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

[Srende]

I'll have to add some comments, just poking in randomly after reading the few last comments. Sorry

 

The current system with loads of customizable properties seems to be working well and as intended. Adding new items doesn't really require a custom script anymore, as you can block removal if needed (which has been 99% of my use cases) through the properties. Would've made things a bit simple back when first starting with DR.

 

Similarly, it's great that all the items now share the common base script and behave similarly, it just makes more sense than having loads of special cases.

 

13 hours ago, Inte said:

 

I rather not use your quest devices, they’re... not worth the aggravation to both the player and to me as a modder. If the players want to remove a device that bothers them, who am I to tell them how to play their own game?

Then I have to ask, why even have the mod installed in the first place? All the quest devices I've seen are pretty integral to the mod/quest they're in, and removing it could be achieved just by uninstalling the mod.

 

In general, it doesn't really make sense to have some kind of pause option in quests if the whole point of the quest is to lock you in. Not to mention how much checks you would need in code & dialogue to support a case like that properly.

[Lupine00]

8 hours ago, Kimy said:

Therefore, the framework operates under a "First come, first serve" paradigm. The first feature of any mod to claim a DD slot owns it until it voluntarily(!!!) releases it. Content mods are expected to check for occupied slots and not start their content until the required slots are either free or there are just generic devices in them, which are considered fair game to remove.

I disagree. The framework really says almost nothing about this. The behaviour of quests is primarily a choice of the quest implementor.

 

I believe I already addressed what you call "silly"...

• There are quests that are intrinsically exclusive, both in story and mechanics, and there are quests that are not, but simply happen to act that way because it was easy to act like that.
• I proposed that quests that don't want to be interrupted due to it being "silly" could raise a "do not interrupt event" to veto interruption, and as long as they fired that event within a certain time frame of the "request to interrupt" event, the interrupter wouldn't proceed.

 

Such a simplistic "time window" system might be vulnerable to extreme script lag.

If we wanted to be fancier, we could fix that by requiring DD quests that partake of the pausing mechanism to register with the framework, so any given mod could then establish if all registered running quests had responded, rather than that being uncertain.

 

Instead of any system of event based negotiation, with proposals, implicit acceptance, or explicit veto, we have the brutal world that is supposed to be first-come-first-served, but often ends up as "now both quests are still broken", even if the devices themselves aren't the cause of the breakage.

 

 

For example, what happens now when you put on the RDC when you're wearing a parasite from parasites? I had this back on Monday. It didn't break my game, but it wasn't ideal either.

 

I also did the Chloe quest, while wearing the parasite. Much of the Chloe quest device addition failed, but the quest barrelled on regardless, and I was able to finish it - and the parasite didn't get broken - but it was as you put it ... silly.

 

 

Now I think about this, we could manage something even simpler... A booking system for slots.

• When a quest starts, it registers an entry, tagged with a unique ID that it tracks, that has a list of all the slots it will ever want access to, so that it can complete correctly. (Slots it could optionally use shouldn't be booked). The ID might be the quest's own FormID, but doesn't  have to be.
• When a quest intends to start, it first asks the framework for the union of all these slot bookings, and can check up-front, whether it will be able to run to completion under the current slot-booking environment. If it can't, it aborts; does not start. Otherwise, it registers its own slot bookings and starts.

 

This would allow multiple quests to run at once, as long as they won't interfere with each other.

Such a (basic) system would (for example) prevent you from starting the Chloe quest while wearing a parasite, and prevent the parasite quest from starting if you are doing the Chloe quest... assuming they used the slot booking system.

 

In fact, if quest authors wanted to be "good citizens" we could write - very quickly - a tiny standalone mod to handle the bookings, and mods could use it voluntarily, without even impacting the DD framework, which doesn't really need to know that such registrations and checks are taking place, as they have no impact on the simple business of adding and removing devices. Even Zaz based mods could use it.

