Sexlab Submit 01SEP14 1133

[guyver]

 

 

 

Auto Surrender does it work ?? even after setting % to 90 it doesnt kick in at all this feature from the start when it was implemented never worked for me 

Have you tried setting it to 0%, closing the menu screen, getting the message about it being turned off, then resetting it back to 90% or whatever to test?

 

I tried to add something in with one of the more recent updates to make this unnecessary, but for the longest time, this step was required with each update.

yes tried that it was 0% by default i set it to 30% and received a message "auto surrender is on' or something it didnt worked then set it to 0% and then after a while set it 90% still didnt worked i always have to press V to submit

Then I don't really know why it isn't working.  It always works for me when I test it.  All I can suggest is making a log when you are trying to auto surrender and it does nothing and then posting it.

 

 

i have the same problem on the last version, even while setting both at 100%.

 

pap log.rar

[luffyboy]

To clarify arousal speech bonus is = ((arousal / 100)^2) * 20 , hence for example:

• for 50 arousal you get +5 bonus
• for 70 arousal you get +10 bonus
• for 100 arousal you get +20 bonus

Meaning that for low arousal values effect would be minor, but at very high arousal levels NPCs would very cooperative.

 

Just to clarify, you are referring to NPC arousal right?

[dje34]

 

To clarify arousal speech bonus is = ((arousal / 100)^2) * 20 , hence for example:

• for 50 arousal you get +5 bonus
• for 70 arousal you get +10 bonus
• for 100 arousal you get +20 bonus

Meaning that for low arousal values effect would be minor, but at very high arousal levels NPCs would very cooperative.

Just to clarify, you are referring to NPC arousal right?

 

 

Read the posts, man !

 

To clarify arousal speech bonus is = ((arousal / 100)^2) * 20 , hence for example:

• for 50 arousal you get +5 bonus
• for 70 arousal you get +10 bonus
• for 100 arousal you get +20 bonus

Meaning that for low arousal values effect would be minor, but at very high arousal levels NPCs would very cooperative.

 

 

 

Most Recent Changes

28DEC13 2046

• Speech bonus if you are a Thane.  +10  to civilians of a hold in which you are a Thane, +5 to Guards and the Jarl.
• Add in support for SL Arousal that adds to speech bonus based on target's arousal.  Assuming the faction rank used to store a variable on the NPC goes from 0-100, looks like the total speech bonus will be between +0-20.
• Lower the IsHostileNPC() catch-all Target.GetBaseAV("Aggression") >= 2 check to >= 1.
• Added proper check to make sure Dawnguard and/or Dragonborn DLC are installed to avoid potential NONE errors.
• Broke up some of the misc functions in _SLSubmitQuest into a new script called _SLSubmitFunctions.

 

[dkatryl]

i have the same problem on the last version, even while setting both at 100%.

pap log.rar

This is what I saw:

 

 

[12/29/2013 - 03:54:55PM] ERROR: Cannot call GetAV() on a None object, aborting function call

stack:

 [Active effect 28 on  (00000014)]._SLSubmitAutoSurrenderEffect.OnHit() - "_SLSubmitAutoSurrenderEffect.psc" Line 31

[12/29/2013 - 03:54:55PM] Warning: Assigning None to a non-object variable named "::temp3"

stack:

 [Active effect 28 on  (00000014)]._SLSubmitAutoSurrenderEffect.OnHit() - "_SLSubmitAutoSurrenderEffect.psc" Line 31

[12/29/2013 - 03:54:55PM] ERROR: Cannot call GetBaseAV() on a None object, aborting function call

stack:

 [Active effect 28 on  (00000014)]._SLSubmitAutoSurrenderEffect.OnHit() - "_SLSubmitAutoSurrenderEffect.psc" Line 31

[12/29/2013 - 03:54:55PM] Warning: Assigning None to a non-object variable named "::temp4"

stack:

 [Active effect 28 on  (00000014)]._SLSubmitAutoSurrenderEffect.OnHit() - "_SLSubmitAutoSurrenderEffect.psc" Line 31

