SexLab Framework Development

[tuxagent7]

17 minutes ago, Ashal said:

Oh god, I'm being quoted on it now...

*nervously paces back and forth*

 

----

 

As a side note, I literally just increased the limit in my dev build to 750 today. It's stupid and nothing nobody should ever need it... but thinking about including an extra download option that increases the limit to 1000 instead. It'll be a separate download, however. Just not entirely sure how to make it work smoothly internally yet.

 

Also... As a minor progress update, I have an install of gitlab back up again. However! SSH git pushes aren't working, which is a pretty major issue for a git site... So I need to resolve that first, and then it should be back up and functioning for those who wish to use it.

Lol yup even read the small prints

 

Made a backup copy of the post also

 

There is a lot of quality animations, it's so hard to choose from... at least the creatures and human are two separates limit

 

But 1000 is also boosting the strings count but with crashfixes no need to count the strings anymore

 

[Ashal]

21 minutes ago, tuxagent7 said:

Lol yup even read the small prints

 

Made a backup copy of the post also

 

There is a lot of quality animations, it's so hard to choose from... at least the creatures and human are two separates limit

 

But 1000 is also boosting the strings count but with crashfixes no need to count the strings anymore

 

String count is a weird issue I'm unsure how to safely work around... In addition to the increase to 750 for animations, I've also decreased the number expressions and voices that can be installed down to 375... This is already way more voice/expression slots than I expect ANYBODY would ever need. This, plus the potential string count is why I've lowered the   Blah. I don't need to overcomplicate my response on this x.x

 

Voice and expression count have been lowered, as they are largely unnecessary compared to the requests for new animation slots. This is partly because of string count concerns from adding so many new aliases with attached scripts. Why bother including voice and expression scripts on the excess alias slots?  I've removed a portion of the existing slots for voice/expressions, in favor of adding slots that are only for creature animations. Previously these slots would've been used for all 3 use cases. Though I will say I'm developing 1.63 right now with SE as the lead platform, Oldrim issues aren't the biggest driver. I'm also yet to find any evidence string count is a driving issue with SSE, it seems to be debated currently. But I'm paranoid... So dealing with it anyway.

 

Edit: through multiple (late night drunken) edits, I've overcomplicated it anyway. Fuck me.

 

Less voice and expression slots. More animation slots for both creatures and humans. Hopefully, less strings added to the string count?

[MadMansGun]

12 minutes ago, tuxagent7 said:

but with crashfixes no need to count the strings anymore

unless crashfixes does not run right on your computer that is.

[tuxagent7]

28 minutes ago, Ashal said:

 

Less voice and expression slots. More animation slots for both creatures and humans. Hopefully, less strings added to the string count?

I always asked myself why 500 voices and 500 expressions lol Good idea ! Edit : Got 23 and 13 hehehe

 

I got paranoids without crash fixes when i saw my strings counts go up to 57000 so i installed it to be sure but i made a new new game again and right back at 45000 that go up fast

 

28 minutes ago, MadMansGun said:

unless crashfixes does not run right on your computer that is.

I hope it is lol still i never got to 65000

 

Always making a new new game to install more mods or streamline the load order with merges

 

 

[Ashal]

2 minutes ago, tuxagent7 said:

I always asked myself why 500 voices and 500 expressions lol Good idea !

 

1

Because they use the same slots as creature animations. So more creature animations = more voice/expression slots. Which is why I'm looking to change it during the increase to 750/1000.

[WaxenFigure]

6 hours ago, Ashal said:

String count is a weird issue I'm unsure how to safely work around... In addition to the increase to 750 for animations, I've also decreased the number expressions and voices that can be installed down to 375... This is already way more voice/expression slots than I expect ANYBODY would ever need. This, plus the potential string count is why I've lowered the   Blah. I don't need to overcomplicate my response on this x.x

 

Voice and expression count have been lowered, as they are largely unnecessary compared to the requests for new animation slots. This is partly because of string count concerns from adding so many new aliases with attached scripts. Why bother including voice and expression scripts on the excess alias slots?  I've removed a portion of the existing slots for voice/expressions, in favor of adding slots that are only for creature animations. Previously these slots would've been used for all 3 use cases. Though I will say I'm developing 1.63 right now with SE as the lead platform, Oldrim issues aren't the biggest driver. I'm also yet to find any evidence string count is a driving issue with SSE, it seems to be debated currently. But I'm paranoid... So dealing with it anyway.

 

Edit: through multiple (late night drunken) edits, I've overcomplicated it anyway. Fuck me.

