Devious Devices - Integration 4.3a (2019-09-10)

[Lute]

1 hour ago, MrEsturk said:

Ok, I've isolated that it is a conflicting mod from a list of suspects (disabling them all fixed the glitch). Now the fun of figuring out which one is causing it. I swear modding Skyrim sometimes feels like being locked in an abusive relationship...

If you're running Slaverun Reloaded the implementation of the crawling animation in the MCM menu breaks this as it forces either the default idles or the crawling idles. If you comment out any lines mentioning 'crawl' in SLV_PeriodicCheck.psc and recompile it'll fix it, or you can wait for a bugfix.

 

On an unrelated note, I still need help with my offset bound animation issue; could somebody at least please link me to a 4.0 changelog?

 

 

[galgat]

15 minutes ago, Supertin said:

There are no hidden animations. If your issue was super obvious someone would have replied with a solution already.

The fnis output will list all animations files you have installed, there's nothing 'hidden'. It will show a count for alternate animations files installed seperately to the number of total 'regular' installed animations.

Don't know how you came up with those arbitrary animation numbers btw. DD did not jump from 1025 animations to 2842. lol?

 

If you think there's not enough value in whatever animations we add, well that's just like your opinion man.

 

 

 

-------------------------------

Besides all this talk about animation count is relatively pointless anyway. The biggest area for optimization is and will be for quite some time SLAL packs. Sexlab only has a limited amount of animation slots anyway. Nowadays pretty much anyone fills up the 500 available slots for human animations and probably creatures too. If we assume an average of 5 stages per animation slot you cant use more than 5000 (Or 7500 at most if Sexlab updates the limit to 750 at any point in time) animations through sexlab anyway. The rest of the animations that are filling up your fnis output (and thus are loaded into your game) will be wasted space. All the animations you have in your installed SLAL packs, but not checked in their MCM are wasting  3-7 slots each depending on how many stages they have.

The solution the community should be looking for is a way to clean up or customize their SLAL packs so they only include the animations you want to begin with. While an MCM for that ingame is convenient, it is incredibly wasteful. I'm not blaming the author of SLAL or anything either, it just wasn't much of a concern at the time I suppose.

   read back a few post, and you will see my testing, and what I found by doing it. 

[galgat]

19 minutes ago, Kimy said:

We added some 270 animations in 4.1 compared to 4.0. We certainly didn't double our count.

Most popular DD mods update to the newest version sooner or later. It would make very little sense to keep older versions around. You'd be stuck with old and potentially bugged versions of both the framework and content mods forever. A little example, in 4.1 I fixed a really annoying bug that caused NPCs to never reset their animations when devices got removed. Would you REALLY not want to have that fix, for one more SLAL pack you rarely get to see unless you let Skyrim play sex animations for 5 hours a day?

    Then why am I stopped at about 10400 with DDI4.1, and I can load 11803 no problem with DDI4.0

[galgat]

23 minutes ago, ttpt said:

I feel like we should just consider ourselves lucky and if you still haven't deleted 4.0 and wish to keep using it you should just stick to it. New people trying out DD for the first time won't have to make hard choices on new games because it will either work to their tastes or it will be too much and that's that.

 

As far as mods that have DD as a dependency, while I deeply respect deviously enslaved and it's ability to add interaction with stuff for DD, if it updates and makes DD4.1 a hard requirement I would probably give up on it. SD+ doesn't get a lot of updates so that's another one that would probably affect my decision but I won't have to worry about it for a while, it doesn't help that SD+ has both DD an ZAP as requirements, but getting rid of Zap doesn't work out for the mods that I care about like prison overhaul.

 

Just stay with 4.0 if it works for you and maybe by the time other mods with dependency on DD update the animation situation will get a solution, remember the whole string count limit was a big thing at one point but solutions surfaced even for that, and even adding any animation to the game was a big problem before FNIS came along.

   Absolutely! agree, I am glad I still have 4.0 for a fall back.

[Kimy]

4 minutes ago, galgat said:

    Then why am I stopped at about 10400 with DDI4.1, and I can load 11803 no problem with DDI4.0

Honestly, I have no clue what's going on there, but check the DD archive if you don't believe me, count the HKX files in there and compare to 4.0.

 

It's really just 270 more.

[Reesewow]

24 minutes ago, Supertin said:

The solution the community should be looking for is a way to clean up or customize their SLAL packs so they only include the animations you want to begin with. While an MCM for that ingame is convenient, it is incredibly wasteful. I'm not blaming the author of SLAL or anything either, it just wasn't much of a concern at the time I suppose.

