Devious Devices - Equip (LE)

[Punga]

15 hours ago, Inte said:

I agree but, I did not refuse to use it per se, just using it will make it a lot of (unnecessary) work to keep the rest of the mods I am using compatible.

 

I disagree. Only the base devices are cosmetic, a mod can configure these devices to be very secure just by adding some keywords to them, something that was just implemented in DDi 4, if I am not mistaken. Also, ZAP has a locking system that will make them unremovable, not even through console commands. The system is so scary I abstained from using it in POP. True, ZAP does not have an escape system outside of a mod, but with the removal of the “armbinder talk” neither does DDi 4? PC animations have been very solid for me for both ZAP and DDi. NPC animations? Not so much. They break for both, ZAP and DDi. Unless DDi 4's animations are implemented differently and do not break for NPCs, accusing ZAP’s device animations breaking when DDi does exactly the same thing, is not fair.

 

You do not have to use anything in ZAP but the device keywords. That will satisfy most of the older mods and will make DDi more backwards compatible. Besides, I am fairly sure all bondage mods here on LL are already using ZAP.

 

Hard to argue with this, @xaz being MIA is a great loss. But perhaps if DDi was to use just the ZAP keywords as I previously mentioned, it will not be affected by the outdated ZAP.  

 

Well the fact remains, ALL bondage mods here are using ZAP, which is not true for DDi.
With that in mind, it is way easier for a mod to check for a simple keyword to determine if the player is restrained rather than check if another mod is present - then grab its specific keyword, or add a yet another (un-needed) dependency just for a simple restraint check. 

 

Because ZAP is a bridge meant to unite all bondage mods. Also as you stated ZAP and DDi are meant to work together not replace one another. By removing ZAP from DDi you are forcing DDi as a dependency on all other mods that do not use/need it. 

Colorful! 

[bicobus]

18 hours ago, Inte said:

I am not familiar with SkyProc patches, what is it? 

A customizable automated tool to generate new esp based on what is active in your load order. You can basically change every single NPC and give them red hair with the press of a button.

 

Dunno where the development of the tool went after all these years, but you can find more about it in there: http://en.uesp.net/wiki/Tes5Mod:Skyproc

[Inte]

On ‎5‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 2:02 AM, Kimy said:

1. DD always had a built-in escape and locking system, dating back to the first time I saw it. Since DD4 modders can customize it to their liking while it used to be more or less hardcoded in earlier versions.

2. No version of ZAP I ever looked at had a locking system for wearable restraints. Don't ask me what ZAP 8 is doing, because I never looked at it. But I can take off any restraint in ZAP 7 just by clicking on it, as long as I have player controls enabled. That's the standard behavior of ZAP no?

3. You can break any bound animation for wearable ZAP restraints just by jumping, because ZAP is using offset animations that do no get reapplied. Again, don't ask me about ZAP 8. But I would be surprised it would be different.

4. While it's true that most BDSM mods (including my own DCL) still use ZAP, NONE except POP doesn't also use DD for handling wearable restraints (ME is in the process of getting converted, according to its author).

5. ZAP and DD are meant to be used together, that's what I said. ZAP for the furniture assets, DD for the wearable restraints. I also said and meant that ZAP's bondage code is inferior to DD in every imaginable aspect, and that there is zero reason for any BDSM mod using wearable restraints not to prefer DD over ZAP. ZAP is akin to the least common denominator for restraints, and it's rarely a good choice to insist on the least common denominator, just because it was first on the market, no?

 

Again, your choice. You don't have to justify your decisions to me or anyone else. But if you think ZAP is still the accepted basis for restraints implementation on LL, I suggest looking at the larger bondage mods on LL still in active development.

 

 

 

1., 2. I am using ZAP 6.11 and yes, it has a mod triggered locking system. Player cannot remove the restraints no matter what. The system does not use keys, just mod lock on/off. 

3. All ZAP restraints I tried disable jumping. In fact while wearing ZAP cuffs player will walk through water as supposed to DDi's swimming with no hands and an armbinder backpack. 

4. So because of that, why not leave ZAP as a DDi dependency and just add back the ZAP keywords only? 

5. I never said to use ZAP restraints over DDa/DDx. All I am suggesting is to make it easier for mods to detect worn restraints by having a set of universal keywords (already available in the more popular/used ZAP) even if DDi is not installed.  