 

Perhaps, if we are ever to have such a system, it shouldn't be part of DD, and could be extended to be more generally capable of handling quest contention.

 

Realistically, no old mod would support it, and many new mods wouldn't either. It still wouldn't make anything worse, but could make things better.

 

The worst that can happen is a quest doesn't use slot bookings, and starts when it shouldn't.

We already have that problem, so no change there.

[DonQuiWho]

@Kimy

 

A quick query re the 'New "Unconscious " idles', if I may?

 

I'm trying to work out what is the cause of my PC regularly collapsing to the ground in either a seated state, or a lying down curled up position

 

When this happens in the middle of a Sexlab scene, it breaks the paired animation, and one of the actors keeps doing his or her thing, but the PC just sits there

 

Sometimes it happens when the PC is mounted, and they then make it onto the horse, sometimes immediately standing straight up, and sometimes, in a crouched position.  I have so far found it impossible to remove them from the horse, even with my normally trusty solution which is to activate Field Alchemy, and break whatever animation is screwing up the PC.  That it's this 'lie down' animation is easy to check if I save the game and run it twice from the same point, as on horseback the game does the weird stuff, and if the PC goes on foot, she just sits down. 

 

Getting up from the ground requires a spacebar input to jump up

 

I can't think what else in my load order might be doing this, so the query is

 

 - does what I am describing fit any of the animation outcomes from DDi events?

 

 - if it does, any idea why it overrides normal SexLab activities

 

I'll try and get a screendump of what I see for you, in case it helps

 

TIA if you have any ideas at all - or anyone else has, for that matter ?

 

EDIT Pic now attached

[Kimy]

2 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

Realistically, no old mod would support it, and many new mods wouldn't either. It still wouldn't make anything worse, but could make things better.

Realistically...that's why the entirety of what you wrote in your post won't work. It's less likely to work than world peace, actually. Frameworks cannot assume that everyone is playing nice. They...don't.

[Lupine00]

4 hours ago, Kimy said:

Realistically...that's why the entirety of what you wrote in your post won't work. It's less likely to work than world peace, actually. Frameworks cannot assume that everyone is playing nice. They...don't.

And if there is no feature. Nobody can use it.

 

I happen to believe that most modders do not do "bad things" that hurt other mods on purpose.

While there are one or two modders who are weirdly proprietary, and throw a fit if you even suggest they make their mod more interoperable, or who are very particular about how interoperation should occur (events ONLY, for example, and not StorageUtil), they are probably a minority.

If they have to do a ton of work for no benefit, they probably won't do it, but if they make a new mod, or a new version, they might. They might just do it because they think it helps their mod.

 

Let's not just assume that we can never improve anything.

 

I'll ask a different question...

 

If I made a slot booking mod, would you use it? Because that's what this is about, really.

You've as much as said you would never make such a mod, or add such a feature to DD, but that doesn't stop anyone else from doing it.

 

A booking process has no dependency on DD, and could be used to book access to other lockable resources, whatever those might be.

Possibly follower slots, though the player can usually sack followers on demand, in the case of DF, that may not be an option.

[Inte]

@Kimy, 
So you've 'shoot down' every single one of my suggestions. 

I thought that we were having a serious discussion about the future and improvement of DDi. I had no idea you were just going through the motions to make it appear as if you cared about using DDi for anything but your personal agenda. 

[Inte]

12 hours ago, Srende said:

The current system with loads of customizable properties seems to be working well and as intended. Adding new items doesn't really require a custom script anymore, as you can block removal if needed (which has been 99% of my use cases) through the properties. Would've made things a bit simple back when first starting with DR.

My improvement solution is not intended for mods with a small number of devices. If your mod only has a couple of device types in it, then my solution does not really make that much of a difference for you.

