Jump to content

Welcome to LoversLab
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

SexTec (SexLab, SexOut, etc.) - Container thread

SexTec FO4 Animations

  • Please log in to reply
1174 replies to this topic

#1
CPU

CPU

    Addicted modder and helper

  • Moderators
  • 7,423 posts

*
POPULAR

Hello.

 

This thread is to merge all the requests that arrive about "Is SexTec ready?", "Are you all working on it?"

 

SexTec is the official name for the SexLab equivalent for Fallout 4.

 

There are TWO pinned threads discussing animations:

Do not open a new thread. Do not do a post asking about animations here. Do not post that progresses are done: we are aware!

 

 

 

In case you have questions about animations for Fallout 4, check this.

 

Kind Regards.

 

 

Frequently Asked Questions

 
Q: Is "SexTec" released?
A: No, but the development officially started.
 
Q: Is the name official
A: Yes. SexTec is the official decided name
 
Q: "SexTec" ETA?
A: Not possible to answer directly. For sure we need a fully working F4SE, a fully working CK, and the ability for Animators to create new Animations (that is not an easy task now)
 
Q: Will "SexTec" be more interactive?
A: No. The logic will be really similar to SexLab. The only point that probably will be done is to enable non-linear stages.
 
Q: Will it work alone?
A: No. It will be a framework and will need other mods to actually start the performances.
 
Q: Who is working on it?
A: Today CPU, and Leito86. Possibly Ashal will do another version. And probably the two version one day will be merged. Right now we don't know.
 
Q: Can you port SexLab or SexOut to Fallout 4?
A: No. It will be a brand new implementation.
 

 


  • 87

#2
pipdude

pipdude

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 439 posts

*
POPULAR

I'm starting this thread in the hopes that I can persuade the developers who are taking on the Sextec project to consider a slightly different approach than Sexlab.
 
PROS AND CONS OF SEXLAB:
 
Obviously, Sexlab has been a groundbreaking mod for bringing NSFW content to a game. The integration aspect has been so well executed that dozens of other modders have been able to understand and attach their mods to it.
 
The downside, imo, is that the actual sex scenes are completely passive by design. It is initially interesting to see NSFW content in a AAA game at all. But, even with extra animation packs for variety, it doesn't take long for the scenes to become boring. In general, people enjoy replaying good games for the interactive parts. They skip the cut-scenes after they've seen them once or twice. Sexlab essentially is putting the sex scenes into the cut-scene category of game experience.
 
Because so many modders see it as Sexlab "having the sex part taken care of" the success of the system has discouraged expansion on the interactivity of the actual NSFW scenes. Despite a ton of modding work from a very involved community, it took years before someone started an alternative focused on the scene with the 0Sex mod.
 
PROS AND CONS OF 0SEX:
 
0Sex is also a groundbreaking step in my view. It allows interactivity to continue through the sex scene rather than having a system take control to create a mini cut-scene. The use of transition animations also is a big improvement.
 
There are some downsides to it though. First, it's not a framework [EDIT: This is no longer true. 0Sex has been made to be a framework for other modders to make use of]. So, there is no way for other mods to integrate it the way that Sexlab does. Second, controlling the scenes is a bit like controlling a flight simulator. Kind of immersion breaking to have to think that much about sex. Finally, it is kind of two dimensional in that it is very targeted toward one type of sex (cuddly). So, the game consequences of the scene seem to be limited in scope (the NPC likes you even more or the NPC likes you even more and is pregnant).
 
A PROPOSED SOLUTION:
 
Actually, I see two ways to approach this technically:
 
A. Sticking to more of a framework model, you could separate the sex scene handling aspect of the system into modules. So, Sextec does the integration the same as Sexlab. But, when it gets to the scene part, it hands the handling of that off to a second module. When that module finishes with the sex scene, it reports back to Sextec a standardized report about what happened so that it can continue to manage integration with other mods. The standard install of Sextec could include a sex scene module that behaves exactly like Sexlab (Sextec Basic). But, the interface would be there for modders to make their own scene handling modules more similar to 0Sex (Sextec Interactive).
 
-OR-
 
B. The Sextec developers could hard code the scene handling experience to be more interactive like 0Sex but with some adjustments (discussed below).
 
Here are some ways I think that the 0Sex concept could be adjusted within a Sextec context:
 
  1. Make the interactions driven by dialogue (if the game engine allows). A hotkey system could be available as well for people who don't want to see any text on screen. But, I think that controlling the scene through a dialogue window would be much easier to use and would feel more consistent and integrated into the game.
     
