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

[Pinute]

 

 

(Notice I'm not suggesting Mod Organizer )

 i dont know why considering the gains in flexibility, stability, safety, ease of uninstall/reinstall/updating, and conflict management you get

 

 

Nicole is an old school manual install type. A joke, which I hope she got. I wouldn't have mentioned packing up a bsa oneself to anyone else. 

[undeadvr]

what is the quest ID for the forbiden tome quest. I inadvertantly aborted it by taking off the belt and wanted to restart it.

 

nvm its xx000d62

[Cocein]

 

Looks like you're missing SKSE's Scripts/source's.

 

 

 

I hope that's all there is to it. But I've installed SKSE already using the normal installer. Is there some "For modders" version I need to download like with SkyUI? I've looked around a bit and can't find anything.

[Cocein]

I noticed there's an MCM option for Immersive First Person. I enabled it, and have immersive FP installed, but I can't tell that the mcm menu is doing anything. When animation events happen where the player touches themselves it still automatically switches to 3rd person.

 

Is the mcm option an unimplemented feature? Is it intentional that you still switch to 3rd person even with the option on?

[Min]

 

 

Looks like you're missing SKSE's Scripts/source's.

 

 

 

I hope that's all there is to it. But I've installed SKSE already using the normal installer. Is there some "For modders" version I need to download like with SkyUI? I've looked around a bit and can't find anything.

 

You may have overwritten the scripts/sources/ files when you installed the CK. Reinstall SKSE, and the problem will likely fix itself.

 

I noticed there's an MCM option for Immersive First Person. I enabled it, and have immersive FP installed, but I can't tell that the mcm menu is doing anything. When animation events happen where the player touches themselves it still automatically switches to 3rd person.

 

Is the mcm option an unimplemented feature? Is it intentional that you still switch to 3rd person even with the option on?

If that MCM option is enabled, the mod will switch you to third person for the animations (So that you can observe the animation), and move you back to Immersive first person's point of view after. If it's disabled, DD will be unaware of immersive first person, and you will see the animations in first person. 

[svartur]

So I'm not sure what I just tripped and fell over onto a epiphany on this one.

 

As I've been previously stating my only error I keep coming across for DDi is eventually my NPC follower will stop having vibration events from elapsed time following a loading screen.

 

Deciding on a whacky insanity idea I've decided that I would just take over manually doing quicksaves when the game would automatically do its auto-saves.

 

After turning off my auto-save functions, no matter how many times I switch locations, I could pop in and out of the city and visit every house and the belts -still- respond to vibrations :3

 

So now I'm wondering, do I leave auto-saves on and remember to requip the NPC, or, diligence saving manually and leave them on the NPC O.o;;  

[Cocein]

 

 

 

Looks like you're missing SKSE's Scripts/source's.

 

 

 

I hope that's all there is to it. But I've installed SKSE already using the normal installer. Is there some "For modders" version I need to download like with SkyUI? I've looked around a bit and can't find anything.

 

You may have overwritten the scripts/sources/ files when you installed the CK. Reinstall SKSE, and the problem will likely fix itself.

 

I noticed there's an MCM option for Immersive First Person. I enabled it, and have immersive FP installed, but I can't tell that the mcm menu is doing anything. When animation events happen where the player touches themselves it still automatically switches to 3rd person.

 

Is the mcm option an unimplemented feature? Is it intentional that you still switch to 3rd person even with the option on?

If that MCM option is enabled, the mod will switch you to third person for the animations (So that you can observe the animation), and move you back to Immersive first person's point of view after. If it's disabled, DD will be unaware of immersive first person, and you will see the animations in first person. 

 

 

Alright, I got it all working now. Thanks for the help.

 

I've noticed a minor annoyance with the system. Lockable devices can't have normal armor icons since they basically have to be bipedless. I had the idea to disguise lockable devices as ordinary armors, tricking the player into locking themselves into one. But since they all had the default icon, it gives it away. Best solution I could come up with was to add a dummy armor designed to look like the normal armor, but with a script that when you equip it, it automatically equips the device inventory item then deletes itself. It works so far as disguising the fact that it's a trick item, but when you equip it, the dummy armor flashes onto the character, then gets deleted, then you're naked, and then you have to close the inventory before the armor will show up. Just doesn't look nice.