 

My solution is intended for mods with a large number of devices, mods like DDe, CD, DCL and the like.      
Imagine if you will, that someone decides to make this really cool new set of idles that all mods just need to have. For you, it would be fairly easy to just fire up CK and input them directly into your couple of devices that would use them. The same cannot be said about the mods I’ve mentioned. Can you imagine entering say 10 new idles for each of your existing 500 items? With Kimy’s current implementation it would take you what? A month? Would you even want to do it then? With my solution it would literally take you about 5min. to change all 500 items. However, if instead you prefer to spend a month entering new idles into your devices, my solution will allow you to do that as well. 

Kimy’s answer to this is that no one will ever make any new content for DDi, or that DDi already has everything there is to have. Like I said before, with that attitude, I wander why? 

Take for example SLAL. Before its implementation there were like what, a couple of animation packs floating around for the players to use? How many are there now? What if @orxx had Kimy’s mentality and instead of making SLAL said, ‘ah, no one will ever make any more animations for SL... why the two animation packs that exist now are more than enough...’?
What is it they say, “Build it and they will come”?
 

[Kimy]

9 hours ago, Inte said:

@Kimy, 
So you've 'shoot down' every single one of my suggestions. 

I thought that we were having a serious discussion about the future and improvement of DDi. I had no idea you were just going through the motions to make it appear as if you cared about using DDi for anything but your personal agenda. 

Yes, we did, and I don't mind you starting it. But here is the thing. Your suggestion is about putting in a lot of work into a change that's basically guaranteed never to be needed. It assumes that somewhere in the future I might want add mechanics to a basic device type that's now using the base script (zad_EquipScript) and which wouldn't apply to another basic device type using the same script. That's...super unlikely to ever happen, and I don't understand why you're pressing me so hard on that. I know it's frustrating to have suggestions shot down time after time, but you tend to pick fights about stuff that doesn't matter, or stuff what would amount to the same thing implemented in a different way. Remember the version numbers?

 

If you make a lot of devices you can set yours up in this fashion if you want to. Nobody keeps you. But I don't get why you're so insistent on me making changes to the framework when they don't even concern your mod. I am not sure if this is a misunderstanding about how the framework operates, but I am shooting down your suggestion because I fail to see a good reason to implement it, and that's really all. Yes, I get your objection that the way I implemented Idles means a bit of work in case someone decides to make new ones you want to use, as they wouldn't propagate from the framework to content mods. I said that your point isn't without merit. But in all these years of developing DD, NOBODY outside of the DD team has contributed an idle, and more idles are not on our roadmap. So guess how likely it is that the potential problem you pointed out will become an ACTUAL issue! In return, my implementation gives modders full control over the existing idles WITHOUT touching code. You can make your device use a specific one if you want to, just by editing properties. That's an advantage your solution does NOT have.

 

I have a tendency of shooting down suggestions if they mean a lot of work with little or questionable return, or when they are based on mere assumptions that something will happen or change in the future that would warrant them. Most of yours fall into that category. I do future proof my code, but not when there is like a 0.1% chance that this scenario will actually happen. That makes about as much sense as bringing an umbrella to a Sahara trip.

 

PS: SLAL wasn't built on green grass in the hope that something would flourish around it. When it was made, there were more and more SL animations popping up at a quite fast rate. For the longest time they got manually added to NSAP, and SLAL got made only when that method stopped being sustainable. If one day I get so swamped in idles that I feel cannot add them manually to properties anymore, you can safely assume I will look for a solution and provide one.

[Zaflis]

Would it be possible to give all worn DD items some kind of description (EDITOR ID or something)? Anything to help identify it from glance. It's really hard to debug device problems. Basically my problem is nearly always the blindfolds and hoods. They leave remainders on player, so when trap puts one on next time it gets completely broken:

- It's not worn and when attempted to be worn it just quickly unequips itself.

- Blindfolded effect is active, making everything dark.

- I don't actually have any blindfold to unlock or struggle from.

- This is a very common and frustrating thing that has happened in multiple saves started from scratch.

- I have gone as far as trying to set SL strip settings in MCM to ignore head slot, and i think that part works, but doesn't fix the bugs.