[12/29/2013 - 03:54:55PM] ERROR: Cannot divide by zero

stack:

 [Active effect 28 on  (00000014)]._SLSubmitAutoSurrenderEffect.OnHit() - "_SLSubmitAutoSurrenderEffect.psc" Line 31

[12/29/2013 - 03:54:55PM] ERROR: Cannot call GetRace() on a None object, aborting function call

stack:

 [Active effect 28 on  (00000014)]._SLSubmitAutoSurrenderEffect.OnHit() - "_SLSubmitAutoSurrenderEffect.psc" Line 31

[12/29/2013 - 03:54:55PM] ERROR: Cannot call GetRace() on a None object, aborting function call

stack:

 [Active effect 28 on  (00000014)]._SLSubmitAutoSurrenderEffect.OnHit() - "_SLSubmitAutoSurrenderEffect.psc" Line 31

 

 

 

The line it is complaining about, 31, is the main If check line:

If (_SLConfig.modActive && ((PlayerRef.GetAV("Health")/PlayerRef.GetBaseAV("Health")) < (_SLConfig.AutoSubmit)) && PlayerRef.GetRace() != Werewolf && PlayerRef.GetRace() != VampireLord && _SLSubmitSurrenderGlobal.GetValue() == 0)

PlayerRef is what is being said is the None object in all of those complaints.  PlayerRef is simply game.GetPlayer() defined on the script, making it a little faster than using that function.  PlayerRef is properly defined in the Properties window.

 

So I don't know what your problem is, but something is affecting the script from working properly.  You have a loose script for some reason, not current version, the number of OTHER errors shown in your log, I don't know, but something is preventing it from recognizing PlayerRef as being the player.

[dkatryl]

Well now that you've added SL Aroused support, you of course need to add functionality so that bandits will 'have another turn' on a bound player if their arousal gets high enough.

 

Or at least, that's where I dream the progression goes.

They already basically do that if you have the 'Repeat' option turned on.

[Ashra XIII]

 

Well now that you've added SL Aroused support, you of course need to add functionality so that bandits will 'have another turn' on a bound player if their arousal gets high enough.

 

Or at least, that's where I dream the progression goes.

They already basically do that if you have the 'Repeat' option turned on.

 

 

I know, and it'd only be a small benefit, but the main difference might be that, since it's based on the bandit's arousal, they wouldn't necessarily need line of sight. One of the main problems with the 'bound' stage of Submit, as I see it, is that sandboxing enemies almost never see my character sitting there all helpless. The only time they do is when they basically hover right over her (because they've nothing better to do) and nab her the very first time she fails an attempt.

[dkatryl]

Meh, remove LOS from the check and it's basically the same thing.  But then I'd need to make a separate check for that vs the regular initial surrender, because they both use the same magic effect script to select the aggressors.

[dkatryl]

Hrm, while looking at the auto surrender issue, one thing led to another, and I wound up testing the werewolf/vampire lord shout thingy, and there is apparently a bug in there that makes you get stuck in place after you use it.  So, I need to look into that.

 

I'll likely update sometime later today to address that.

[pinky6225]

 

 

Well now that you've added SL Aroused support, you of course need to add functionality so that bandits will 'have another turn' on a bound player if their arousal gets high enough.

 

Or at least, that's where I dream the progression goes.

They already basically do that if you have the 'Repeat' option turned on.

 

 

I know, and it'd only be a small benefit, but the main difference might be that, since it's based on the bandit's arousal, they wouldn't necessarily need line of sight. One of the main problems with the 'bound' stage of Submit, as I see it, is that sandboxing enemies almost never see my character sitting there all helpless. The only time they do is when they basically hover right over her (because they've nothing better to do) and nab her the very first time she fails an attempt.

 

 

I've had that happen, submitted to two falmer that came running to support another falmer i'd just killed so I retreated from them so i was further back from where they had originally come running when i lost the fight so when they had bound me nothing actually happened even when it got up to 90% repeat chance which i assume is down to me being so far away from there sandbox position.

