Fomm - Custom Build - 0.14.11.13

[prideslayer]

I'm attaching a test build of 0.14.11.10 for some betatesting types before I rebuild the installer and update the OP.

 

This isn't a big update, only one new thing, open ticket that's been bugging me for a while -- no NVSE version check available to the CS scripts -- 'fommscript'/XML only.

 

This introduces a new function for C# install scripts (script.cs) that returns true if the NVSE (or FOSE) version is >= the value you give it, false otherwise. Modders can use this to display an error indicating where to get the latest NVSE, or just abort the install. It returns false if NVSE isn't present at all as well.

 

The function is MeetsMinimumScriptExtenderVersion(a, b, c, d)

 

a is mandatory, b/c/d are optional and default to 0. The four values represent the four positions in the version number, so NVSE 0.4.3.2 would be checked via "MeetsMinimumScriptExtenderVersion(0,4,3,2)".

 

You can still use the other functions (GetFOSEVersion / GetNVSEVersion / ScriptExtenderNewerThan "1.2.3") in the non-c# scripts. I thought about making those functions available to C# as well but couldn't come up with a good reason. This method in the C# works fine in NVSE and FOSE C# scripts without changes to the script, and doesn't do "stupid things" like appending an additional ".0" to the end of the version you pass in.

 

Edit: 8 downloads, no complaints, I'm removing the file. OP will be updated when I release next.

[prideslayer]

Only one taker eh? Guess I'll nave to update the OP today or tomorrow and just let the masses be betatesters.

[Halstrom]

Only one taker eh? Guess I'll nave to update the OP today or tomorrow and just let the masses be betatesters.

And sorry being the only taker to inform you I haven't actually installed it yet either, will do so some stage over the weekend when I get some NV time

[prideslayer]

That's fine. I'm more concerned that I didn't break any existing shit, which should be impossible, but.. "should be" haha right. If nothing existing is broken but someone has a problem with the new functionality, that's easier to address. I tested the new stuff and it worked fine.

[prideslayer]

Can any users here tell me if they actually say 'no' to that "make a copy of original file?" when adding a fomod to the package manager, and if so, how distraught they'd be if I removed that functionality? It's the difference between a file copy and a file move, and I'd like to just eliminate the move option and always leave your downloaded file intact.

[RitualClarity]

Can any users here tell me if they actually say 'no' to that "make a copy of original file?" when adding a fomod to the package manager, and if so, how distraught they'd be if I removed that functionality? It's the difference between a file copy and a file move, and I'd like to just eliminate the move option and always leave your downloaded file intact.

 

I wouldn't be "distraught".. I would like the "just eliminate the move option and always leave your downloaded file intact." option. In my opinion your original files should never be messed with by a manager.

 

However others might like their mod managers messing with their files

[t3589]

I always always always, either a. rename the file to fomod and then install, if it's good to go.  Or b. repackage them myself as a 7z and rename to fomod.  I think there was a reason I developed this strict method way back when I was using the old version of FOMM (not the one here), because the automated bit didn't work properly.

 

True fomods I just drop right in and go.

[prideslayer]

T3589 that's not what I'm talking about.

 

When you say "add fomod" (you can do this with .fomod, .7z, .zip, whatever -- assuming they are 'fomod ready'), it pops up a window asking you if you'd like to copy the file.

 

If you say yes, it just does that and goes on.

 

If you say no, it will copy the file you pointed it to, and then delete it -- meaning if you delete it from the fomm package manager, you have to download it again.

 

I'm talking about getting rid of the question, along with the 'no' option.

[RitualClarity]

 

I'm talking about getting rid of the question, along with the 'no' option.

I am all for it..

[t3589]

Sorry I misunderstood.  I'm with ritual.  If you think about it you're not removing a 'no', so much as you're removing a 'yes' to 'let's eat up more bandwidth by re-downloading mods left and right'.

[KainsChylde]

Sounds great to me. I always say yes when it asks, one less step during installation is a good thing methinks.