  2. Expand on the interaction options from what 0Sex has so that the player decides what kind of scene plays out. Skyrim is interesting as an RPG because players end up in different factions based on their game decisions. The sex scene could be just as dynamic. Instead of deciding the scene type up front, the user would define that as they go through the scene. This would open up a lot of possibility to report back to Sextec and affect the game or other mods.
     
  3. I recognize that transition animations introduce a TON of additional work. Instead of 3-4 animations per class, each would need dozens. However, I believe that the community has proven to have more than enough ambition and capability to take this on. I think that if you started with just the human animations, others would provide synths, mutants, etc. pretty quickly.
 
Anyway, that's my 15 cents. Thoughts?

Edited by pipdude, 13 June 2016 - 06:41 PM.

  • 56

#3
CPU

CPU

    Addicted modder and helper

  • Moderators
  • 7,423 posts

Hello.

 

First point: SexTec is (will be) modular.

Second point: it is just a framework, so no "interactions" are handled by it. The "interactions" are handled by the mods using the framework.

Third point: the "animation module" will not be limited to linear-static animations. (List of sequential stages) but will enable a graph navigation of small stages to improve the variety of the sex scenes.

 

Personal consideration: 0Sex is a mod, not a framework itself. And it is hard to use it to build other sex mods. Its animations are good, but a pain to expand. (Only the original author is able to do it.)

 


  • 16

#4
Mickster

Mickster

    Mega Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 784 posts

Wait, we'll get tree-progression through the scene instead of it being linear? That's awesome!


  • 4

#5
CPU

CPU

    Addicted modder and helper

  • Moderators
  • 7,423 posts

I am still writing the specifications and doing a proof of concept.

The real problem is that I cannot really compile for FO4, so I am doing the POC using Skyrim.

 

F4Papyrus is very similar to Skyrim's one. So I can then move the code with ease.

 

The idea is that now "Stages" have conditioned links between them, and have a specific "position" attached to them (more or less a tag), this makes the havok animations (yep, exactly the same Skyrim uses) to be "composed" nicely.

 

I do not expect to have something out before February. Also because we don't know (yet) how to add animations to FO4.


  • 14

#6
Mickster

Mickster

    Mega Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 784 posts

Yeah, I saw someone created a decompiler for FO4 based on one he made for Skyrim, I don't doubt you guys will  be able to come up with neat stuff. I think the thing that might slow things down a bit though is the absence of FNIF or whatever it will be called since fore said he doesn't intend to work on it for Fallout 4.


  • 1

#7
pipdude

pipdude

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 439 posts

Hello.

 

First point: SexTec is (will be) modular.

Second point: it is just a framework, so no "interactions" are handled by it. The "interactions" are handled by the mods using the framework.

Third point: the "animation module" will not be limited to linear-static animations. (List of sequential stages) but will enable a graph navigation of small stages to improve the variety of the sex scenes.

 

Personal consideration: 0Sex is a mod, not a framework itself. And it is hard to use it to build other sex mods. Its animations are good, but a pain to expand. (Only the original author is able to do it.)

 

Thank you for clarifying.

 

Some follow up questions:

 

Point one, is a modular format a new decision? Or, is Sexlab already like that? (I haven't looked at the Sexlab code before).

 

Point two, is the similarity of scenes that are initiated by multiple different mods the product of those mods just telling Sexlab to show the same sequences of animations? It seems like there would be more variety if each mod was controlling the scenes in their own way.

 

Point three, will it be possible to have interactions between the stages that determine which animations get played in each?

 

0Sex point, I agree that it is not a framework. But, I think that that type of game-within-a-game interaction could be an intended extension [or use] of the framework. I need to spend some time looking at the code for Sexlab. But, it seems like it is more about receiving some high level parameters and then putting together a scene to watch from there. I'm saying that the framework could be built to expect an 0Sex like experience and then tell Sextec what the outcome means for the rest of the information other mods are listening to. Sextec could have an officially maintained animation handler. But, others could build variations to handle the pain of expansion, new animations, etc.

 

 

Wait, we'll get tree-progression through the scene instead of it being linear? That's awesome!

 

If I'm understanding correctly, it sounds like that may be possible already in Sexlab. Just that other modders have chosen to use it in a more cut-scene way?


  • 0

#8
hornguy6

hornguy6

    Member

  • Supporter
  • PipPipPip
  • 188 posts
I do not expect to have something out before February. Also because we don't know (yet) how to add animations to FO4.

 

I don't expect the Creation Kit to be out before February so that'd do it.