 

Having your captor move you to there base would get around it (make escaping harder) but i doubt each potential captor has a base location set so even if you had the follow while bound option like in the prison overhaul you'd have nowhere to follow them to

[nutluck]

 

 

 

Well now that you've added SL Aroused support, you of course need to add functionality so that bandits will 'have another turn' on a bound player if their arousal gets high enough.

 

Or at least, that's where I dream the progression goes.

They already basically do that if you have the 'Repeat' option turned on.

 

 

I know, and it'd only be a small benefit, but the main difference might be that, since it's based on the bandit's arousal, they wouldn't necessarily need line of sight. One of the main problems with the 'bound' stage of Submit, as I see it, is that sandboxing enemies almost never see my character sitting there all helpless. The only time they do is when they basically hover right over her (because they've nothing better to do) and nab her the very first time she fails an attempt.

 

 

I've had that happen, submitted to two falmer that came running to support another falmer i'd just killed so I retreated from them so i was further back from where they had originally come running when i lost the fight so when they had bound me nothing actually happened even when it got up to 90% repeat chance which i assume is down to me being so far away from there sandbox position.

 

Having your captor move you to there base would get around it (make escaping harder) but i doubt each potential captor has a base location set so even if you had the follow while bound option like in the prison overhaul you'd have nowhere to follow them to

 

 

They wouldn't have to have a base. In theory the PC could be set to just follow the NPC where ever they went. Give them x amount of range to wander. Kinda like how the NPC is done now if captured and i know a mod in FONV(yes I now it is a different game) has one where the PC is forced to follow a NPC, with a limited tether range they can move. Try and move beyond it and it just auto turns the PC back to facing the NPC. So try and run away and you suddenly turned 180 and are running back towards the NPC.

 

I have no clue how hard that was to code, just saying in theory it is possible and would work whether the NPC had a base or not.

 

Of course I am not going to ask dkatryl to do it, though if he reads this and feels inspired to do it I sure wouldn't complain.

 

[pinky6225]

There is a new mod to stick a belt on the player when bound so potentially you could change that so they follow first but i'm not sure how you would tell whether you have followed for long enough to be in a more populated area since i'd have thought with just following the NPC on his sandbox you may not get taken to a more populated area.

[dkatryl]

Ya'll are talking about stuff well beyond what I care to do.  If I do anything, it will be just making an alternative target select that doesn't have LOS.

 

Or just make the original one have it, which would probably solve a lot of the quirky "His back was momentarily turned and so didn't get selected" weird stuff.  The only downside to that is potentially having targets on the other side of a wall or something teleport to you.

 

Also, I've been fucking around with the player as werewolf/vampire sex stuff, couldn't figure out why it wasn't working anymore.  Then I just saw that the Framework updated to 1.32b, and that was one of the things fixed.  So... guess I can stop trying to figure out what I broke, when it wasn't me this time!

[nutluck]

There is a new mod to stick a belt on the player when bound so potentially you could change that so they follow first but i'm not sure how you would tell whether you have followed for long enough to be in a more populated area since i'd have thought with just following the NPC on his sandbox you may not get taken to a more populated area.

 

Well dkatryl has no interest in doing it, he made that clear many pages back. But I don't think you could have it set to make them take you to a more populated area. my suggestion was you would just be forced to follow them. So if they was in a camp you would be around their allies always as they wandered around as their property. If they was out in the wild you would just follow them around and if this worked with arousal who knows what all might happen then. It is a moot point unless someone makes a add on to submit, but a interesting discussion.

 

Ya'll are talking about stuff well beyond what I care to do.  If I do anything, it will be just making an alternative target select that doesn't have LOS.

 

Or just make the original one have it, which would probably solve a lot of the quirky "His back was momentarily turned and so didn't get selected" weird stuff.  The only downside to that is potentially having targets on the other side of a wall or something teleport to you.