[Min]

 

 

 

 

Looks like you're missing SKSE's Scripts/source's.

 

 

 

I hope that's all there is to it. But I've installed SKSE already using the normal installer. Is there some "For modders" version I need to download like with SkyUI? I've looked around a bit and can't find anything.

 

You may have overwritten the scripts/sources/ files when you installed the CK. Reinstall SKSE, and the problem will likely fix itself.

 

I noticed there's an MCM option for Immersive First Person. I enabled it, and have immersive FP installed, but I can't tell that the mcm menu is doing anything. When animation events happen where the player touches themselves it still automatically switches to 3rd person.

 

Is the mcm option an unimplemented feature? Is it intentional that you still switch to 3rd person even with the option on?

If that MCM option is enabled, the mod will switch you to third person for the animations (So that you can observe the animation), and move you back to Immersive first person's point of view after. If it's disabled, DD will be unaware of immersive first person, and you will see the animations in first person. 

 

 

Alright, I got it all working now. Thanks for the help.

 

I've noticed a minor annoyance with the system. Lockable devices can't have normal armor icons since they basically have to be bipedless. I had the idea to disguise lockable devices as ordinary armors, tricking the player into locking themselves into one. But since they all had the default icon, it gives it away. Best solution I could come up with was to add a dummy armor designed to look like the normal armor, but with a script that when you equip it, it automatically equips the device inventory item then deletes itself. It works so far as disguising the fact that it's a trick item, but when you equip it, the dummy armor flashes onto the character, then gets deleted, then you're naked, and then you have to close the inventory before the armor will show up. Just doesn't look nice.

 

 

The armor-type icon (Heavy, Light, Clothes) has nothing to do with the biped slot: it's an option you can select in the CK. DD's devices used to be light armor type (With the accompanying icon). Changed it to clothes to not interfere with perks a number of versions ago.

 

You can set that yourself to be light/heavy/whatever for custom devices.

[Cocein]

 

 

 

 

The armor-type icon (Heavy, Light, Clothes) has nothing to do with the biped slot: it's an option you can select in the CK. DD's devices used to be light armor type (With the accompanying icon). Changed it to clothes to not interfere with perks a number of versions ago.

 

 

 

The color of the icon is determined by the setting of the drop down box with "light / heavy / none". But the shape of the icon seems to be determined by the biped slots being used. So I can make the device icon turn yellow, orange, or grey, but I can't change it to be a picture of a helmet or chest armor without using the biped slots so far as I know.

 

But then I'm still struggling to figure out the difference between the biped slots on armors and the ones on armoraddons.

[Min]

 

 

 

 

 

The armor-type icon (Heavy, Light, Clothes) has nothing to do with the biped slot: it's an option you can select in the CK. DD's devices used to be light armor type (With the accompanying icon). Changed it to clothes to not interfere with perks a number of versions ago.

 

 

 

The color of the icon is determined by the setting of the drop down box with "light / heavy / none". But the shape of the icon seems to be determined by the biped slots being used. So I can make the device icon turn yellow, orange, or grey, but I can't change it to be a picture of a helmet or chest armor without using the biped slots so far as I know.

 

But then I'm still struggling to figure out the difference between the biped slots on armors and the ones on armoraddons.

 

 

Oh, I misunderstood. Yeah, that would indeed be an issue for the usage case you've described. Hmm. You could force-close the player's inventory to update it. That wouldn't be a terrible approach. Inventory closing + receiving a notification about their fate wouldn't be a bad introduction to the item you have in mind . I seem to recall there being a function that would visually update the actor while in menu's, too. Can't recall what it was off hand, though.

[Min]

 

Going to the ESM system is a good idea but I'm still a bit concerned about the large amount of scripts (and related source files) that encumber my Data/Scripts folder.

