help Altering bodyslots for armor and outfits

[BrineyBelfast]

I'm tearing my hair out trying to figure out what's causing this. An outfit which I'm trying to patch to slot 56 shows as both 56 and 52 in game. The original outfit used 32, 34, & 38. I don't even know where this 52 is coming from.

 

The patch was created in xEdit by duplicating the record into a new plugin and changing the bodyslot flags in both the ARMO and ARMA records (i.e. they both only have slot #56 enabled now). I then also opened up the _0 & _1 .nifs and made sure all of the BSDismemberSkinInstance node's partitions where also referencing slot 56.

 

I can see the armor equipped in the game, but it still (for some reason) consumes slot 52 as well...

 

-------

 

The outfit in question comes from the TAWOBA Remastered plugin. The slot usage for much of the plugin's outfits aren't entirely compatible with SL Survival's Half Naked Cover feature. As the bikini top now consumes slot 52, the HNC "Outfit" un-equips the bikini (then promptly itself as well as there would then be nothing in slot 56 either).

 

All the other outfits I've modified the slots for seem to work alright, it's just the bikini tops that are getting this extra slot.

 

SLS gives me the option to configure which slot it looks at to decide to equip the outfit, but the problem is this mysterious extra slot conflicts with the outfit SLS equips.

 

-------

 

I feel like there's some part of the process I'm missing, or something I'm misunderstanding. I'm not sure where to start looking or googling at this point so if you have any pointers I'd be very grateful.

[Seijin8]

36 minutes ago, BrineyBelfast said:

An outfit which I'm trying to patch to slot 56 shows as both 56 and 52 in game. The original outfit used 32, 34, & 38. I don't even know where this 52 is coming from.

Schlongs of Skyrim auto-adds 52 to items with slot 32 unless they have the SOS_Revelaing keyword.  "Clean schlongified armors" will remove this.  I'm guessing you switched it off 32 after this had taken effect.

 

If you are going to go through the trouble of tinkering with slot assignments, would be best to add SOS_Revealing to armors that you don't want this to happen to, and then in the "Armor Addon" record (ARMA in xEdit), add slot 52 to that, so that priority blocking makes the schlong (which is now technically equipped) invisible anyway.

39 minutes ago, BrineyBelfast said:

made sure all of the BSDismemberSkinInstance node's partitions where also referencing slot 56

Better yet, use NifSkope to convert those to NiSkinInstance, which means you won't have to do this ever again since it removes the slotmasking from the object.  Now only the ARMA/ARMO records matter for it.

 

Skyrim doesn't use BSDismemberSkinInstance data meaningfully except on slots for helmets/hair and neck (50 and 51); it is a holdover from Fallout and BSDSI on slot 56 will never matter.

[BrineyBelfast]

I see! Now that I think of it, I don't think I tried with a fresh boot of the game in the qasmoke cell.

If I loaded an existing save, quit to main menu, then loaded the qasmoke cell and gave myself a copy of that record, would it still have that slot assignment as a result of SOS? All signs point to yes. Just tested with a cold boot and indeed the slot was set correctly this time. This has actually technically solved my problem, although I'm still curious about your other suggestion

 

As for setting the ARMA record to use slot 52 intentionally, wouldn't that still cause the conflict which is the crux of the problem? The Half Naked cover feature equips an invisible outfit to slot 52, so my assumption is that any armor addons which use that slot would end up being unequipped by that invisible outfit. (although I feel like I'm not understanding the relationship between ARMO and ARMA correctly here).

 

I'll try converting the nif files too since that seems like a win-win anyways.

 

 

Thanks for your help

[Seijin8]

34 minutes ago, BrineyBelfast said:

As for setting the ARMA record to use slot 52 intentionally, wouldn't that still cause the conflict which is the crux of the problem? The Half Naked cover feature equips an invisible outfit to slot 52, so my assumption is that any armor addons which use that slot would end up being unequipped by that invisible outfit. (although I feel like I'm not understanding the relationship between ARMO and ARMA correctly here).

Caveat: I'm not familiar with the "Half Naked cover feature", so I can't speak to that specifically, but instead will just point out that there is a key difference between the slot masking in ARMA and ARMO records.

 

To state the obvious: ARMO effects equip-ability.  An Armor that equips to multiple slots must unequip any other items that share those slots.  This is why IMO most outfits should only ever equip to one position.  It makes no sense that equipping my Full Plate should unequip my underwear.

 

ARMA slot masking is about visibility of equipped items and works with the priority numbers.  If I equip underwear (slot 52 on both records, priority of 1, so it will hide a schlong which has priority 0 on the same slot), and then equip full-plate armor that I have marked as "SOS_Revealing" (so SOS won't automatically add slot 52 to the armor's equip mask), but add slot 52 to the ARMA record (which probably has a default priority of 5), then the underwear (or schlong) on slot 52 remains equipped, but it is hidden by the ARMA from the full plate which has a higher priority.

 

Now, a few notes with this:  quick saves seems to flip the masking priorities, so if you quick save and load from that save without quitting the same, objects that should be hidden by the ARMA slot priorities may show up again.  Cure this with another quick save and load.  (Gotta love this completely fucked up engine.)

 

Also, masking priorities seem to work from a "larger number covers smaller number" mechanism preferentially, so it occasionally loses the plot when you ask (for instance) 32 to cover 52.  I've never seen an issue using 52 to cover junk, 53 as shorts (that mask over 52), and 54 as longer pants that mask both 53 and 52.  That seems to work reliably in my testing.

 

So, if I decide my full plate (ARMO of 32) should also hide slots 35 (amulet), 46 (T-shirt or bra), 52 (underwear), 53 (shorts), 54 (pants/stockings), 56 (corset), then I just have to make sure all those slots are in the ARMA record, and that all of the items it is trying to hide have lower priorities.  (I tend to set full plate with such full coverage to a minimum of 10.)  I can equip all of those items, then throw on the full plate and those items disappear from view, but remain equipped.

 

IMO that is a far better system to use.  USLEEP did this in many cases with vanilla robes, and gauntlets/boots regularly do this with slots 34 and 38.

[BrineyBelfast]

Wow! That's fascinating. Thank you for the very detailed response, I hadn't realized the game handled multiple equips like that. I had thought there was some other flag that needed to be set which would prevent an item from consuming the slot or something.

 

It's super helpful having a better understanding of how that all works out. It'll make it much easier to be able to work out my own patches in the future. Thank you again for your help, I really appreciate it