6. What will it hurt by having ZAP as a DDi dependency and using only its restraints keywords when all mods using DDi are already using ZAP? 

 

Actually come to think of it, the ZAP keywords should be in DDa and in DDx on the restraints themselves. So ZAP should be a dependency of DDa and DDx, not DDi. Although DDi could use it too so it can detect ZAP restraints and/or simplify its restraints detection. 

[Inte]

On ‎5‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 2:18 AM, Mud said:

Yes, indeed, these fellas, with HDT chains and leg shackles along with cuff-only variants. I'm pretty sure they've been brought up in the topic before, but they're quite nice.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

On that topic, however, I so badly wanted to get these into the game organically I thought I'd crack open the iDDeLibs script and try to Frankenstein a way to get them in. All I did was swap out one of the existing ZadxLib.x arm restraints with the corresponding ID for the chains, but it seems to get equipped fine with Equip? Some visual fuckery going on when equipping them together with the pear chain plugs, but I expect that issue's with the engine or meshes. Does the incompatibility come in later down the line?

I see. Too bad the hands are not bound in the back. 

 

Your Frankenstein way should work. Just make sure you do not swap the rendered and inventory device names.  

I believe the incompatibility has to do with the new keywords DDi 4 is using, but since DDe is not un/equipping devices by keywords, un/equipping devices should work.

What does not work is the existing DDe devices as they do not have the new keywords, breaking their animations while worn. 

[Inte]

On ‎5‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 4:45 PM, Punga said:

Colorful! 

[Inte]

On ‎5‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 5:10 AM, IronDusk33 said:

SkyProc is a java library that generates plugins. It's mostly used by large overhauls like SkyRe and Requiem to apply a lot of changes to all weapons/armor/recipes/npcs/etc automatically, cutting down on the need for patches. For example, the Requiem SkyProc patch increases the damage and armor rating of all weapons and armor, even if they were added by a different mod.

 

So, this SkyProc patcher looks at all armors, and their keywords. If the armor has DDi keywords, the patcher will add the corresponding Zaz keywords.

Neat. 

[Inte]

On ‎5‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 6:58 PM, bicobus said:

A customizable automated tool to generate new esp based on what is active in your load order. You can basically change every single NPC and give them red hair with the press of a button.

 

Dunno where the development of the tool went after all these years, but you can find more about it in there: http://en.uesp.net/wiki/Tes5Mod:Skyproc

Good to know. I'll have a look see. 

[Kimy]

13 hours ago, Inte said:

1., 2. I am using ZAP 6.11 and yes, it has a mod triggered locking system. Player cannot remove the restraints no matter what. The system does not use keys, just mod lock on/off. 

3. All ZAP restraints I tried disable jumping. In fact while wearing ZAP cuffs player will walk through water as supposed to DDi's swimming with no hands and an armbinder backpack. 

4. So because of that, why not leave ZAP as a DDi dependency and just add back the ZAP keywords only? 

5. I never said to use ZAP restraints over DDa/DDx. All I am suggesting is to make it easier for mods to detect worn restraints by having a set of universal keywords (already available in the more popular/used ZAP) even if DDi is not installed.  

6. What will it hurt by having ZAP as a DDi dependency and using only its restraints keywords when all mods using DDi are already using ZAP? 

 

Actually come to think of it, the ZAP keywords should be in DDa and in DDx on the restraints themselves. So ZAP should be a dependency of DDa and DDx, not DDi. Although DDi could use it too so it can detect ZAP restraints and/or simplify its restraints detection. 

As I explained above, we removed ZAP as a dependency because it makes no sense to keep a dependency on a mod yours is essentially replacing. Suggesting to keep ZAP as the foundation for DD compares to asking to build a Ferrari running on a steam engine, just because that's how engines were traditionally built. It makes no sense. DD has been around for MANY years, and since version 1 it has been the better choice for restraints. As much as I respect the work ZaZ and xaz put into their mod, but it's 2018 and ZAP is obsolete, except for its furniture devices. People had all the time in the world to migrate their bondage code to DD, and most of them did so by now. It's essentially the same what Microsoft did with keeping DOS in Windows 9x. At first that made sense and kept old stuff working, but there is no good reason to keep outdated code in there for all eternity. Eventually you have to cut loose the old stuff and move on. And that's what we did.