 

I really hope you consider to "pack" everything inside a BSA file. Much easier to upgrade, btw.

 

You could say that "old" users could have problems with loose files but you could also include a simple BAT file to remove all those loose file before install this new version.

(Like redneckX did for some of its stuffs. It is easy to do).

 

I understand Min's reluctance to switch over to a BSA, having seen the many, many posts about bugs caused by not removing the loose scripts after redneck switched over.

 

However, if I understand things right you could pack the loose stuff into a bsa for personal use. Not very difficult. (Notice I'm not suggesting Mod Organizer )

 

 

Righto: Switching to bsa at this point just isn't worth the headache it would cause, for little to no benefit.

 

[jbezorg]

I keep running into soulgem plug vibration infinite loops. I have to enter console and enable player controls ( command: epc ) to stop it.

[Min]

I keep running into soulgem plug vibration infinite loops. I have to enter console and enable player controls ( command: epc ) to stop it.

Odd. Which version are you running? Can you post a log of the loop occurring? What are you doing when it occurs?

[PubliusNV]

My Dragonborn went into the Arcanum at night and took the forbidden bookshelf key when Urag wasn't there.  I had read someplace that coming back later and talking to Urag would start the quest, but that's not happening.  How do I start the quest in this situation?  I case it's relevant, I'm running version 2.6.5. TIA

[NicoleDragoness]

 

 

Going to the ESM system is a good idea but I'm still a bit concerned about the large amount of scripts (and related source files) that encumber my Data/Scripts folder.

 

I really hope you consider to "pack" everything inside a BSA file. Much easier to upgrade, btw.

 

You could say that "old" users could have problems with loose files but you could also include a simple BAT file to remove all those loose file before install this new version.

(Like redneckX did for some of its stuffs. It is easy to do).

 

I understand Min's reluctance to switch over to a BSA, having seen the many, many posts about bugs caused by not removing the loose scripts after redneck switched over.

 

However, if I understand things right you could pack the loose stuff into a bsa for personal use. Not very difficult. (Notice I'm not suggesting Mod Organizer )

 

 

Righto: Switching to bsa at this point just isn't worth the headache it would cause, for little to no benefit.

 

 

From:

www.creationkit.com/Archive.exe

 

 

 

Why Not Just Pack Up the Loose Files and Not Even Have a .bsa File?

Mods that use .bsa files instead of loose files are easy to install. Gamers will not install them wrong so frequently and complain to the mod maker about the mod not working because of their own mistakes.

But more importantly, mods that use .bsa files are easy to uninstall permanently or temporarily. Skyrim uses external scripts. If lots of mods with loose file scripts are used, the game can soon be a big mess and nobody will be able to figure out which mod caused a problem by editing which script. With a .bsa file, just remove it, and the problem script will cause no more trouble. No need to go digging through lists of scripts to delete, move, or reinstall one.

Some gamers like to use different mods when they are playing different characters. Perhaps a certain gamer would have a bunch of stealth mods to be used only when playing as a thief. Mods with .bsa files are easy to temporarily remove and then install again when it is time to play a different character.

Using .bsa files for .esp dependent mesh and texture replacer mods can also save a lot of headaches when things start to go wrong with how things look in the game.

So packing mods with a .bsa file instead of with loose files is considered to be following best practices for Skyrim modding.

 

[Srende]

Right, generally it would be better to pack the scripts. But at this point with a large amount of users there's really no benefit to switching to bsa, instead it will just generate tons of (user-)error reports when people fail to remove the scripts before installing the new version, as is the case with the current esp -> esm switch.

 

 

I install 2.6.6 and game is not start. even i erase all any other mod and reinstall game. even just 2.6.6 << only this one mode add on, game is not start. 2.6.5 is working. but so many other mods are using 2.6.6. so i cant use them too. please fix it.

 

If you are crashing before the main menu, you are missing some master file. Or you are using an old version of one or more of the mods using DD - Integration as master, which are still trying to find the old .esp, which is a missing master problem as well.