 

Less voice and expression slots. More animation slots for both creatures and humans. Hopefully, less strings added to the string count?

 

Have you considered moving the whole table of animations to JContainers?  Yes, that's another dependency but it doesn't have those dumb  as hell 128 max array limits and you can use it's search functions against the keywords and simplify a lot of your own code.  The big hangup?  I don't know if jcontainers is even remotely ready for SE.

[markdf]

9 hours ago, Ashal said:

String count is a weird issue I'm unsure how to safely work around... In addition to the increase to 750 for animations, I've also decreased the number expressions and voices that can be installed down to 375... This is already way more voice/expression slots than I expect ANYBODY would ever need. This, plus the potential string count is why I've lowered the   Blah. I don't need to overcomplicate my response on this x.x

 

I'm also yet to find any evidence string count is a driving issue with SSE, it seems to be debated currently. But I'm paranoid... So dealing with it anyway.

I've received several SSE saves that purportedly were suffering from the string-table issue. They did have strings count hovering near the old limit, but they also had ridiculous numbers of scripts actively running and huge excesses of script instances (>350,000 in one case). And they were all running SkyBirds. Make of it what you will.

[EphemeralSagacity]

I've definitely reproed the string count bug in SSE.  No meh321 fix either

[Skullered]

Is it possible to have a version that has a LOWER amount of slots (unpopular request, I know)? I'm not a huge fan of having hundreds of animations as it makes the game incredibly unstable (as well as jarring when switching from a butter smooth animation to a robotic clipping mess), and all the unused slots still use up several amounts of scriptinstances, causing a dramatic increase to your save's file size

[Blaze69]

9 minutes ago, Skullered said:

Is it possible to have a version that has a LOWER amount of slots (unpopular request, I know)? I'm not a huge fan of having hundreds of animations as it makes the game incredibly unstable (as well as jarring when switching from a butter smooth animation to a robotic clipping mess), and all the unused slots still use up several amounts of scriptinstances, causing a dramatic increase to your save's file size

^About this, it has been said that the more animation slots SL has, the longer the delays when starting scenes, right? Among of ther things like lower stability and such. Not 100% sure on that, but if it's true, then I would be all for a reduced-slots version as well. If by having less anim slots available I can get a more stable and fluid experience, then I'm okay with having to drop some anims to fit that lower slot limit.

[markdf]

7 hours ago, EphemeralSagacity said:

I've definitely reproed the string count bug in SSE.  No meh321 fix either

Could you DM me any info you have on how it occurred? Like what mods (especially SKSE64 mods) you had installed? Maybe a savefile from before and after?

[Nazzzgul666]

On 7.1.2018 at 10:34 PM, Skullered said:

Is it possible to have a version that has a LOWER amount of slots (unpopular request, I know)? I'm not a huge fan of having hundreds of animations as it makes the game incredibly unstable (as well as jarring when switching from a butter smooth animation to a robotic clipping mess), and all the unused slots still use up several amounts of scriptinstances, causing a dramatic increase to your save's file size

We're talking about avaivable slots, not added animations. If you want less, install less, which is probably more important than even the amount of animations registered to sexlab. Even with a limit of 10 animations in SL, nobody stops you from installing 2k... if you want to restrict yourself, don't use the XXL version of FNIS. Normal version will actually prevent you from running the game if it's above the limit.

 

I'm not sure what you consider a "dramatic increase" of saves file size. I have almost every SLAL pack avaivable on LL and my saves after ~60 hours playing are below 10k Kb, below 1k Kb for the SKSE save which i consider a quite reasonable number.

[Skullered]

1 hour ago, Nazzzgul666 said:

We're talking about avaivable slots, not added animations. If you want less, install less, which is probably more important than even the amount of animations registered to sexlab. Even with a limit of 10 animations in SL, nobody stops you from installing 2k... if you want to restrict yourself, don't use the XXL version of FNIS. Normal version will actually prevent you from running the game if it's above the limit.

 

I'm not sure what you consider a "dramatic increase" of saves file size. I have almost every SLAL pack avaivable on LL and my saves after ~60 hours playing are below 10k Kb, below 1k Kb for the SKSE save which i consider a quite reasonable number.

On 1/7/2018 at 10:34 PM, Skullered said:

Is it possible to have a version that has a LOWER amount of slots (unpopular request, I know)?

I clearly said slots in my post. I know you can just decide to not install any SL animations, however all the unused slots still use up unnecessary space on your save file (up to 200KB, and making script scalpel freak out).