 

 

Edit: In this case i think i solved it by removing 0A01334F. And seems that is "zadx_WTLblindfoldBlocking_scriptInstance".

 

Edit2: I did manage to make a private patch for all DDA, DDX and DCL blindfolds that adds script/render item instances a name field. I see them in console properly now, but it has a side-effect that when you search for restraints with help command, it will list them too. I think they might need a different name, just make all of them use same "__blindfold_script__" or something, to distinguish from real items. It doesn't matter what they really are, as long as player knows what to remove.

Spoiler

This will save me so much time...

 

Oh... now it appears in inventory too! That's not great.

[Zaflis]

So now that i feel more confident being able to fix it, i enabled most blindfold options. I don't mind seeing it in the inventory anymore, but this happened after Cursed Loot's dialog with innkeeper. I was already wearing blindfold before the dialog, but then she asked "oh you like lockable things, let me add some more". The blindfold effect was removed from me, i think the mod tried to just strip headgear from me? But after that the script was duplicated and blindfold was not actually equipped. In screenshot here it is equipped for a test, but as soon as i close inventory and reopen it, it won't be equipped anymore. I don't have other blindfolds/hoods on me, and it was definitely in a working state before the npc. Basically the script and the item are no longer attached, or something like that. I do not believe this is script lag issue, it happens too often to be coincidence.

 

Spoiler

 

Also the patch if you are interested in trying. It's completely safe to add or remove from existing save. DD_with_names.7z

Requires DD 4.2 and DCL 8.2. Make sure to put it after Cursed Loot in load order!

 

edit: I'm talking half-nonsense again -.- Script was not duplicated, it appears normal that the item has 3 instances in the inventory. So items remain same but they do stop functioning some way. In earlier save all 3 of them are equipped. But if i load the later save again and try "equipitem" with the other script it won't get equipped. Interacting with mouse in inventory does nothing with scripts at any point, that's as it should be.

[Lupine00]

11 hours ago, Kimy said:

NOBODY outside of the DD team has contributed an idle, and more idles are not on our roadmap.

They can't really, can they?

This is a straw man big enough to base a music festival around.

 

Gunslicer has made a huge amount of stuff that has some relevance to sex idles, but he's not making DD compatible animations.

Not only does it require a lot more work, but how would he ever get those animations into DD?

 

He can't, and with a DD team that has no animations on its roadmap - and with a system already based around on a very large set of non-optional-to-install fixed animations - DD would hardly want to add them anyway.

 

Unless DD moves to a mechanism where players can choose to load only the animations they want/need, which automatically disables the dependent "flavour" action in DD itself, nobody is going to propose adding animations to DD, when the complaint that's often being levelled is that it requires too many animations already. e.g. DD would need to be engineered to allow pluggable actions AND animations. I can see the argument against this is that nobody is queuing up to make such things. Well... it's not actually a bad argument.

 

I've tried to counter that over-exaggeration of DD's animation demands, but it's still something a lot of people believe, and there is a certain basis for it, in that there aren't many modding entities that require as many animations overall, and probably none that require as many overrides. Zaz probably has more animations (though I haven't checked) but needs fewer overrides. The squabble over that limited resource is where the whole Zaz/DD conflict pivots right now.

 

Zaz is deeply flawed in its monolithic delivery of content. It's not a model that should be emulated.

 

 

One question is, what kinds of animations do non-DD-team modders want to add to DD, if any?

I think we're talking about the mech suit again ... and the difficulty of adding new classes of device.

Just because DD team thinks they've done everything, doesn't mean they have.

Spoiler

I can imagine that CoC fans are still dreaming of bee-suits, spider-suits, tauran-outfits, and other stuff built on top of DD.

That dream has never died, despite any mod that promised them disappearing down a hole.

 

Those mods don't need DD, and they shouldn't use it, but that's just an example of "kinks Kimy doesn't care about".