[mizuho18]

When i  wear armbinder ，i can not jump or crouch。

When i walk or run,it just frozen like this 

Is there something went wrong？ 

[NicoleDragoness]

I'm not absolutely sure but if you wear an armbinder you should not be able to jump or crouch.

 

About the second problem, the picture doesn't explain a lot. At least you meant your PC, instead of walk or run, just "slides" in the position you showed in the pic.

In that case, probably you didn't run the GenerateFNISforUser tool after installing this mod.

[mizuho18]

I'm not absolutely sure but if you wear an armbinder you should not be able to jump or crouch.

 

About the second problem, the picture doesn't explain a lot. At least you meant your PC, instead of walk or run, just "slides" in the position you showed in the pic.

In that case, probably you didn't run the GenerateFNISforUser tool after installing this mod.

Thank you, the problem has been resolved.

[Min]

My Dragonborn went into the Arcanum at night and took the forbidden bookshelf key when Urag wasn't there.  I had read someplace that coming back later and talking to Urag would start the quest, but that's not happening.  How do I start the quest in this situation?  I case it's relevant, I'm running version 2.6.5. TIA

Indeed, assuming you took the book while unbelted, Urag should have a new dialogue option that will start the quest. If you were belted when you took it, drop the book, and pick it back up again.

 

I install 2.6.6 and game is not start. even i erase all any other mod and reinstall game. even just 2.6.6 << only this one mode add on, game is not start. 2.6.5 is working. but so many other mods are using 2.6.6. so i cant use them too. please fix it.

There's nothing wrong with it. Please refer to the FAQ in the opening post.

[Min]

 

 

 

Going to the ESM system is a good idea but I'm still a bit concerned about the large amount of scripts (and related source files) that encumber my Data/Scripts folder.

 

I really hope you consider to "pack" everything inside a BSA file. Much easier to upgrade, btw.

 

You could say that "old" users could have problems with loose files but you could also include a simple BAT file to remove all those loose file before install this new version.

(Like redneckX did for some of its stuffs. It is easy to do).

 

I understand Min's reluctance to switch over to a BSA, having seen the many, many posts about bugs caused by not removing the loose scripts after redneck switched over.

 

However, if I understand things right you could pack the loose stuff into a bsa for personal use. Not very difficult. (Notice I'm not suggesting Mod Organizer )

 

 

Righto: Switching to bsa at this point just isn't worth the headache it would cause, for little to no benefit.

 

 

From:

www.creationkit.com/Archive.exe

 

 

 

Why Not Just Pack Up the Loose Files and Not Even Have a .bsa File?

Mods that use .bsa files instead of loose files are easy to install. Gamers will not install them wrong so frequently and complain to the mod maker about the mod not working because of their own mistakes.

But more importantly, mods that use .bsa files are easy to uninstall permanently or temporarily. Skyrim uses external scripts. If lots of mods with loose file scripts are used, the game can soon be a big mess and nobody will be able to figure out which mod caused a problem by editing which script. With a .bsa file, just remove it, and the problem script will cause no more trouble. No need to go digging through lists of scripts to delete, move, or reinstall one.

Some gamers like to use different mods when they are playing different characters. Perhaps a certain gamer would have a bunch of stealth mods to be used only when playing as a thief. Mods with .bsa files are easy to temporarily remove and then install again when it is time to play a different character.

Using .bsa files for .esp dependent mesh and texture replacer mods can also save a lot of headaches when things start to go wrong with how things look in the game.

So packing mods with a .bsa file instead of with loose files is considered to be following best practices for Skyrim modding.

 

 

I'm not arguing that BSA files have no merit: I'm simply stating that at this point, there's no incentive to switch over to them. If I had started this mod using BSA's, using them would indeed be superior. Given that I didn't however, it's simply not worth the headache (Particularly given the prevalence of ModOrganizer). It's a tradeoff between easier uninstallations, versus the myriad of difficult-to-diagnose error reports I'd certainly receive from users that didn't read the upgrade instructions.

[CGi]

Another benefit of BSAs are faster loading times. Especially if they are compressed better then what the CK/Archive.EXE offers (i recommend BSAOpt).