This is a really big point to take seriously IMO - anyone who is enough of a power-modder to be running into these extreme load issues should probably learn how to manually edit SLAL packs to cull them down to reasonable sizes if they absolutely want to keep as many animations as possible at all times.  Users complaining about DD taking up too many animation slots while still running SLAL animations that they never see/aren't even registered in SL and hundreds of ZAP furniture idles of which 90% they will never see in their games seems extremely unhelpful - we all need to be our own personal modders sometimes and do our best to work within the realities of Skyrim's engine.

 

There is nothing magical about SLAL packs that makes them difficult to chop up and remove every animation you don't think you'd likely use in-game so that FNIS doesn't register it.  MadMansGun posted this just the other day as a basic how-to:

 

Quote

1. get a SLAL Pack that comes with it's txt source file.

2. delete animations you don't want from the txt.

3. run the SLAnimGenerate.pyw file (you need python 3).

4. use generatefnisformodders.exe and open the fnis list files for the SLAL Pack.

5. run GenerateFNISforUsers.exe.

6. pray that you did not fuck everything up.

7. re load/register the json files & animations in SLAL.

 

IMO this is *not* something that was ever intended to be handled by SLAL - SLAL's original purpose AFAIK was to provide animations authors and users an easy way to load animations into Sexlab that did not depend on a 3rd party modder's efforts like the Non-Sexlab Animation Pack mod, or even worse a full Sexlab update like prior to NSAP.  It makes no efforts to restrict FNIS load, just Sexlab slot load.

[ttpt]

 

I get a jump from like 1800 or so to 2500 in AA animations between DD4 and DD41, with the limit of 2000 someone mentioned my game obviously crashed on startup.

 

I can see how galgat's number check out, he also specifically mentioned during his test that he added more slal packs and newer versions of zap to inflate his number with a DD40 installation and even with a higher overall number the game works for him, which is consistent with my own tests. The issue still seems to be specifically AA animation but the solution I think for us for now is to just wait on other mods to update for 41 and then decide if we want to keep using them or not.

34 minutes ago, Kimy said:

A little example, in 4.1 I fixed a really annoying bug that caused NPCs to never reset their animations when devices got removed. Would you REALLY not want to have that fix

and like I've experienced that bug, but fixed that using console commands which given the skyrim engine I'm pretty used to doing, so I'm willing to live with that.

 

Maintaining an older version of the mod up on the other hand is pointless since there may be bigger bugs that are yet to be found and won't be fixed on the older ones, or can't be fixed due to gradual changes that may show up, it's like trying to maintain the 3.0 version but I'm sure there's people still running that and if it works for them that's fine.

[Piiska]

33 minutes ago, Supertin said:

 

The solution the community should be looking for is a way to clean up or customize their SLAL packs so they only include the animations you want to begin with.

This would be the ideal thing to do now I suppose. I've thought about doing it for a long while but never had the need and motivation because it's really time consuming when you have a lot of packs.

[Kimy]

I can't explain where these 700 additional AA would come from. As I said, we've added only about 200 new AA to the archive. The other 70 are idles.

[galgat]

19 minutes ago, Kimy said:

Honestly, I have no clue what's going on there, but check the DD archive if you don't believe me, count the HKX files in there and compare to 4.0.

 

It's really just 270 more.

   I did I even gave you the 270 animation added when i asked you in the Dev thread if that was what you had added.

 

     But something is funny here, because i can play with DDI 4.0 and have 11803 animations reading out in FNIS, and the game play's fine, but if I use DDI4.1, I can not load a game if My animations go over 10400. ( actually 10278 ) but when i played the dev version I had 10366. so I am guess in on the 10400 limit.

 

   Did you code something that would have given a false reading.  It makes not sense to me. as I said when i first discovered it. "I am at a loss", but the problems does exist. EDIT >> To the best of my Knowledge, and I know I am blond so sure I could miss, but It is what is happening to me.

 

   EDIT >> also from others that have PM'ed me I am not the only one.

[Nazzzgul666]

Another thought might be (and at this point i hope i didn't get it totally wrong, but i'm really not sure) to avoid AAs if possible. I'll explain what i understood so far:

There are offsets and AAs. AAs are prefered to items because they somehow ensure better the animation is used as intented, and DD switched from offsets to AA with DD4.0. Did i get that right so far?