[RitualClarity]

Sounds great to me. I always say yes when it asks, one less step during installation is a good thing methinks.

 

Exactly. If a user decides to delete the file.. they can delete it themselves later.

[jaam]

I always answer yes also.

[Halstrom]

Can any users here tell me if they actually say 'no' to that "make a copy of original file?" when adding a fomod to the package manager, and if so, how distraught they'd be if I removed that functionality? It's the difference between a file copy and a file move, and I'd like to just eliminate the move option and always leave your downloaded file intact.

I accidentally did it the other day from the wrong directory, usually I copy the FOMODs into Data directory then activate them there, and then thought oh crap now I have to redownload it if I want to reinstall

So no I don't want it, feel free to remove it, it just reduces the click life of my mouse

[RitualClarity]

Wow not many people use that feature. Dont know anyone that does. Most I believe want to keep a separate copy safe somewhere else.. Too many times I have seen mods go "poof" and no longer available. Then I have to hunt down other copies or hit up others for a copy from them if I loose it.. I am going through this right now with my system as some are bad. Test.. find .. download.. test.. bad, find download.. pain in the alien green you know what. Not fun. Hundreds of mods with many versions.. most went bad.. Bad drive + silent corruption with bad memory + bad backup..= many mods lost... .. So I am so for removing that option.. I don't' want anything touching my originals except me

 

@Halstrom

 

  http://www.gizmag.com/airmouse-wearable-mouse/13993/   Check that out.. might be useful.. It definitely looks cool...

[Halstrom]

@Halstrom

 

  http://www.gizmag.com/airmouse-wearable-mouse/13993/   Check that out.. might be useful.. It definitely looks cool...

I got one of these for the laptop and it's pretty cool

http://www.geniusnet.com/Genius/wSite/ct?xItem=47711&ctNode=105

[prideslayer]

Ok, this change will be going into the next release.

[prideslayer]

New version in OP: 0.14.11.10

New in this version:

• No more "make copy" dialog -- this is always done.
• Installer now reports full version in add/remove programs.
• No more file renaming chopping off versions.

No loose file version yet, how many of you are still using *that* and.... why? Does it have something to do with MO?

 

If so, and speaking as someone who still hasn't used MO, you *should* just be managing FOMMs 'data dir' with MO, not the application itself, I think? For example, in FOMM change the data dir to something under the games data dir -- like data\fomm and move the files there manually -- I don't think changing that directory inside FOMM will actually move the files for you, but I haven't looked.

[niveuseverto]

Everto's here.

 

Just to confirm, this would be the correct method?

Command
E:\gameutils\FNV4GB\fnv4gb.exe
 
Arguments
-exe "E:\Steam\steamapps\common\Fallout New Vegas\FalloutNV.exe" -SteamAppID 22380

or should I put fnv4gb.exe/fnv4gb_helper.dll into the FNV folder and run from there?

 

EDIT - Something else, can I start using this with an existing savegame?

 

About FNV4GB - I'm already have code to run it correctly from FOMM, but haven't pushed it so far.

 

Hope will have my mind back in order this weekend. Got serious IRL problems, but now all seems to returning to normal...

 

-- edit: forgot to mention, that SteamAppID may be different in different regions.

[RitualClarity]

New version in OP: 0.14.11.10

New in this version:

• No more "make copy" dialog -- this is always done.
• Installer now reports full version in add/remove programs.
• No more file renaming chopping off versions.

 

Yea.. no more extra steps.. .

 

No loose file version yet, how many of you are still using *that* and.... why? Does it have something to do with MO?

About the "loose flies" comment.. I believe most use that term with MO.. Generally it is well .. loose files. The assets are not packed in a BSA.. Nothing special if I understand the term correctly. Mostly with MO you are encouraged NOT to mess with those BSA and make them "Loose" .. This shouldn't and doesn't have anything to do with FOMM as far as I understand it unless you ( Pride) intend on extracting all the BSA's as they are installed and make them "LOOSE" ( Textures, Meshes, Sound etc). No real benefit to doing so and I can see some problems doing it with FOMM. ( as there are with MO) Not sure what it means for FOMM though

 

 

If so, and speaking as someone who still hasn't used MO, you *should* just be managing FOMMs 'data dir' with MO, not the application itself, I think? For example, in FOMM change the data dir to something under the games data dir -- like data\fomm and move the files there manually -- I don't think changing that directory inside FOMM will actually move the files for you, but I haven't looked.