 

For comparison:

SL Default (500 slots):









 

Quests overridden with less aliases and scripts (125 slots):

 

I don't have the XXL version of FNIS, nor will I ever use it due to potentially decreased stability, as well as being totally unnecessary when I use below 4,000 animation files.

[Nazzzgul666]

53 minutes ago, Skullered said:

I clearly said slots in my post. I know you can just decide to not install any SL animations, however all the unused slots still use up unnecessary space on your save file (up to 200KB, and making script scalpel freak out).

 

 

Your bothered by 200KB?

[Nazzzgul666]

2 minutes ago, Skullered said:

6.789 KB

6.532 KB

yeah, have headaches and was confused. Nevertheless... 200kb.. whatever. 

[Skullered]

8 minutes ago, Nazzzgul666 said:

Your bothered by 200KB?

I am. And if it doesn't bother you, that's totally fine, hence why I suggested a separate version. If you don't want less slots, you don't have to.

[ejess102]

I hope this is isn't the wrong place for this question. I've been trying to limit the amount of registered animations for Sexlab. Following the tip in another thread (can't remember which one) I edited the "sslAnimationDefaults" file and commented out the animations I don't want from the LoadAnimations() function which worked wonders. I tried to do the same for the creature animations by editing the LoadCreatureAnimations() function in the "sslCreatureAnimationDefaults" file but that doesn't seem to work. Every animation I comment out still get's registered when I enable the creature animations in Sexlab. 

 

How are the base creature animation registered in Sexlab? What am I missing?

[mentalmike72]

On 1/6/2018 at 7:02 PM, WaxenFigure said:

Yes you can, it'll take some work.  Since Ashal has stated the next version of the framework will be coming real soon though I would wait a bit before starting so you don't end up repeating your effort.

can you please teach me how? im really tired of handpicking and suppressing animations everytime im in the mood for something

[Ashal]

@ejess102 There is no difference. Assuming you recompiled sslCreatureAnimationDefaults correctly there is no reason it wouldn't work the same.

 

My guess as to why would be either

1. You also have more nasty critters installed or other such mods, which as far as I remember, in the past at least, annoying overwrites this file with its own version instead of extending it. So if you're using Mod Organizer and it, or some other mod, is giving priority to its version over your recompiled version.
2. You're trying this from a save file where the sslCreatureAnimationDefaults script was actively running at the time, which Skyrim doesn't like and causes it to ignore newer versions of the script and use the old one instead. Try on a new game to confirm this, or check the papyrus debug log for mentions of the script.

[Ashal]

On 1/6/2018 at 6:16 PM, WaxenFigure said:

Have you considered moving the whole table of animations to JContainers?  Yes, that's another dependency but it doesn't have those dumb  as hell 128 max array limits and you can use it's search functions against the keywords and simplify a lot of your own code.  The big hangup?  I don't know if jcontainers is even remotely ready for SE.

2

If I did anything like this, I'd instead just make my own implementation with SexLab's SKSE plugin. In fact, I actually started to do just that awhile back, but unfortunately, I couldn't come up with an acceptable solution to keep it backward compatible with existing SexLab mods to avoid breaking pretty much every SexLab mod out so I scrapped it. But it's a lesson learned for next time I build a framework (still want to do my own for Fallout 4).

 

SexLab itself is more or less stuck with certain roundabout ways of doing things because it was made back before a lot of the better methods and tools we have now existed and I don't want to break backward compatibility when there are so many legacy mods that'd never get the needed fixes/update to work. It's fairly unlikely, but maybe if I ever get bored enough and don't have anything else to work I'll say fuck it and start a SexLab 2 from scratch so I could have an excuse to break compatibility.

[RitualClarity]

5 minutes ago, Ashal said:

If I did anything like this, I'd instead just make my own implementation with SexLab's SKSE plugin. In fact, I actually started to do just that awhile back, but unfortunately, I couldn't come up with an acceptable solution to keep it backward compatible with existing SexLab mods to avoid breaking pretty much every SexLab mod out so I scrapped it. But it's a lesson learned for next time I build a framework (still want to do my own for Fallout 4).

 

SexLab itself is more or less stuck with certain roundabout ways of doing things because it was made back before a lot of the better methods and tools we have now existed and I don't want to break backward compatibility when there are so many legacy mods that'd never get the needed fixes/update to work. It's fairly unlikely, but maybe if I ever get bored enough and don't have anything else to work I'll say fuck it and start a SexLab 2 from scratch so I could have an excuse to break compatibility.