If yes, i hope i'm not to bold if i suggest to go back to offsets in parts (i.e for some items), not only because of the limits. I've noticed some other stuff i don't like that much.

- sneaking: i have the "crawl on fours" animation installed that replaces sneaking. In earlier DD versions, that meant that i was crawling with my hands at my back if wearing an armbinder which i agree that it looks unrealistic but still fun. And realism is neither the reason i added all those mods nor i play Skyrim in the first place. If i wouldn't like the crawling, i wouldn't install it.

- running: my animation to run is replaced too when wearing armbinders. It's not that it looks bad, but i like my common running animation a lot better. It took me some years and a lot of tests to find it and i don't see why arms behind my back should cause my legs move 10 times faster than without. It doesn't fit especially in comparison, and if not necessary i'd prefer it not to be overwritten. That is, not more than neccessary of course. For items like hobble dresses and straight jackets with leg binders AA makes totally sense since it's meant to change the default running.

 

It's not like armbinders and stuff were totally buggy in v3, so i think this change might not be necessary in every case. I totally admit that i have little to no clue about this stuff and i might be missing one or even hundreds of important reasons, i just mention this in case i don't, hoping it also would fix the animation limit at least partly. Because as far as i can tell from my experience, the limits for AAs are much more important than the animation limit in total for SLAL packs etc. Not only in means of "it crashes" but also in means of "wich mods can i add", i totally agree that i can dismiss one or the other SLAL pack, but when i can't add my prefered running/walking + DD + a mod like SLAV which adds several of it's own animations and maybe a fighting mod, this indeed sounds bad.

 

Again - no clue but as a final thought, don't know the reason why there is DD_list, DD2_list, DDSL_list, but could it be possible that either those lists somehow still "mention" it all and count more towards the limit than necessary (like fore mentioned they count as 3 seperate mods to FNIS)? A look at this or if this seperation in three packs is actually necessary by somebody with a clue might show some potential for improvement.

[Kimy]

There is nothing in my code that could remotely cause such a problem in FNIS. The only part of DD that interacts with the FNIS generator are the FNIS definition files itself. I didn't change these in a while, so if the development version worked for you before, they still should.

[DonQuiWho]

I'm with the folk who believe that the Frameworks are as they are, and pretty much have to be so. 

 

I don't think that's an unreasonable ask by the developers, as they are the bedrock on which everything else works

 

But we definitely need more granularity when installing SLAL packs.  That's the key to a lot (but not all) of the current problems we face with max total anim count

 

At the moment SLAL installation is either all or nothing (apart from limited breakdowns like Shashankie's FOMOD for the Funnybiz ones, and the human/Creature/(+/-) furniture splits some other modders provide).

 

So even if you might personally only really want a fraction of any SLAL pack content, and register only a few of its anims in any particular game (probably a different fraction of what others want) you still get the whole pack in the game, loaded up and counted in FNIS 

 

MadMansGun's solution is great if you're a techie, but if you're not, like me, you don't want to go delving into that sort of solution

 

So if we are serious about trimming anims to a minimum in our games, we need someone to revise SLAL (I suggested that there a few days ago for this very reason), or construct an equivalent to use the same base data, but which allows us to select, individually, exactly which anims from any pack we each need, and go into our own customised SLAL packs

 

That probably may have to be a solution outside of mod managers etc, but there are a heap of other similar utilities like that which people use every day with no problem

 

 

[Reesewow]

18 minutes ago, galgat said:

But something is funny here, because i can play with DDI 4.0 and have 11803 animations reading out in FNIS, and the game play's fine, but if I use DDI4.1, I can not load a game if My animations go over 10400. ( actually 10278 ) but when i played the dev version I had 10366. so I am guess in on the 10400 limit.

 

Your answer, at least right now, could probably only be answered by a Bethesda employee in charge of coding the engine, as to where the field limitation is causing these CTDs and what types of data contribute to them.  I don't think anyone here is enough of a code monkey to give you a direct answer on this, at least not yet.

 

My complete layman guess would be that the animation number spat out by FNIS is only a part of the crashes, and that other data contributes too (data strings ect).  So when you make a big update like DD 4.0 -> DD 4.1, a bunch of other data also pushes your engine past the limits since you are obviously right on the line.  So you just getting your FNIS value back to the same as in 4.0 is not enough, and you need to drop it even further to your new "max" of 10400.  I may be completely wrong of course, but this isn't black magic.