 

How should this even work going forward? ZAP 7 is no longer getting updated and ZAP 8 is an unreliable, unstable asset with an unclear future, that many people including myself don't even tolerate in their load order. It's just not a sane choice to keep software dependent on resources that might or might not still be working as expected a week from now on.

 

I do not expect newer bondage mods to universally use ZAP in the future btw. Some might, some might not. If you don't use furniture devices, there is no good reason to link to it. There are already newer DD mods being released not requiring ZAP at all: https://www.loverslab.com/topic/82710-devious-followers-14th-may-2018/  and https://www.loverslab.com/topic/93521-devious-device-helpers/

A lot of the older ones list ZAP in their requirements, but I actually bet at least some of these lost their ZAP dependency when DD4 cut it off, and don't really have it in their own master list. I will very likely remove ZAP dependency from DCL down the road, too. In the end, I would go as far as assuming that ZAP will get largely phased out from most BDSM mods, going forward.

 

PS: The "locking" system in ZAP amounts to setting the Prevent Removal flag in EquipItem() to true. You do know that this flag doesn't even survive transferring the item to another container, yes? Try it! Want to escape a restraint? Just toss it in the nearest box! In case you ever wondered why DD's system is so complex, that's why.

 

PS2: Swimming - Neither solution is very awesome, tbh. Realistically, throwing a bound person in a lake will kill her.

[bicobus]

11 hours ago, Kimy said:

but it's 2018 and ZAP is obsolete

ZAP isn't obsolete, not only it is another Framework, but nothing replaces it yet fully. Even @darkconsole's excellent Display Model uses it, but I hear that the SSE version will replace ZAP altogether; which is a good thing. Mods will continue to use ZAP until something that handle furniture bondage better comes along. ZAP isn't perfect though, I agree with you on that point.

 

Could you refresh my memory, weren't one of the reasons to drop the ZAP keywords to help third mod updates? That is to not force modders to juggle with tags every time something shift upstream.

 

11 hours ago, Kimy said:

ZAP 8 is an unreliable, unstable asset with an unclear future

Yes that is an understatement. The base is good, but the current maintainer workflow is hard to understand. I had some issues with ZAP 8 but I am no longer in a position to help reporting them properly.

 

11 hours ago, Kimy said:

I do not expect newer bondage mods to universally use ZAP in the future btw.

As said earlier: if a modder requires furnitures, they're kind of stuck with ZAP. Hell even Being a Cow requires ZAP8 . The trend that I see is a dichotomy in requirements between the mods that focus on player bondage and the mods that focus on environment/story telling. Player restrictive bondage usually tends to favor the DD Framework where as those that favor a more free outlet would use ZAP (since the furniture bondage scenes are temporary). By environment I am thinking about a locked room in which the player is free to do whatever, like wolfclub or that whiterun brothel thing.

 

11 hours ago, Kimy said:

PS2: Swimming - Neither solution is very awesome, tbh. Realistically, throwing a bound person in a lake will kill her.

Well then, realism and skyrim are somewhat contradictory; beside the game never really want to kill the player (due to the player character being a demi-god and all that). I don't believe there will ever be a good solution to handle water, because bethesda did a very poor job of creating an illusion of water: cool visuals from afar, but that's it. In actual reality there is no water, just an area where the animations changes and the player start to float ?. So yeah, I'd leave that job to Sam GoodEnough.

[Kimy]

The need for furniture bondage in BDSM mods isn't lost on us. Where there is demand, there will be supply.

[Inte]

On ‎5‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 11:34 AM, Kimy said:

As I explained above, we removed ZAP as a dependency because it makes no sense to keep a dependency on a mod yours is essentially replacing. Suggesting to keep ZAP as the foundation for DD compares to asking to build a Ferrari running on a steam engine, just because that's how engines were traditionally built. It makes no sense. DD has been around for MANY years, and since version 1 it has been the better choice for restraints. As much as I respect the work ZaZ and xaz put into their mod, but it's 2018 and ZAP is obsolete, except for its furniture devices. People had all the time in the world to migrate their bondage code to DD, and most of them did so by now. It's essentially the same what Microsoft did with keeping DOS in Windows 9x. At first that made sense and kept old stuff working, but there is no good reason to keep outdated code in there for all eternity. Eventually you have to cut loose the old stuff and move on. And that's what we did.