 

Let me help you there Pride. FOMM program is used and activated through MO. A user would open MO.. Select FOMM ( after setting it up as an executable in MO) and click Run. MO becomes inactive at this time and FOMM becomes active. Use FOMM as you would use it before. Place whatever mods you desire and install them as needed. HUD mods are a example here as they require viewing the other files to make the needed changes to the mods as they are installed. When finished.. Close FOMM. MO becomes active again. Those files you install now will be in MO's "Overwrite" folder. This usually is the last entry in MO's Priority list. It will override all the files below ( or lower) that priority.

 

My understanding is MO's virtual folder captures whatever changes you do during the time using FOMM and places all added files into the overwrite folder when FOMM has been closed. Now those files will still be in FOMM as I understand the process. If you do anything to the files in the overwrite folder. FOMM will freak out. I have been playing around with this and so far.. opening the Overwrite folder and copying the files and creating a folder and pasting those files into that new folder then opening FOMM again through MO to get access to the files and uninstalling those mods with FOMM causes those files to be removed from the Overwrites folder while not causing FOMM to freak out because it lost the files. At least as I believe the process to be.. One member here has done this and it worked fine for her. Link below.

 

http://www.loverslab.com/topic/37468-mo-nmm-and-unified-hud-huge-problem/

 

I have only played around briefly with this and reading many tutorials and guides on the web. Most don't deal with how FOMM will react when you use the "create mod" option on the overwrites folder in MO.

 

[KainsChylde]

After that well thought out and educational post I feel kinda bad for doing this to you, Ritual, but I'm fairly sure Pride was referring to loose FOMM files as opposed to the installer.

[RitualClarity]

After that well thought out and educational post I feel kinda bad for doing this to you, Ritual, but I'm fairly sure Pride was referring to loose FOMM files as opposed to the installer.

 

 

If so, and speaking as someone who still hasn't used MO, you *should* just be managing FOMMs 'data dir' with MO, not the application itself, I think?

That is the primary reason for the post I did.    Control of the application itself is how you control the 'data dir" in FOMM.

I wasn't sure about the "loose files" either.  However it is a common statement in relations to MO so I just wanted to clarify that relationship with Loose files and such. Just in case it was different from FOMM's reference as I don't know what it is in reference r/t FOMM.

 

Thanks KainsChylde.. I edited that post a bit to more directly focus on my comments in response to Pride so that perhaps it might be more understandable.. .. maybe.. then again maybe not.. .

[prideslayer]

After that well thought out and educational post I feel kinda bad for doing this to you, Ritual, but I'm fairly sure Pride was referring to loose FOMM files as opposed to the installer.

Yes that's what I meant.. haha. The fomm download as just a bunch of files in a zip, rather than the installer. Just wondering if anyone actually cares. I know a few nutjobs might prefer it without the installer because "argh change is scary" but more interested in any technical reasons not to use it.

[RitualClarity]

OH that is what you were talking about when mentioning "loose files"..

 

I prefer the loose files. I have grown to like placing it where I want it to be and not having an installer etc. The same goes with script extenders and any other program I get now a days. Preference isn't a necessity. (Go ahead Pride and call me a nutjob for preferring it this way   however I am not afraid of change )

 

As far as I know there isn't a technical reason to not put it in an installer.. For the newer or more inexperienced users it might even be better in an installer as it could better direct its installation and minimize user error r/t installation. It could in fact help cut down on tech support r/t installation and configuration.

 

I

[jaam]

I am also pretty sure my "installed" version of FOMM is way outdated. I always took the files and overwrote my directory. Except when I use my custom loose files.