 

Just because Kimy hasn't thought of it and added it doesn't mean it isn't a "thing".

 

An ideal framework wouldn't be wedded to one person's idea of what DD is, it would be open to addition to expansion.

DD has a lot of options for expansion, and also a lot of places where its tightly bound (the irony) to a certain kind of bondage content.

 

Now that Kimy has the features she wants, I think it's plain that if you want features that aren't in there, you need to look to your own resources. She's not going to do your work for you, on the off-chance you might actually make something from it. It's a little selfish, but also pragmatic. There's only so much selflessness you can reasonably expect from her - as Kimy likes to remind us  I joke, but it's true.

 

A lot is asked of Kimy, perhaps too much. But perhaps, also, it is the manner in which she refuses, rather than the refusal itself, that leads to protracted arguments.

 

It's inevitable though, if you put yourself at the centre of such a system, that you are going to be under constant pressure. Personally, I wouldn't choose to create such a centre, or such a system, and certainly wouldn't want to bear that pressure. I think there's a saying for this. "With great power comes great responsibility." If you don't want that responsibility, don't take on that power.

 

Another question is, would players be happier if they were able to only install the DD animations they want to see and not install the ones they don't want to see?

Spoiler

Maybe a player thinks that stopping every five minutes, locking the player controls, and watching a self-fondle animation gets old real fast, if you're playing a perma-chastity mod. Cool. they can diable that in the DD MCM. But they can't reclaim its animations. On the other hand, those animations are just regular old idles, and aren't using a resource that is that scarce, so maybe reclaiming them is not a huge priority.

 

 

Is there an actual scenario where I could not use (and potentially not load) override animations? I'm not so sure. Not without ruling out entire classes of device.

[Kimy]

34 minutes ago, Lupine00 said:

Not only does it require a lot more work, but how would he ever get those animations into DD?

By talking to me. Stunning thought, I know!

 

I literally stopped reading your post there.

[Darkpig]

6 minutes ago, Kimy said:

I literally stopped reading

hmmmm...

7 minutes ago, Kimy said:

By talking to me.

hmmmm...?

[Inte]

@Kimy,

The idles was just one suggestion.

 

The versioning, yes that does not really affect my mods at all, I was just simply pointing out how laughable it is implemented now. Three different version numbers? Wow, that’s brilliant! You should put a different version number on every script, that will show new modders ‘another practice’. Since it doesn’t really matter how you implement your versioning, you can and should do it the way it feels most familiar to you. But this is a framework, I was hopping to spare new modders seeing that, and then copying that ‘practice’ into their own mod. But whatever, I will not bring it up again. 

The more pressing issues were the mech suit and the dialogue, actually. 

Like I said, I cannot implement the new mech suit with what the framework provides atm. 
You are wandering why no one is willing to contribute to DDi? Look at what you are putting me through just to add 2 lines of code to the function ‘LookupDeviceType(keyword kwd)’ which would allow me to implement a new device properly without the players getting an error message every time it is equipped. 

 

For the dialogue, I have not found a mod that does what DDi 3 did. Yes, I’ve tried your suggestion, that mod only works with followers. So just add it back, everything needed is already there which makes it a fairly simple task.  
 

13 hours ago, Kimy said:

But in all these years of developing DD, NOBODY outside of the DD team has contributed an idle, and more idles are not on our roadmap.

Well, seeing your attitude towards new content and suggestions, why would they?

 

13 hours ago, Kimy said:

In return, my implementation gives modders full control over the existing idles WITHOUT touching code. You can make your device use a specific one if you want to, just by editing properties. That's an advantage your solution does NOT have.

Again, that's a plain lie.

You either do not understand my solution’s coding or have not even bothered to read what I’ve been saying all along. Read my posts again (you can open spoilers by clicking them ).

My solution does everything yours does now, PLUS it allows for mass management of all common idles and other properties (future or present) with the touch of a button. With my solution IF the modders DO NOT WANT TO TOUCH THE CODE and instead prefer to just edit the properties, they can do just that. I don't know how to make it any clearer than this, so I do not understand how you fail to grasp this.