 

How should this even work going forward? ZAP 7 is no longer getting updated and ZAP 8 is an unreliable, unstable asset with an unclear future, that many people including myself don't even tolerate in their load order. It's just not a sane choice to keep software dependent on resources that might or might not still be working as expected a week from now on.

 

I do not expect newer bondage mods to universally use ZAP in the future btw. Some might, some might not. If you don't use furniture devices, there is no good reason to link to it. There are already newer DD mods being released not requiring ZAP at all: https://www.loverslab.com/topic/82710-devious-followers-14th-may-2018/  and https://www.loverslab.com/topic/93521-devious-device-helpers/

A lot of the older ones list ZAP in their requirements, but I actually bet at least some of these lost their ZAP dependency when DD4 cut it off, and don't really have it in their own master list. I will very likely remove ZAP dependency from DCL down the road, too. In the end, I would go as far as assuming that ZAP will get largely phased out from most BDSM mods, going forward.

 

PS: The "locking" system in ZAP amounts to setting the Prevent Removal flag in EquipItem() to true. You do know that this flag doesn't even survive transferring the item to another container, yes? Try it! Want to escape a restraint? Just toss it in the nearest box! In case you ever wondered why DD's system is so complex, that's why.

 

PS2: Swimming - Neither solution is very awesome, tbh. Realistically, throwing a bound person in a lake will kill her.

1. I tried explaining this before but I will try again, ZAP will not be a foundation for DDi but a bridge to mods not using DDi as only the restraints keywords from ZAP will be used and nothing else. So to use your analogy, it will be like building a Ferrari and using rubber tires (already present in all cars). 

 

2. I have not used ZAP 8, so IDK what is going on with that.
As for the outdated ZAP, I don’t think it will break anything in DDi just by using a few ZAP keywords. 

 

3. IDK, Leon could use more bondage furniture in the future, besides his basement will look ‘out of place’ without some bondage furniture down there.
I was hopping Leon would become a more active Dom, like Sasha and lock his slave in a furniture or two overnight, or when she misbehaves. How is he going to do that without ZAP?
Since no BDSM ‘experience’ is complete without some bondage furniture and unless ZAP will get replaced by another mod providing the same kind of bondage furniture system, ZAP will never get ‘phased out’ no matter how much you whish it.

 

4. That is not the locking system I am talking about. Take a look in zbfSlot.psc, and look for

 

 SetBinding(Form akBinding, Bool abAdd = True, Bool abPreventRemoval = True, Bool abUpdateSettings = True) 

and

 RemoveBinding(Form akBinding, Bool abRemove = True, Bool abUpdateSettings = True) 

Or a faster way to test this would be to equip say, the black iron cuffs through the ZAP MCM under the ‘Slots’ page, (see screenie). Then let me know about your success in removing them afterwards. You are even allowed to use console commands. 

BTW, just because a system is more complex does not automatically make it better, most times in fact, it is quite the opposite. Also, the reason @Min introduced the two item system (rendered and inventory) in DDi, (as I understand it) has to do with the device hider slotting system, i.e. being able to remove the visible item while keeping its effects active on the player and less to do with them being ‘locked on’ the player. 

 

5. I wasn’t talking about throwing anybody into a lake, but crossing the many deep rivers scattered around Skyrim (like the one by the Solitude docks), while being able to hold ones breath.
If I had to choose, I would choose walking on the bottom of the ‘lake’ in ‘heavy’ shackles, to swimming around with no arms and an armbinder backpack.

 

[Code Serpent]

I'll just chime in to point out that DD Assets actually contain most of the DD keywords. So, it is possible to just have DDa, which is a very lightweight plugin, as a master to get access to DD keywords.

[stengun]

this crashed my game on install, worked fine when I turned it off. Used MO to install, any suggestions?

[Inte]

On ‎5‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 2:56 PM, Code Serpent said:

I'll just chime in to point out that DD Assets actually contain most of the DD keywords. So, it is possible to just have DDa, which is a very lightweight plugin, as a master to get access to DD keywords.

The idea was to use keywords from a mod that is already present in most load orders, not add another dependency. Besides DDa does not have all the keywords anyway. 