Bulid it ... they will cum... um... come

 

If you have the time in your already busy schedule why not create a fork of Sexlab, develop it from the ground up with better tools. Build it better, faster, stronger... lol.. If it is different, perhaps different name it won't need to be comparable. Conversions would be done I am fairly confident for many of the mods that have been abandoned. Finally, if you can work closely with the XXSE developers and Jcontanairs and any other tools that are going to be needed and see if there is cross compatibility, you might even be able to use this new system for ol'rim, Skyrim SE, and even Fallout 4 edition and possibly future versions provided the support tools are also updated to those games.

 

A lot of work. I can only imagine how much this would take however, once done as I understand from the reading etc, it will be much more robust and flexible. Less stress on the sex framework and in general should be more open and easy to work with not to mention if used for all the games mentioned above, a standard. Mods should be able to move through the versions and different games with less work on the authors part. Support should also be easier. If I understand this correctly.

[WaxenFigure]

2 hours ago, mentalmike72 said:

can you please teach me how? im really tired of handpicking and suppressing animations everytime im in the mood for something

If I have to explain it to you then you are not ready to do the work.  You have to be able to read code and if you could read code, you could do this because you could see what needs to be added and changed.

[MadMansGun]

23 hours ago, ejess102 said:

I hope this is isn't the wrong place for this question. I've been trying to limit the amount of registered animations for Sexlab. Following the tip in another thread (can't remember which one) I edited the "sslAnimationDefaults" file and commented out the animations I don't want from the LoadAnimations() function which worked wonders. I tried to do the same for the creature animations by editing the LoadCreatureAnimations() function in the "sslCreatureAnimationDefaults" file but that doesn't seem to work. Every animation I comment out still get's registered when I enable the creature animations in Sexlab. 

 

How are the base creature animation registered in Sexlab? What am I missing?

you may need to use a save editor to delete the old script from your save file, and you will need to rebuild the animation registry.

 

5 hours ago, Ashal said:

You also have more nasty critters installed or other such mods, which as far as I remember, in the past at least, annoying overwrites this file with its own version instead of extending it. So if you're using Mod Organizer and it, or some other mod, is giving priority to its version over your recompiled version.

MNC does not touch the sslCreatureAnimationDefaults, it extends the sslCreatureAnimationSlots script with it's own script (MoreNastyCrittersFactory.psc), but there is a optional patch for my version of MNC that does edit some things in the sslCreatureAnimationSlots script (the spiders and chaurus bugs)

 

and there is another optional download for sslActorAlias, but that's mostly just for fixing the control problem with the "SexLab Werewolves" mod (but i hear that it fixes things for vampire lords as well).

 

edit

4 hours ago, Ashal said:

If I did anything like this, I'd instead just make my own implementation with SexLab's SKSE plugin. In fact, I actually started to do just that awhile back, but unfortunately, I couldn't come up with an acceptable solution to keep it backward compatible with existing SexLab mods to avoid breaking pretty much every SexLab mod out so I scrapped it. But it's a lesson learned for next time I build a framework (still want to do my own for Fallout 4).

 

SexLab itself is more or less stuck with certain roundabout ways of doing things because it was made back before a lot of the better methods and tools we have now existed and I don't want to break backward compatibility when there are so many legacy mods that'd never get the needed fixes/update to work. It's fairly unlikely, but maybe if I ever get bored enough and don't have anything else to work I'll say fuck it and start a SexLab 2 from scratch so I could have an excuse to break compatibility.

don't kill SLAL or Creature Framework and all should be good....or at least make it so SexLab can read SLAL based json files directly if you do.

[ejess102]

5 hours ago, Ashal said:

@ejess102 There is no difference. Assuming you recompiled sslCreatureAnimationDefaults correctly there is no reason it wouldn't work the same.

 

My guess as to why would be either

1. You also have more nasty critters installed or other such mods, which as far as I remember, in the past at least, annoying overwrites this file with its own version instead of extending it. So if you're using Mod Organizer and it, or some other mod, is giving priority to its version over your recompiled version.
2. You're trying this from a save file where the sslCreatureAnimationDefaults script was actively running at the time, which Skyrim doesn't like and causes it to ignore newer versions of the script and use the old one instead. Try on a new game to confirm this, or check the papyrus debug log for mentions of the script.

 

It was indeed another another mod that was overwriting the file. It's working as intended now. Thanks!

 

1 hour ago, MadMansGun said:

you may need to use a save editer to delete the old script from your save file, and you will need to rebuild the animation registry.

It worked wonders. Thanks for the suggestion!

[Bartos]

ow can i turn off that the animal or creatures dont have sex random times?