If my solution was implemented on the DDi base devices instead of yours, all modders would have to do, is clone those devices and fill in the properties like they do now.  

 

13 hours ago, Kimy said:

I have a tendency of shooting down suggestions if they mean a lot of work with little or questionable return, ...

No, it seems to me that you are shooting down suggestions that have a questionable return for you. 

 

13 hours ago, Kimy said:

If one day I get so swamped in idles...

Right... but you know that would never happen, seeing how you block everything new from being created for DDi, “...more idles are not on our roadmap.” was it? So who in their right mind would even start?

 

13 hours ago, Kimy said:

...that I feel cannot add them manually to properties anymore,...

That’s just it, this is not about YOU or at least it shouldn’t be. ALL mods would need to add them, this is about making it easier for them by doing it the right way to start. 

 

 

I did not intend to write another wall of text because well frankly, it is pointless with you, but there it is. 

[Kimy]

If you still don't know how to implement your suit with the existing framework, you need to get a clue about coding, really. I am not sure how often I need to tell you how to implement it, but it did. Twice. Apparently you don't get it, and you either don't have the talent or don't want to get it, because picking silly fights with me is obviously what you're after, not a constructive solution. I honestly tried really hard to be nice, even given our past exchanges. But all I got back from you were the usual attacks on me as a person and my "attitude".

So let's make that simple. Because that's going down the same road it always does when having exchanges with you. I tried time and again to play nice with you, even when I should know that the result will always be a fight about version numbers or similarly stupid stuff people argue about when they don't have anything of substance to argue about, but still want to argue.

 

I am done.

 

Your users were sad that they no longer could use PO with DCL and I felt sympathetic, so I was willing to work with you on a solution. That's honestly the only reason I was talking to you, after vowing that I never would again. But that's it, and this time for good.

 

I will never, ever react to any of your postings again. Or even read them. There is a time when enough is enough. And I honestly believe the proverbial chimps with typewriters could deliver more useful input than you ever could, so it's not a big loss.

 

The only people I feel sorry about is your users.

[JuliusXX]

It's sometimes hard to believe that this site has age limit of 18 years.

[Lupine00]

3 hours ago, Kimy said:

4 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

Not only does it require a lot more work, but how would he ever get those animations into DD?

By talking to me. Stunning thought, I know!

 

I literally stopped reading your post there.

Perhaps it's best you didn't read it then.

 

But if you want pleasant civil discourse on this forum, being quite so dismissive and condescending doesn't seem to be setting an ideal example.

 

 

Perhaps if you'd read beyond the first line of my post, you'd have realised that it supported your conclusion, if not your reasoning?

 

 

There's something terribly unfair and asymmetric, to claim that people just need to ask you, and anything is possible. Because sometimes, when they ask, what they get is a dismissal of their requirements, the idea behind their requirements, their proposed solution, and their personality for ever daring to raise such a request in the first place.

 

That doesn't happen all the time, but when it happens even once, that's a powerful disincentive for anyone that happens to notice what took place.

 

What do you suppose are the real chances anyone with an actual mod will even consider asking about some new DD feature this week?

If they were thinking of it, I suspect they have abandoned raising the topic for the time being, because now is clearly not a good time to ask.

 

I don't think that kind of climate encourages requests, even if the reality is that you could be favourable to them.

[Lupine00]

48 minutes ago, JuliusXX said:

It's sometimes hard to believe that this site has age limit of 18 years.

I'm a three year-old AI forum bot that runs on AWS as a collection of lambdas and hadoop instances. But in human years that makes me 48!

[DonQuiWho]

On 5/4/2019 at 2:51 AM, donkeywho said:

@Kimy

 

A quick query re the 'New "Unconscious " idles', if I may?