[DonQuiWho]

24 minutes ago, galgat said:

   I did I even gave you the 270 animation added when i asked you in the Dev thread if that was what you had added.

 

     But something is funny here, because i can play with DDI 4.0 and have 11803 animations reading out in FNIS, and the game play's fine, but if I use DDI4.1, I can not load a game if My animations go over 10400. ( actually 10278 ) but when i played the dev version I had 10366. so I am guess in on the 10400 limit.

 

   Did you code something that would have given a false reading.  It makes not sense to me. as I said when i first discovered it. "I am at a loss", but the problems does exist. EDIT >> To the best of my Knowledge, and I know I am blond so sure I could miss, but It is what is happening to me.

 

   EDIT >> also from others that have PM'ed me I am not the only one.

Didn't fore say something further up this thread about a couple of weeks ago, long before the final versions came out, that there was something inconsistent in the way anims were counted anyway?  Try looking back about a couple of weeks

[Tyrant99]

My own observations on Animation count changes between DD 4.0 and 4.1:

 

I actually ran FNIS before installing and after and wrote down count for both.

 

I had 9,137 animations before and 9,354 animations after. Difference = 217.

 

Looking at actual .HKX files, there's 115 additional in DD Folder (653 vs 538), and 102 additional in DD3 folder.

 

102 + 115 = 217 total new .HKX files.

 

When you get the exact same number twice using fully different methods...

 

 

 

[Nazzzgul666]

31 minutes ago, donkeywho said:

I'm with the folk who believe that the Frameworks are as they are, and pretty much have to be so. 

 

I don't think that's an unreasonable ask by the developers, as they are the bedrock on which everything else works

 

But we definitely need more granularity when installing SLAL packs.  That's the key to a lot (but not all) of the current problems we face with max total anim count

 

 

The thing is, if AAs are the problem, it won't help to uninstall all of your slal packs - at least as far as i got it /we know it. Since it somehow still seems to help, ot sure... maybe animations with objects count towards AA or something like that? I'm not sure, what i'm sure about is that 

a) there are several hard limits. And a framework that depends on other mods to do something imho shouldn't occupy half of one of them. I think everybody can agree on that.

b) nobody is exactly sure which those hard limits are, or where. At least not all of them. But it's definitly NOT only the number of animations added by SLAL. I'm running more SLAL animations than most people with better hardware than mine without any problems (currently around 15k), both creatures and human animations are at 500 in SL and the only reason it isn't more is because that's the SL limit, i have more installed. Pretty much every pack i could find, not all up-to-date but nevertheless. Plus ZAP 8.

The limit for FNIS XXL for common SLAL packages is 20k and for me it's completly pointless to test this limit because i can't add them to sexlab anyways, even if i wanted to. So... i disagree, more granularity for SLAL packs isn't the key.

 

What i don't have for example is PCEA, though, or any poser mods. So to me it sounds reasonable that SLAL packs are not the main problem. And if they aren't, uninstalling them shouldn't be the solution either. Therefore, imho we as a community should do some research which & where those limits are and what both users and modders can do to avoid them. 

That doesn't mean i expect drastic changes to DD just for testing, but since the jump from 4.0 to 4.1 did make it much worse appearently, imho it's a good place to look at what might be the reason. Even if it's just a bug and doesn't bring us much enlightment about the limits, it's still worth a look i think. And also even if it is a bug in DD, i don't expect an urgent hotfix, but especially with increasing contents a working long term solution anywhere between DD4.2 and DD5.0.would be nice.

 

17 minutes ago, Tyrant99 said:

My own observations on Animation count changes between DD 4.0 and 4.1:

 

I actually ran FNIS before installing and after and wrote down count for both.

 

I had 9,137 animations before and 9,354 animations after. Difference = 217.

 

Looking at actual .HKX files, there's 115 additional in DD Folder (653 vs 538), and 102 additional in DD3 folder.

 

102 + 115 = 217 total new .HKX files.

 

When you get the exact same number twice using fully different methods...

 

 

 

Did you start a new game or upgrade mid game? When you and galgat get different outcomes what FNIS counts, maybe it's a bug in FNIS rather than DD. Maybe FNIS can't handle (certain) upgrades very well, or... i have no clue. Which mod manager?

[DonQuiWho]

14 minutes ago, Tyrant99 said:

My own observations on Animation count changes between DD 4.0 and 4.1:

 

I actually ran FNIS before installing and after and wrote down count for both.