[donttouchmethere]

On 17.5.2018 at 3:16 AM, stengun said:

this crashed my game on install, worked fine when I turned it off. Used MO to install, any suggestions?

hard to tell with the provided information,

- is DDe compatible with DD for him? do you even use it? (wild guess)

 

i can only say DDe works even with the newest DD4dev built on a heavy modded game (means lots of script heavy DD mods)

 

maybe your issue it the famous "one mod to far" syndrom (the last installed mod must be the cause)

- check if you have all requirements and if they are working (SkyUI and PapyrusUtil=>maybe it got overwritten?)

- check your string count, maybe DDe pushed you over the limit

- check if the amount of installed animations isnt affecting your game already

- check if there is a mod with MCM missing in the MCM list ingame, mods that fail to register their MCM will make other mods fail too in some cases

- max 255 active esm/esps (even the deactived count against that number)

 

just shots in the dark

 

- is POP compatible with other vanilla prison modifing mods?

[worik]

On 10.5.2018 at 6:54 AM, Inte said:

DD4 has prisoner chains? Do you have a screenie? 

Are you still interested into a few of those?

I could make a set from various angles this weeend and PM or post them if you like.

[donttouchmethere]

4 minutes ago, worik said:

Are you still interested into a few of those?

I could make a set from various angles this weeend and PM or post them if you like.

just do it hehehe

and make it so that it looks like the hands are on the back ;D

[worik]

6 minutes ago, donttouchmethere said:

and make it so that it looks like the hands are on the back ;D

Sounds like a christmas whish list?  "Dear Santa, i've been terribly good... please cuff my hands ... "

Ok, fine with me

[LorientSS]

Sorry but I have a question

I cannot select any other actors 

The actor selecting function is just ...not able to work

I don't know where the problem is

[Kimy]

On 5/14/2018 at 10:39 PM, Inte said:

1. I tried explaining this before but I will try again, ZAP will not be a foundation for DDi but a bridge to mods not using DDi as only the restraints keywords from ZAP will be used and nothing else. So to use your analogy, it will be like building a Ferrari and using rubber tires (already present in all cars).

From the DD perspective, DD doen't need a bridge mod to provide bondage keywords and standard APIs to mods. DD -IS- that bridge mod. That's what I am trying to explain the whole time. Why would a bridge need a bridge? From a development perspective, it doesn't make any sense to move API parts to a lower layer in the application stack than necessary. SexLab is present in even more load orders than ZAP, but nobody in their right mind would suggest putting restraints related keywords in there. They wouldn't make any sense there. From the (wearable restraints) perspective of DD, ZAP is 100% redundant and 100% obsolete. For wearable restraints, DD -IS- the lowest layer in the application stack, so that's where the keywords should be, too. There is simply no technologically sound reason to use yet another mod for that.

 

I realize that converting older ZAP based mods such as POP to DD means a bit of work, but a LOT of it can be done automated with TES5Edit and Search/Replace. But I can safely say that DD will never make ZAP a requirement again. It simply makes no sense. Not even if ZAP would still be a reliable asset, which we both know isn't the case.

On 5/14/2018 at 10:39 PM, Inte said:

 

4. That is not the locking system I am talking about. Take a look in zbfSlot.psc, and look for

 

 SetBinding(Form akBinding, Bool abAdd = True, Bool abPreventRemoval = True, Bool abUpdateSettings = True) 

and

 RemoveBinding(Form akBinding, Bool abRemove = True, Bool abUpdateSettings = True) 

Or a faster way to test this would be to equip say, the black iron cuffs through the ZAP MCM under the ‘Slots’ page, (see screenie). Then let me know about your success in removing them afterwards. You are even allowed to use console commands. 

BTW, just because a system is more complex does not automatically make it better, most times in fact, it is quite the opposite. Also, the reason @Min introduced the two item system (rendered and inventory) in DDi, (as I understand it) has to do with the device hider slotting system, i.e. being able to remove the visible item while keeping its effects active on the player and less to do with them being ‘locked on’ the player.

 

Probably both, but the SetBinding() method calls ActorRef.EquipItem(akBinding, abPreventRemoval = abPreventRemoval, abSilent = True)

 

That's the flag I talked about above. Use that function on a binding to equip and "lock" it. Then open the nearest container. And toss the device right in there for fun and giggles!

[worik]

On 10.5.2018 at 6:54 AM, Inte said:

That is correct. 

DD4 has prisoner chains? Do you have a screenie? 