 

I'm trying to work out what is the cause of my PC regularly collapsing to the ground in either a seated state, or a lying down curled up position

 

When this happens in the middle of a Sexlab scene, it breaks the paired animation, and one of the actors keeps doing his or her thing, but the PC just sits there

 

Sometimes it happens when the PC is mounted, and they then make it onto the horse, sometimes immediately standing straight up, and sometimes, in a crouched position.  I have so far found it impossible to remove them from the horse, even with my normally trusty solution which is to activate Field Alchemy, and break whatever animation is screwing up the PC.  That it's this 'lie down' animation is easy to check if I save the game and run it twice from the same point, as on horseback the game does the weird stuff, and if the PC goes on foot, she just sits down. 

 

Getting up from the ground requires a spacebar input to jump up

 

I can't think what else in my load order might be doing this, so the query is

 

 - does what I am describing fit any of the animation outcomes from DDi events?

 

 - if it does, any idea why it overrides normal SexLab activities

 

I'll try and get a screendump of what I see for you, in case it helps

 

TIA if you have any ideas at all - or anyone else has, for that matter ?

 

EDIT Pic now attached

Hi again, folks

 

While the discussion of future trends makes for exciting reading, I have a more boring problem in my game in the here and now, which might have been overlooked in the flame and smoke

 

Is there anyone out there able to help me, please, with any clues, suggestions, etc or othe advice?  Even if it is just to tell grandad to go away and take his meds?

 

TIA

 

?

[Zaflis]

2 hours ago, donkeywho said:

- does what I am describing fit any of the animation outcomes from DDi events?

No, it sounds like this is 1 of those special/weird cases that don't happen to anyone else. Your Skyrim could be broken or you have a mod that doesn't behave well. It kind of looks like some defeat condition. Dragonborn in Distress triggers that kind of sitting at least, and that mod can defeat you. Maybe you set your health/mana/stamina tolerances wrong way?

[JuliusXX]

7 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

I'm a three year-old AI forum bot that runs on AWS as a collection of lambdas and hadoop instances. But in human years that makes me 48!

Youngster ?

[DonQuiWho]

2 hours ago, Zaflis said:

No, it sounds like this is 1 of those special/weird cases that don't happen to anyone else. Your Skyrim could be broken or you have a mod that doesn't behave well. It kind of looks like some defeat condition. Dragonborn in Distress triggers that kind of sitting at least, and that mod can defeat you. Maybe you set your health/mana/stamina tolerances wrong way?

That's possible .... I have been trying out the various combat defeat mods in the course of this game to see which one really best fits my style

 

Ran DiD in the first instance.  Got that sit down effect while DiD had a Troll oversee the PC for 24 in game hours.  But found DiD didn't seem to like some of the characters from Nexus' EnemyPlus.  In some cases PC would get beaten up, but would CTD before any SexLab activity started, with the end of the log full of unsuccessful attempts to surrender.   Presumably DiD didn't recocognise the races or something similar.  So I disabled DiD surrender and tried other defeat type mods, but the game still seems plagued by that recurrent 'sit down'.  Had thought it wasn't from DiD as that has no anims - so thought I'd try here.  You've made me wonder now if there is a suspicion that it might be a hangover from DiD, in that the PC still shows one of its effects, Addiction, as being a visible 'active effect' effect.  Maybe it's that that's causing this.  I'll ask there so as not to clog up this thread

 

Thanks for the helpful reply

 

 

[Kimy]

8 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

There's something terribly unfair and asymmetric, to claim that people just need to ask you, and anything is possible. Because sometimes, when they ask, what they get is a dismissal of their requirements, the idea behind their requirements, their proposed solution, and their personality for ever daring to raise such a request in the first place.

As hard as this is probably to believe after the last few pages, but I accept way more suggestions than I shoot down. I guess in the end it's just that some people make better and more reasonable suggestions than others. You can probably confirm this statement by looking at DCL and counting how many of your suggestions actually made it in! I would say, a lot. But then, you didn't start at least THREE fights with me over changing my versioning system.