  • 0

#9
pipdude

pipdude

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 439 posts

Also because we don't know (yet) how to add animations to FO4.

 

My hunch is that it will fall one of two ways:

 

A. They consider the need for animations in mods and make an easier path to add them.

 

B. They go to greater lengths to make them more difficult to add.

 

I'm afraid that it could be B on the basis that they are opening modding up for consoles and want to create boundaries for various reasons (performance, content approval, etc.)

 

Yeah, I saw someone created a decompiler for FO4 based on one he made for Skyrim, I don't doubt you guys will  be able to come up with neat stuff. I think the thing that might slow things down a bit though is the absence of FNIF or whatever it will be called since fore said he doesn't intend to work on it for Fallout 4.

 

Given how many mods have already been created before the GECK, I'm thinking that the motivation for someone to solve the animation issue (if it is possible) will be great. Fore could have a change of heart. Or, if he retires, someone else will make it happen.


  • 0

#10
CPU

CPU

    Addicted modder and helper

  • Moderators
  • 7,423 posts

 

 

 

Point one, is a modular format a new decision? Or, is Sexlab already like that? (I haven't looked at the Sexlab code before).

 

Point two, is the similarity of scenes that are initiated by multiple different mods the product of those mods just telling Sexlab to show the same sequences of animations? It seems like there would be more variety if each mod was controlling the scenes in their own way.

 

Point three, will it be possible to have interactions between the stages that determine which animations get played in each?

 

0Sex point, I agree that it is not a framework. But, I think that that type of game-within-a-game interaction could be an intended extension of the framework. I need to spend some time looking at the code for Sexlab. But, it seems like it is more about receiving some high level parameters and then putting together a scene to watch from there. I'm saying that the framework could be built to expect an 0Sex like experience and then tell Sextec what the outcome means for the rest of the information other mods are listening to. Sextec could have an officially maintained animation handler. But, others could build variations to handle the pain of expansion, new animations, etc.

 

 

Wait, we'll get tree-progression through the scene instead of it being linear? That's awesome!

 

If I'm understanding correctly, it sounds like that may be possible already in Sexlab. Just that other modders have chosen to use it in a more cut-scene way?

 

 

1) New decision. SexLab is not really modular. For "modular" I mean that components can be added and replaced.

Think about a basic "SexStats" module. One will be provided by default. But maybe one advanced modder will create a new, more advanced, one. In this case the "SexStats module" can be replaced by the other mod.

 

2) In SexLab right now you cannot really tell too much. The best you can do is to select explicitly the animation. The animation will have a set of stages, and it will play as is.

For SexTec the animations can be registered in full sequence (set of stages, graphed, not linear) or you can register a single stage if you like.

And to play "animations" you will have (as modder) a "old style way" by just passing a few parameters, or a more advanced way by specifying the graph of states you wish to play. And probably (but not in version 1) a way to have control in a mod (through events) about what to do to pass from a stage to another.

 

3) A Stage is: A specific, short animation, a few parameters (looping Yes/No), a set of tags (and tags have categories now), an important tag that is the "position" of the players (this is the key to enable smooth transitions), a set of conditions, and then a link to other stages that can play after, each link with its own conditions. A "Full Animation" is described with a set of stages, with one stage marked as "Begin Stage".

Now, because the term "animation" creates only confusion, I plan to give some guidance in "naming" the different parts.

"Performance": equivalent to the SexLab animation (that is a set of linear stages, playing HKX animations)

"Stage": similar to SexLab stages, but a little bit more rich in terms of definition.

"Animation": an actual HKX/FC animation

 

4) For sure somebody will do a 0FFF mod later (0Fuck Finally in Fallout)...

 

5) No. It is not possible in SexLab today. I did a small framework to do something like this in Skyrim. It was included in my CSB mod (and can be used only in two cases, because it was being developed. But then FO4 started consuming my time.) And a serious problem is that HKX anims in SexLab are quite long and difficult to mix. In SexTec we will try to put shorter "pieces of anims" so they can be joined together with more ease.


  • 2

#11
Mickster

Mickster

    Mega Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 784 posts

 Those sound like some prety awesome improvements.

 

 

Given how many mods have already been created before the GECK, I'm thinking that the motivation for someone to solve the animation issue (if it is possible) will be great. Fore could have a change of heart. Or, if he retires, someone else will make it happen.

 

Yeah, I don't think it will be an issue of "if" it will happen, more of a "when" it will happen.