 

Also, I've been fucking around with the player as werewolf/vampire sex stuff, couldn't figure out why it wasn't working anymore.  Then I just saw that the Framework updated to 1.32b, and that was one of the things fixed.  So... guess I can stop trying to figure out what I broke, when it wasn't me this time!

 

Oh I know which is why I said I wouldn't ask, cause I know it is beyond the scope of what you want to do. You made that clear before. I was meerly engaging in a hypothetical discussion.

 

I actually don't mind the teleporting thing as a compromise, sure it is a bit immersion breaking, but the game has limits. Especially if when you finished adding arousal support that any NPC in the radius that can be tagged would count as seeing the PC for purposes of arousal and lovers victim(Since they in theory should just kick in on their own if your mod registered with them). Of course you might want to have this as a on off switch like hardcore escape for those people that don't want it.

 

Need to go check out the changes to the framework upgrade.

[dkatryl]

Most Recent Changes
29DEC13 1633

• Fixed - DisablePlayerControls() mistakenly in the BeastShout code, getting stuck if target resisted.
• Updated - The Framework automatically assigns appropriate Werewolf/Vampire Lord animations if applicable, removed unnecessary BeastSex() function from _SLSubmitScene.
• Updated - Changed Target Select check from 'If (Target.HasLOS(PlayerRef))' to 'If (Target.GetDistance(PlayerRef) <= 250 || Target.HasLOS(PlayerRef))'.  This will make it more likely for failed escapes and such to trigger repeat assaults on the player.
• Updated - Changed Standard Target Cloak radius from 500 to 1000.
• Updated - Changed Repeat/Escape Target Cloak radius from 100 to 250.

Using http://www.creationkit.com/Unit as my reference, I figured increasing the ranges was probably just fine.  The closer range and/or has LOS seemed like a good compromise that would mostly prevent some random dude on the other side of the wall from being selected over the one right in front of you, but also should help with sandboxing and the NPC is right next to you with their back turned and can't seem to figure out that you are *right* there!

 

This was done and tested with SL 1.32b.

[nutluck]

Ok cool will give the new version a try after I update it.

[guyver]

 

i have the same problem on the last version, even while setting both at 100%.

pap log.rar

This is what I saw:

 

 

[12/29/2013 - 03:54:55PM] ERROR: Cannot call GetAV() on a None object, aborting function call

stack:

 [Active effect 28 on  (00000014)]._SLSubmitAutoSurrenderEffect.OnHit() - "_SLSubmitAutoSurrenderEffect.psc" Line 31

[12/29/2013 - 03:54:55PM] Warning: Assigning None to a non-object variable named "::temp3"

stack:

 [Active effect 28 on  (00000014)]._SLSubmitAutoSurrenderEffect.OnHit() - "_SLSubmitAutoSurrenderEffect.psc" Line 31

[12/29/2013 - 03:54:55PM] ERROR: Cannot call GetBaseAV() on a None object, aborting function call

stack:

 [Active effect 28 on  (00000014)]._SLSubmitAutoSurrenderEffect.OnHit() - "_SLSubmitAutoSurrenderEffect.psc" Line 31

[12/29/2013 - 03:54:55PM] Warning: Assigning None to a non-object variable named "::temp4"

stack:

 [Active effect 28 on  (00000014)]._SLSubmitAutoSurrenderEffect.OnHit() - "_SLSubmitAutoSurrenderEffect.psc" Line 31

[12/29/2013 - 03:54:55PM] ERROR: Cannot divide by zero

stack:

 [Active effect 28 on  (00000014)]._SLSubmitAutoSurrenderEffect.OnHit() - "_SLSubmitAutoSurrenderEffect.psc" Line 31

[12/29/2013 - 03:54:55PM] ERROR: Cannot call GetRace() on a None object, aborting function call

stack:

 [Active effect 28 on  (00000014)]._SLSubmitAutoSurrenderEffect.OnHit() - "_SLSubmitAutoSurrenderEffect.psc" Line 31

[12/29/2013 - 03:54:55PM] ERROR: Cannot call GetRace() on a None object, aborting function call

stack:

