Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Kimy

  • Rank
    Mega Poster

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

121,651 profile views
  1. There are some formlists in DCL you can add NPCs to, to prevent certain DCL features from triggering on them. Tbh, I'd have to check if the device comments are a part of it. I remember me implementing it for solicitation. If needed, I will add such a feature for the device comments. Let me know if it's needed! But it will be a DCL feature, not DD. DD is content mod agnostic. I try my very best not to interfere with any DD content mod from the framework end, including my own!
  2. If I see or get notified of a mod deliberately equipping DD devices on children, I will ban that mod from the framework with absolute abandon, and make sure it will never exist in the same load-order with DD ever again. Just make an object occupying all possible DD slots and tag it will the corresponding keywords.
  3. There is no safe way to "freeze" a given equip state on an actor on the framework level. DD content mods that equip and unequip items do expect the framework to complete the operation, if called. If I'd change the expected behavior, all sorts of things would break in all sorts of mods. Even the ability to "blacklist" actors from DD has the strong potential to break existing code not taking that possibility into consideration. Blocking slots is theoretically doable by equipping invisible DD devices in them. Although the framework would think that you'd be wearing...well...invisible
  4. This method works since the filter exists, and it works intentionally so, and I have no intention to break it, unless I see extreme abuse of that workaround going on. If people go to that length to force an animation past the filter, sure, go ahead. They probably REALLY want it, then. What is NOT "legal" is reaching directly into my mods, even when not using my code for it, and change my mod's behavior in ways I explicitly disagree with. That point of view has been confirmed by forum moderators and was the basis for certain mods being removed upon my request. Even versions of said
  5. @Lupine00 All right, where to start this? First by saying that if I wouldn't be similarly upset about what happened, I wouldn't be here, writing postings in your thread. I still have no clue what happened back then. I mean, if course I know WHAT happened in terms of events, I just can't wrap my head around it as to WHY it happened. It was one of these things that start with a minor disagreement and then escalate so fast that when it was over, I wondered how it just could have gotten to this. Particularly since we seemed to be on mostly amicable terms for most of the tim
  6. Well, yes? There seem to be many players who do not want to play this quest, so I added a convenient way out for them. Mind you that this applies to just the ONE dialogue when first meeting Chloe. If you opt to save her, the quest will not get abandoned later, even should you opt to dismiss her. Your way of handling the quest should still work, although I have never tested dismissing her while the quest is running.
  7. I can see your postings just fine. I don't put people on ignore for having one silly disagreement with me, after years of mostly cordial exchanges. Albeit seeing you constantly throwing spite at me sinceever I said no to that one feature you wanted to have (and ironically enough I changed my mind on later) does make me admittedly sad.
  8. Eeek! Bad Kimy! Sorry, everyone! New version will be up soon! EDIT: New/corrected version is up!
  9. That's outdated information. The filter had a bug that was still persistent in 5.0, but it's fixed in 5.1. Including you, there are people raging against the filter really all over the place, but what they did and are still doing boils down to throwing spite at me for my code not being 100% bug-free. Whether or not you think that's a fair thing to do, considering that no software is bug-free, is up to you, I guess. That's super easy to do in DD5. It has API functions that do all the work for you and select valid animations based on your scene actors' current "acces
  10. I will check if I maybe forgot to add them to the code removing these items. Not that I'd ever do such a thing...
  11. DCL 8.5 was based on DD4, which means it does NOT make use of DD's improved device handling code in many places. It should be much, much faster in DCL 9.
  12. Devious Devices 5.1 - Added: New MCM Toggle "Use Animation Filter for Creatures" that if disabled, will make DD bypass the animation filter completely when creatures are present in any animation. Otherwise, the filter will at least try to hide restraints etc. This toggle is meant as a debug/fallback solution if users are experiencing filter-related issues with creature animations. - Fixed: The animation filter is now using a workaround preventing it from occasionally replacing animations when SexLab's internal state isn't ready for it. Stuck/Stacked/T-boned etc. animations should no
  • Create New...