  • 0

#12
pipdude

pipdude

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 439 posts

 

 

 

 

Point one, is a modular format a new decision? Or, is Sexlab already like that? (I haven't looked at the Sexlab code before).

 

Point two, is the similarity of scenes that are initiated by multiple different mods the product of those mods just telling Sexlab to show the same sequences of animations? It seems like there would be more variety if each mod was controlling the scenes in their own way.

 

Point three, will it be possible to have interactions between the stages that determine which animations get played in each?

 

0Sex point, I agree that it is not a framework. But, I think that that type of game-within-a-game interaction could be an intended extension of the framework. I need to spend some time looking at the code for Sexlab. But, it seems like it is more about receiving some high level parameters and then putting together a scene to watch from there. I'm saying that the framework could be built to expect an 0Sex like experience and then tell Sextec what the outcome means for the rest of the information other mods are listening to. Sextec could have an officially maintained animation handler. But, others could build variations to handle the pain of expansion, new animations, etc.

 

 

Wait, we'll get tree-progression through the scene instead of it being linear? That's awesome!

 

If I'm understanding correctly, it sounds like that may be possible already in Sexlab. Just that other modders have chosen to use it in a more cut-scene way?

 

 

1) New decision. SexLab is not really modular. For "modular" I mean that components can be added and replaced.

Think about a basic "SexStats" module. One will be provided by default. But maybe one advanced modder will create a new, more advanced, one. In this case the "SexStats module" can be replaced by the other mod.

 

2) In SexLab right now you cannot really tell too much. The best you can do is to select explicitly the animation. The animation will have a set of stages, and it will play as is.

For SexTec the animations can be registered in full sequence (set of stages, graphed, not linear) or you can register a single stage if you like.

And to play "animations" you will have (as modder) a "old style way" by just passing a few parameters, or a more advanced way by specifying the graph of states you wish to play. And probably (but not in version 1) a way to have control in a mod (through events) about what to do to pass from a stage to another.

 

3) A Stage is: A specific, short animation, a few parameters (looping Yes/No), a set of tags (and tags have categories now), an important tag that is the "position" of the players (this is the key to enable smooth transitions), a set of conditions, and then a link to other stages that can play after, each link with its own conditions. A "Full Animation" is described with a set of stages, with one stage marked as "Begin Stage".

Now, because the term "animation" creates only confusion, I plan to give some guidance in "naming" the different parts.

"Performance": equivalent to the SexLab animation (that is a set of linear stages, playing HKX animations)

"Stage": similar to SexLab stages, but a little bit more rich in terms of definition.

"Animation": an actual HKX/FC animation

 

4) For sure somebody will do a 0FFF mod later (0Fuck Finally in Fallout)...

 

5) No. It is not possible in SexLab today. I did a small framework to do something like this in Skyrim. It was included in my CSB mod (and can be used only in two cases, because it was being developed. But then FO4 started consuming my time.) And a serious problem is that HKX anims in SexLab are quite long and difficult to mix. In SexTec we will try to put shorter "pieces of anims" so they can be joined together with more ease.

 

 

Great. Thanks again for clarifying. Essentially, you're already planning something very close to what I was thinking.

 

It sounds like a dialogue-driven, tree progression would be possible for a mod with Sextec right out of the box. It would just need the ability to loop or pause a Stage indefinitely until it receives next instructions.

 

And if the default controls don't do everything needed, the scene module could be re-written with the same hooks and it would integrate with the rest of the content that will be connected to Sextec.

 

Very cool. Looking forward to seeing it develop.


  • 0

#13
Halstrom

Halstrom

    BellyBunKicker

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,050 posts
You should probably start creating the animations you want now then :)
  • 0

#14
vane000

vane000

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 232 posts

Hello.

 

First point: SexTec is (will be) modular.

 

Would it still be to early to ask modules will for sure be included in SexTec?


  • 0

#15
CPU

CPU

    Addicted modder and helper

  • Moderators
  • 7,423 posts

 

Would it still be to early to ask modules will for sure be included in SexTec?

 

 

Nothing is sure, right now.

 

But I am already working for:

* Core module

* Tagging system module (that probably will go in the core module)

* Animation System - Registry ==> Used to define and alter the animations (that will be called "performance", to avoid the confusion with the actual HKX animations)

* Animation System - Play ==> Used to actually run the performances (AKA the anims)

* Sexual Stats ==> How many times did you had anal sex? How many times this actor refused sex?

* Orgasm / Cumshot subsystem ==> Handle the orgasms and applies the shaders for the cumshots (this is in really preliminary stage because I cannot create and test, right now, the actual shaders)

* Actor Tracking System ==> Who is around?