 [Active effect 28 on  (00000014)]._SLSubmitAutoSurrenderEffect.OnHit() - "_SLSubmitAutoSurrenderEffect.psc" Line 31

 

 

 

The line it is complaining about, 31, is the main If check line:

If (_SLConfig.modActive && ((PlayerRef.GetAV("Health")/PlayerRef.GetBaseAV("Health")) < (_SLConfig.AutoSubmit)) && PlayerRef.GetRace() != Werewolf && PlayerRef.GetRace() != VampireLord && _SLSubmitSurrenderGlobal.GetValue() == 0)

PlayerRef is what is being said is the None object in all of those complaints.  PlayerRef is simply game.GetPlayer() defined on the script, making it a little faster than using that function.  PlayerRef is properly defined in the Properties window.

 

So I don't know what your problem is, but something is affecting the script from working properly.  You have a loose script for some reason, not current version, the number of OTHER errors shown in your log, I don't know, but something is preventing it from recognizing PlayerRef as being the player.

 

 

i've made some more test with a fresh start on the newest build you popped up at the download page, few times got autosurrender activated the other were unsuccessful.

 

pap log.rar

[Ashra XIII]

Oh very nice, thanks dkatryl!

[germanicus]

good work dk. Thanks.

[Pinute]

note to self: don't expect to start a game with a stable mod selection over the Xmas holidays

 

Thanks for the updates, they sound very nice.

[dkatryl]

i've made some more test with a fresh start on the newest build you popped up at the download page, few times got autosurrender activated the other were unsuccessful.

pap log.rar

That log was ~1.9mb and just shy of 12 THOUSAND lines of misc warnings and errors, but doing a word search for the term 'Submit' came up with 0 matches.  It didn't even return what I saw in the previous log, something that was repeated several times in the first log.

 

I think you may have some other stuff choking up your papyrus.

[woody1213]

Running into a CTD when saving after consensual sex with new version of Sex Lab (1.32) when using Submit.  So uninstalled 1.32 and reverted back to 1.31 and the problem went away.  Upgraded again to 1.32 to test and tried again to save after consensual sex and CTD.  Anyone else having this issue?

[nutluck]

Running into a CTD when saving after consensual sex with new version of Sex Lab (1.32) when using Submit.  So uninstalled 1.32 and reverted back to 1.31 and the problem went away.  Upgraded again to 1.32 to test and tried again to save after consensual sex and CTD.  Anyone else having this issue?

 

Not something I have run into. Every blue moon I have a crash after a sex animation but I think that is just because of the number of mods I use and that Skyrim is not the most stable game under the best of circumstances.

[RUD3DUD3]

 

Running into a CTD when saving after consensual sex with new version of Sex Lab (1.32) when using Submit.  So uninstalled 1.32 and reverted back to 1.31 and the problem went away.  Upgraded again to 1.32 to test and tried again to save after consensual sex and CTD.  Anyone else having this issue?

 

Not something I have run into. Every blue moon I have a crash after a sex animation but I think that is just because of the number of mods I use and that Skyrim is not the most stable game under the best of circumstances.

 

crash after sex ??? running sexlab arousal mod ?? i bet you are if yes then arousal is your problem

[nutluck]

That is very possible, both SoS and arousal put a strain on papyrus, after i switched to SoS light it helped a lot.

[dkatryl]

Running into a CTD when saving after consensual sex with new version of Sex Lab (1.32) when using Submit.  So uninstalled 1.32 and reverted back to 1.31 and the problem went away.  Upgraded again to 1.32 to test and tried again to save after consensual sex and CTD.  Anyone else having this issue?

I seem to recall CTD's after sex was typically related to the free camera thingy.  I never use it for the most part, so I don't know, but I know Ashal made a point of locking the camera back down in 1.31 during the orgasm stage, but one of the patch notes for 1.32 said something about moving that to animation end.  Possibly related to that.

 

Beyond that, nothing was done with regards to consensual sex in Submit for several updates now, so that sounds like a Framework issue.