 

I had 9,137 animations before and 9,354 animations after. Difference = 217.

 

Looking at actual .HKX files, there's 115 additional in DD Folder (653 vs 538), and 102 additional in DD3 folder.

 

102 + 115 = 217 total new .HKX files.

 

When you get the exact same number twice using fully different methods...

 

 

 

Yeah, I could, and did, do that too.  But the AA counting isn't half funny....  ?

 

 

[galgat]

31 minutes ago, donkeywho said:

Didn't fore say something further up this thread about a couple of weeks ago, long before the final versions came out, that there was something inconsistent in the way anims were counted anyway?  Try looking back about a couple of weeks

  all that would prove is that there are 1600 animations taken off the limit of 12000.  so that would either mean that DDI4.1 added 2842 animations or that DDI4.1 reduced the amount that you can have.  As this only happens with 4.1, and not in 4.0 which if you read my post's I pumped full of a lot of animation I don't really need, to get to 11803, and no problems with 4.0, game play is fine.

 

    I used the same profile for both way's, and it is a profile that never ever had DDI on it of any kind. I especially made this new profile in anticipation of testing DDI 4.1. All it had in it before I loaded DDI4.1 Was sexlab, and zaz 7. and most all the SLAL packs I normally use.  

 

   DDI would Log crash before the VM is thawing, which is a good indicator of to many animation or a bad skeleton, and a couple of other things.  This caused me to return to a save before any sexlab zaz or DDI had ever been installed, and load the game with no extra animations. All loaded fine, and DDI4.1 loaded.  Then I started adding the SLAL pack's until it crashed at around 10400 animations indicated by FNIS.

 

     I then installed DDI4.0 at the same save point, adding sexlab,this time  zaz 8 for the extra animations, sla, and all DDI 4.0 with the DDX, and DDA.  and pushed the animation to as high as I could which was 11803 (about 1400 extra animation that i did not have installed when i tried 4.1).

 

If I had put Zaz 8.0 Plus (which I think now I would have had room for as it has 1777 animation in it. ) I think I would have gotten even closer to the 12000 limit. But I only installed zaz8.0 as it has 1731 animation, up from zaz 7 which has 895. I wanted to reach as High as I could. The game loaded, and played fine with 11803 animations, no problem.

 

  But 4.1 stops me at 10400.  The game is hard coded at 12000 animations for Humanoid, and 12000 animations for Creature's and 4.0 seems to test out that fact very well as I can load, and play 11803  humanoid animations with 4.0 no problem.

 

    But only 10400 with 4.1.

[DonQuiWho]

4 minutes ago, Nazzzgul666 said:

The thing is, if AAs are the problem, it won't help to uninstall all of your slal packs -

But it does.  Look at my post below this ?

 

The AA count problem seems to be another thing altogether

[Kimy]

2 minutes ago, Nazzzgul666 said:

The thing is, if AAs are the problem,

I really fail to see how. The total number of AA in DD is well below the danger zone, even combined with other popular mods having AA. And AA is proven to work. PCEA2 and Sexy Move have been using them for years, and DD 4.0 has been out for a long time, too.

2 minutes ago, Nazzzgul666 said:

That doesn't mean i expect drastic changes to DD just for testing, but since the jump from 4.0 to 4.1 did make it much worse appearently, imho it's a good place to look at what might be the reason. Even if it's just a bug and doesn't bring us much enlightment about the limits, it's still worth a look i think. And also even if it is a bug in DD, i don't expect an urgent hotfix, but especially with increasing contents a working long term solution anywhere between DD4.2 and DD5.0.would be nice.

If it's a bug, it will be fixed, but right now we have no idea why e.g. Galgat has these issues, while many other people can confirm DD to have exactly the footprint it's expected to have. If it would be a DD issue, I'd have expected to see the problem in ALL installations, not just a select few.

[Supertin]

42 minutes ago, Nazzzgul666 said:

Another thought might be (and at this point i hope i didn't get it totally wrong, but i'm really not sure) to avoid AAs if possible. I'll explain what i understood so far:

There are offsets and AAs. AAs are prefered to items because they somehow ensure better the animation is used as intented, and DD switched from offsets to AA with DD4.0. Did i get that right so far?

If yes, i hope i'm not to bold if i suggest to go back to offsets in parts (i.e for some items), not only because of the limits. I've noticed some other stuff i don't like that much.

