locations, it does a fair bit to limit the usage of the mod itself.

Present since the initial release: https://www.flickr.com/photos/128143940@N04/15203069248/in/dateposted-public/

 

I can give you more example if you want.

 

Tech - I have to go with the others that have posted and agree with Extended for the compatibility reasons I mentioned above. Core, as I understand it, is supposed to be baseline, and if this issue persists... well, it becomes self evident, I think.

Blackmailing is useless with me. If the STEP staff want to remove my plugin from STEP, that's their right and I won't discuss their choices. But I won't do fan service because I mod by conviction.

If they want to remove my plugin from STEP because they don't like my edit on Rorikstead, so be it.

Edited January 7, 2016 by shurah

[Nazenn]

Sorry if you don't understand the problem. This is the best I can do right now. It's not easy to explain simply a complex problem even in your native language. It's even more difficult through a forum. I worked on this problem during a whole month. In the current state of ETaC, it's more easy to do a towns overhaul similar to Arthmoor rather than to try to find a solution to make ICAIO and ETaC work together.

 

The source is easy to find (the adress is on the SS), besides the whole context is not in Arthmoor favor, specialy when he says things like that:

 

There is quite a gap between what he said and the reality: https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198051804717

And laugh at me just because I spend more than 4k hours in the CK is not a good way to invite me to collaborate with him.

I get that its hard to explain, but right now the small amount of info you have provided just doesn't line up in any way with what everyone else's experience and knowledge had been for the entire length the CK has been out. At least make an attempt and go from there? Right now a lot of the issue is that you never try to explain which leaves people with nothing. Theres a lot of people here who have a lot of experience filling in gaps and figuring out the meanings behind posts from people who write English as a second language so we can try and fill in any gaps and help out with that.

 

Also I don't see Arthmoor laughing at you in that thread at all? Not every criticism or critique someone has of your work or you explanations is a personal attack on you, and it shouldn't be taken as such. Every bit of info I've seen from Arthmoor on this topic has been very objective and polite.

 

Do you not have any reply or further info on the rest of the points I identified in my above post?

[TechAngel85]

Blackmailing is useless with me. If the STEP staff want to remove my plugin from STEP, that's their right and I won't discuss their choices. But I won't do fan service because I mod by conviction.

If they want to remove my plugin from STEP because they don't like my edit on Rorikstead, so be it.

No one is blackmailing you. Perhaps the wrong use of wording you have there? In regards to STEP, we are leaning to moving the mod to Extended to better serve our users. I know you're probably not familiar with STEP but it just means your mod will be removed as a core mod to the Guide, but it will remain in the STEP Guide as an extra mod, for the time being.

 

@All,

Passing this "he said this and she said that" game around isn't getting us anywhere. From this point on, lets please leave this stuff out of the discussion or ignore it if it surfaces, and stop linking to external sources as "support" of your claims about who said what. At this point, it's getting a bit childish and I've stopped caring about what was said and who said it. It's in the past, let bygones be bygones and lets move on to the meat and potatoes.

 

@Shurah,

Is there any chance that you could explain (to the best of your ability) how NPCs use navmeshes besides for path-finding?

We all know navmeshes are used for pathing out where NPCs can and can't go, but there seems to be implied knowledge that the NPCs or AI in the game is using navmeshes for other unknown (to myself and others) reasons. Can you share some your insights on this or is that all navmeshes are used for to your knowledge as well? Thanks!

[TechAngel85]

@Shurah,

 

I also have a question about this statement:

To come for the next updates:

- Plugin activation/desactivation through an MCM Menu

 

Will this be script based? I'm assuming that to deactivate the mod the game would have to re-build the aliases in order to restore all vanilla settings. If that is true, one can also assume that when reactivated, the game would have to re-build the aliases again. If this is the case, would this solve the issue of NPCs added after the game start not being accounted for by your mod (not receiving the benefits of your mod). In other words, if I started a game and then added in a mod that adds more NPCs, all I would have to do is deactivate your mod in the MCM and then reactivate it so that the new NPCs are registered by ICAIO. If this is how this feature is going to work, that would be great as that is one issue solved. Though I'm not sure how building and re-building aliases would affect the game. All this knowledge is fairly new to me.

[Mator]

From what I can see the "issue" with the average modder trying to make a compatibility patch for this mod comes from the fact that you can't just load up xEdit and look for conflicting records since the real art to this mod comes from the navmesh placement. Since this means examining every single mod against ICAO I reckon a lot of modders just see too much work and look for an easier fix. Sadly it comes down to the fact that the only real success comes from hard work and until all the "so called incompatible" mods are checked against this, there will always be concerns and questioning.

I noticed that a bunch of the aforementioned conflicts from shurah are with markers and STAT object references.  I could fairly easily make an xEdit script that could detect these kinds of conflicts, and optionally fix them.

 

Would that be something that would be valuable to the community?

[GrantSP]

I noticed that a bunch of the aforementioned conflicts from shurah are with markers and STAT object references.  I could fairly easily make an xEdit script that could detect these kinds of conflicts, and optionally fix them.

 

Would that be something that would be valuable to the community?

Sure, anything that automates compatibility between ICAIO and other mods would be a godsend.