Have a look at some of them here: https://www.loverslab.com/blogs/entry/6715-flower-basket-selected-dd-items-for-pop/

 

[Inte]

On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 2:36 PM, Kimy said:

From the DD perspective, DD doen't need a bridge mod to provide bondage keywords and standard APIs to mods. DD -IS- that bridge mod. That's what I am trying to explain the whole time. Why would a bridge need a bridge? From a development perspective, it doesn't make any sense to move API parts to a lower layer in the application stack than necessary. SexLab is present in even more load orders than ZAP, but nobody in their right mind would suggest putting restraints related keywords in there. They wouldn't make any sense there. From the (wearable restraints) perspective of DD, ZAP is 100% redundant and 100% obsolete. For wearable restraints, DD -IS- the lowest layer in the application stack, so that's where the keywords should be, too. There is simply no technologically sound reason to use yet another mod for that.

 

I realize that converting older ZAP based mods such as POP to DD means a bit of work, but a LOT of it can be done automated with TES5Edit and Search/Replace. But I can safely say that DD will never make ZAP a requirement again. It simply makes no sense. Not even if ZAP would still be a reliable asset, which we both know isn't the case.

Probably both, but the SetBinding() method calls ActorRef.EquipItem(akBinding, abPreventRemoval = abPreventRemoval, abSilent = True)

 

That's the flag I talked about above. Use that function on a binding to equip and "lock" it. Then open the nearest container. And toss the device right in there for fun and giggles!

1. It’s like talking to a brick wall.

• First, ZAP will not provide any API to DDi, just keywords.
• Second, you keep twisting what I am saying. Let me once again use your analogy. What I am suggesting is like putting SL keywords in DDi, NOT like putting DDi keywords in SL.

DDi is already using SL keywords e.g. ‘SexLabNoStrip’.   

• Third, you want a technological reason, how about not breaking a furniture pose with an worn armbinder and vice versa? Like it or not until some other mod will replace ZAP by providing the same functionality, ZAP is here to stay, so why not play nice and allow it to talk to DDi?   

2. Again, brick wall.

Have you even bothered testing the ZAP MCM option I suggested? Were you able to just ‘toss’ the device in the nearest container? No, of course not, because if you did you couldn’t type this crap.

 ActorRef.EquipItem(akBinding, abPreventRemoval = abPreventRemoval, abSilent = True) 

is used just to get the device on the player (DDi is using the same function). The ‘locking’ comes later. Insisting on the same flawed argument again and again, tells me that you either didn’t look at @xaz’s code or you don’t understand it. Either way, it makes for a pointless argument and it stifles progress.
 
I can’t speak for @Min, but why would a second restraint be required to ‘lock’ the other one on the player, when it can be done with just one.

[Inte]

3 hours ago, worik said:

Have a look at some of them here: https://www.loverslab.com/blogs/entry/6715-flower-basket-selected-dd-items-for-pop/

 

Too bad they don't lock the arms behind you. 

[Inte]

7 hours ago, LorientSS said:

Sorry but I have a question

I cannot select any other actors 

The actor selecting function is just ...not able to work

I don't know where the problem is

How are you doing it? 

[Kimy]

40 minutes ago, Inte said:

1. It’s like talking to a brick wall.

 

I could use the brick wall argument, too. Because you keep talking about furniture. I am talking about wearables. And DD has no need to rely on any other mod to implement these, because it provides -everything- any mod could ever need, and certainly more that any OTHER mod provides.

 

I sense considerable anger in your typing. Which our exchanges always seem to result in. Which makes me sad. Because I was not and am not after yet another fight with you. Really not. I have no idea what I can do to make you see that I am not out there to fight you. I was just trying to explain why asking to DD to turn back time and set a dependency on a mod it made obsolete is not something that's going to happen. I can assure you 100% that it will not. Never, ever. ZAP got abandoned. DD moved on. The dependency on ZAP is gone. And it won't be back. And that's that.

 

If I can't convince you that DD's restraints features are superior to ZAP and that there is no good reason to cling to a mod that has been abandoned by its creators years ago, then I can't. Not that I need to. The facts speak for themselves. POP is the -last- bondage mod on LL I am aware of still insisting to implement wearable restraints with ZAP. 'nuff said. And by association, you're denying DD Equip users DD4's new features and devices, as well. It's not that we didn't add a few hundred since DD3 or so, and the gap will keep growing. But it's YOUR mod. Do with it what you want. It's your prerogative. *shrug*