- sneaking: i have the "crawl on fours" animation installed that replaces sneaking. In earlier DD versions, that meant that i was crawling with my hands at my back if wearing an armbinder which i agree that it looks unrealistic but still fun. And realism is neither the reason i added all those mods nor i play Skyrim in the first place. If i wouldn't like the crawling, i wouldn't install it.

- running: my animation to run is replaced too when wearing armbinders. It's not that it looks bad, but i like my common running animation a lot better. It took me some years and a lot of tests to find it and i don't see why arms behind my back should cause my legs move 10 times faster than without. It doesn't fit especially in comparison, and if not necessary i'd prefer it not to be overwritten. That is, not more than neccessary of course. For items like hobble dresses and straight jackets with leg binders AA makes totally sense since it's meant to change the default running.

DD used alternate animations well before 4.0. DD will never go back to using offsets for wrist restraints. The offset method is outdated, unreliable extremely restricting (and not in a good way, it limits heavily what you can do with it technically)

There are way too many issues and wonky workarounds involved with offsets to use them outside of perhaps a few fringe cases. Wrist restraints aren't one of them.

42 minutes ago, Nazzzgul666 said:

It's not like armbinders and stuff were totally buggy in v3, so i think this change might not be necessary in every case. I totally admit that i have little to no clue about this stuff and i might be missing one or even hundreds of important reasons, i just mention this in case i don't, hoping it also would fix the animation limit at least partly. Because as far as i can tell from my experience, the limits for AAs are much more important than the animation limit in total for SLAL packs etc. Not only in means of "it crashes" but also in means of "wich mods can i add", i totally agree that i can dismiss one or the other SLAL pack, but when i can't add my prefered running/walking + DD + a mod like SLAV which adds several of it's own animations and maybe a fighting mod, this indeed sounds bad.

 

Again - no clue but as a final thought, don't know the reason why there is DD_list, DD2_list, DDSL_list, but could it be possible that either those lists somehow still "mention" it all and count more towards the limit than necessary (like fore mentioned they count as 3 seperate mods to FNIS)? A look at this or if this seperation in three packs is actually necessary by somebody with a clue might show some potential for improvement.

Animation replacers don't count toward any kind of limits btw. You can replace every single vanilla animation in skyrim and it would have zero impact on anything fnis related.

There's a misconception in the current discussion anyway, technically the limits are behaviour related and not a limit in terms of actual animation files (.hkx) the game can load.

 

There's nothing to improve in the folder structure, unless fore makes changes to fnis that somehow lead to more efficiency or something. The reason there's 3 folders is because the setup in fnis allows only for xxx# with xxx being 3 letters to name the prefix of the AAsets and # being a number 0-9. So there's only 10 slots possible per folder. And if you require more you have to setup another one.

[DonQuiWho]

6 minutes ago, Supertin said:

There's a misconception in the current discussion anyway, technically the limits are behaviour related and not a limit in terms of actual animation files (.hkx) the game can load.

 

 

Is there any way you can explain this simply for us?  It might help with a lot of the queries

 

Think of any explanation as being pitched at a level which is comprehensible to a clodhopper like me  ?

[galgat]

1 hour ago, Kimy said:

There is nothing in my code that could remotely cause such a problem in FNIS. The only part of DD that interacts with the FNIS generator are the FNIS definition files itself. I didn't change these in a while, so if the development version worked for you before, they still should.

   As I said I only had 10366 animations installed when i played the Dev version, that is why I guess 10400 is where DDI4.1 limits me. As I when I first tried to run DDI4.1 I had 10566 animation's installed and it crashed. I did take notes when I was testing the Dev version, and that is how I remember this numbers.

[Supertin]

14 minutes ago, galgat said:

 But 4.1 stops me at 10400.  The game is hard coded at 12000 animations for Humanoid, and 12000 animations for Creature's and 4.0 seems to test out that fact very well as I can load, and play 11803  humanoid animations with 4.0 no problem.

 

    But only 10400 with 4.1.

That is not a fact. The game is not hard coded to limit at 12000 animations. The limit is on the behaviour side anyway and it can differ greatly between load orders. Not even fore knows the exact details and reasons at the moment and he is about the only person who I would trust on this matter to make any concrete statements. Please don't spread misinformation, there's enough of it already.

 

In time it might become clearer what the exact reasons are for the different breaking points people get across are, but for now nobody knows.