* Event system ==> Let my mod know if something happens

* Logo ==> because a nice picture is always important

 

Other modules may be added later. But it is too early. (Arousal, Pregnancy, Centralized Nodes Scaling...)

Some contributors already granted help, but only when the "CK" will be out.

 

And, please remember, that right now is not easy to add new animations. And it is impossible to compile and test your code.

 

 

I am doing a Proof of Concept using Skyrim's back-end.

This because the F4Papyrus is really similar to Skyrim one.

 

I don't think this framework will be public (also for a beta) before February.


  • 4

#16
TheCaptn

TheCaptn

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
@pipdude: With 0SEX the author, CEO, maintains control over all the animations and which of them need transitions. You'll note that there aren't transitions between every animation, only between selected ones within sequences... I do wish that CEO had included hooks for things like SexLab Aroused, but in terms of the animation fluidity I don't see how you can enforce things like transitions when you have multiple contributors.

I think the best we can do is encourage animators to create some (not even all) transitions between their own animations for modders to draw on if they want. We certainly can't insist they create transitions with the work of others... Maybe it would be possible to standardise some Start and End keyframes, but you don't want to police those too heavily either because that's more likely to stifle creativity when animators want to do something outside the box.
  • 0

#17
CPU

CPU

    Addicted modder and helper

  • Moderators
  • 7,423 posts

@pipdude: With 0SEX the author, CEO, maintains control over all the animations and which of them need transitions. You'll note that there aren't transitions between every animation, only between selected ones within sequences... I do wish that CEO had included hooks for things like SexLab Aroused, but in terms of the animation fluidity I don't see how you can enforce things like transitions when you have multiple contributors.

I think the best we can do is encourage animators to create some (not even all) transitions between their own animations for modders to draw on if they want. We certainly can't insist they create transitions with the work of others... Maybe it would be possible to standardise some Start and End keyframes, but you don't want to police those too heavily either because that's more likely to stifle creativity when animators want to do something outside the box.

 

Actually the havok system (available also for Skyrim) helps a lot for this.

Did you see any big shift between vanilla anims? No. Why?

Because you have some basic positions that are respected and easy to transition automatically by havok.

 

Some animator wish pure freedom. In this case the long animation can be written from start to end. But it will not have intermediate transitions.

Then you do some sub-animations: like: From standing to kneeling, From kneeling to pump your pelvis (cyclic), from Pump to take it out and use your hand to finish, from use your hand to go back standing. And the corresponding female anims like: from standing to sit on ground, from sit to lay back and open legs, from lay back to enjoy, from enjoy to go back standing.

If the animation positions are determined and well know, then you can do smoot transition by simply relying on Havok.

 

With another contributor I am doing a proof of concept of this technique (for Skyrim, I can't do it for Fallout right now) and we will see.

 

 

Think about: my actor is in the lay back positions, which set of animations can I play? And then you can play all anims that are compatible with this position. This may add a huge amount of variety to anims, and will also make the animation creation more easy because the sub-anims will be really short in time (a few seconds.) And for the perfectionist you can still use a long playing animation if you really want.


  • 0

#18
nugerumon

nugerumon

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 89 posts

Does the Havok system allow participants of different sizes, i.e. could a human-supermutant pairing* use animations designed for human-human* pairings, for example by defining position of certain body parts and let everything else be handled by Havok?

*) or can at least large man + small woman use the same animations like small man + large woman without forcing both to scale 1; there aren't that many races of varying height in FO4 like in Skyrim, but some variety wouldn't hurt, right?

 

The concept, thus far, looks very promising, I hope it will work out!  ;)


  • 0

#19
CPU

CPU

    Addicted modder and helper

  • Moderators
  • 7,423 posts

We don't know yet if havok is used also for scaling.

In Skyrim it was not.


  • 0

#20
bigc

bigc

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 46 posts
What do people think about having custom status, notifications, or perks with custom icons that coincide with sex acts in Fallout 4? I'm currently working on a mod the replaces Status, special icons, and some perks (specifically vault girl related perks) to be a Vault Girl based on Shadman's Vault Girl art. First version of it will be sfw, but it would be cool to connect it with other mods with custom icons. All I can really do right now is replace the icons already in the game.

Here's a gallery of the F3 and NV versions: http://m.imgur.com/a/in3al

The Fallout 4 version will be a little different. This time around it's all Flash files, and it's animated.
  • 4



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: SexTec, FO4, Animations