 

That people have to talk to me if they want me to add stuff to MY mods i's the most normal thing in the world. I never claimed that I will add everything if people just ask me. That's a gross misinterpretation of what I wrote. You asked me how people are supposed to make suggestions and contributions. And the answer is and was "talk to me". Of course, the answer might be "no". There is no such thing as a right to add your stuff to my mods. There is no right to make me work on your ideas. I will accept or reject suggestions at my own discretion, and since that's nothing special at all, people should expect that.

8 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

That doesn't happen all the time, but when it happens even once, that's a powerful disincentive for anyone that happens to notice what took place.

I have been maintaining DCL for almost 5 years now, and DD for..three, I guess? People who are invested enough in DD content that they consider making contributions probably know by now what sorts of suggestion have a good chance to make it in, and which sort does not. I even have a paragraph about what I am looking for and what not in DCL. People also probably have realized by now that while I always have and always will value suggestions and contributions, I don't react all that well if people drag me into a endless fights after I already said no (which I never do without stating the reason). If people go and on and on and on, and make me write endless strings of postings about a thing I already shot down, they are wasting my time and I find that disrespectful. I get that everyone thinks that their idea is the best thing since sliced bread. But when I disagree and say no, I expect people to accept that and move on.

8 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

What do you suppose are the real chances anyone with an actual mod will even consider asking about some new DD feature this week?

If they were thinking of it, I suspect they have abandoned raising the topic for the time being, because now is clearly not a good time to ask.

 

I don't think that kind of climate encourages requests, even if the reality is that you could be favourable to them.

I am only human, you know? If people throw an endless supply of crap at me, there will be a point when I just had enough. I guess, I brushed you off a bit harsher than you deserved, but you have to admit that the timing of throwing more criticism about how I am handling DD into an already ongoing dispute was a bit less than ideal.

 

The honest answer to your question? Let me cool off for the rest of the weekend and then start making suggestions again!

 

Just not about version numbers, please.

[Zaflis]

1 hour ago, donkeywho said:

But found DiD didn't seem to like some of the characters from Nexus' EnemyPlus.  In some cases PC would get beaten up, but would CTD before any SexLab activity started, with the end of the log full of unsuccessful attempts to surrender.   Presumably DiD didn't recocognise the races or something similar.  So I disabled DiD surrender and tried other defeat type mods, but the game still seems plagued by that recurrent 'sit down'.  Had thought it wasn't from DiD as that has no anims - so thought I'd try here.

Even when you uninstall a mod, it doesn't remove scripts that are baked in your save file. Here it doesn't matter too much which mod makes the animations possible, but what script "calls" the animation. If you actually removed the sitting animation from your game, it might just crash right there when the script can't find it. So the solution sometimes is either starting a new game or trying some save cleaning. And avoid uninstalling mods in the middle of a playthrough.

 

Meanwhile i feel like talking while there's storm outside.

[DonQuiWho]

3 minutes ago, Zaflis said:

Even when you uninstall a mod, it doesn't remove scripts that are baked in your save file. Here it doesn't matter too much which mod makes the animations possible, but what script "calls" the animation. If you actually removed the sitting animation from your game, it might just crash right there when the script can't find it. So the solution sometimes is either starting a new game or trying some save cleaning. And avoid uninstalling mods in the middle of a playthrough.

 

Meanwhile i feel like talking while there's storm outside.

Thanks, and apols, as I should have been more clear

 

I didn't uninstall DiD.  Just changed the settings to make the different combat defeat mods change from active/non active etc

 

I did uninstall EnemiesPlus, but as 'Defeat' wasn't installed at the time, so that nothing else got moved about in the load order, I placed that in the same Plugin slot - right near the end anyway, loaded up, saved, and cleaned the save.   FWIW, ? Resaver shows the game as now 'clean' ?

 

Thanks for taking the time and trouble to help, though.  VM appreciated