Mechanical hard drives have the biggest increase in speed (and reduced micro stutter from reloading data), as the amount of data that has to be read from the HD is smaller because the data is read compressed and uncompression is done in RAM.
The side effect is ofc that the user must have some spare CPU time and a game that does not run on it's 3.1GB limit. imho the benefit is worth it. SSD user won't have such a big benefit, but it's still there. And as there's still the discussion going on if many read processes decrease the life time of SSDs as well (even tho it's obviously not as big of a deal as writing), it's better to be safe then sorry by putting less stress on SSDs by using BSAs with good compression as well.

 

So the suggestion from MO to unpack BSAs is actually not this good for people that only play the game and instead points toward modders.
To raise modding friendlyness, one can simply leave the source scripts out of the BSA, so modders have it easier and pure players won't have to deal with possible left-overs that effect the game.

 

 

P.s.: As MO can now load BSAs w/o the need of an ESP, error tracking is harder with BSAs, as the user needs to disable the BSA as well as the ESP. Still a good trade imo.

[srayesmanll]

That quoted argument about using loose scripts vs bsa is only in the context of manual installation.  It's completely useless in the context of using a mod manager.

 

Min:  switching from loose to bsa is only a headache for those that installed the loose scripts manually and don't know how to uninstall manually properly (uninstall properly manually?  properly uninstall manually?  Anyway...)  And those people (those who do not understand how to properly uninstall manually) will always post issues related to that regardless of switching to bsa.  Those that use a mod manager (NMM, MO, WB, etc) to install mods will not see this problem because uninstalling through the mod manager will remove the loose scripts as well (if that mod manager is doing things properly - NMM I know does this and I assume MO and WB do as well).  I do agree though that there is no true incentive to switch from loose scripts to bsa, other than cleanliness on the users part (hell of a lot of scripts for DDI), and cgi makes a good point about speed when using bsa vs loose (nearly ninja'd me there cgi).  If having a bsa will save you more issues in the long run, it may be better to move to bsa even with the potential headaches from the changeover.

[CGi]

Most people that have problems with mod managers not doing a proper rollback (NMM more affected then Wrye, don't know why; MO excluded due to the way it works) are installing in mixed mode.
Mod Manager, Manual/Steam Shop and possibly other sources/methods (like Mods with installer). How is a mod manager supposed to know of those changes if they was not done by himself?

Hiccups due to hard drive fragmentation and/or file system corruption are another story.

 

it's like what Einstein said about the universe and the stupidity of mankind.

[Min]

Another benefit of BSAs are faster loading times. Especially if they are compressed better then what the CK/Archive.EXE offers (i recommend BSAOpt).

Mechanical hard drives have the biggest increase in speed (and reduced micro stutter from reloading data), as the amount of data that has to be read from the HD is smaller because the data is read compressed and uncompression is done in RAM.

The side effect is ofc that the user must have some spare CPU time and a game that does not run on it's 3.1GB limit. imho the benefit is worth it. SSD user won't have such a big benefit, but it's still there. And as there's still the discussion going on if many read processes decrease the life time of SSDs as well (even tho it's obviously not as big of a deal as writing), it's better safe then sorry by putting less stress on SSDs by using BSAs with good compression as well.

 

So the suggestion from MO to unpack BSAs is actually not this good for people that only play the game and instead points toward modders.

To raise modding friendlyness, one can simply leave the source scripts out of the BSA, so modders have it easier and pure players won't have to deal with possible left-overs that effect the game.

 

 

P.s.: As MO can now load BSAs w/o the need of an ESP, error tracking is harder with BSAs, as the user needs to disable the BSA as well as the ESP. Still a good trade imo.

Given the read/write speeds of modern hard-drives versus the size of the resources in this mod (Particularly in the case of SSD), any performance gains (Which I'm sceptical of to begin with: It simply depends on where the bottle-neck is in a given user's system) from the switch would be very negligible.

 

That quoted argument about using loose scripts vs bsa is only in the context of manual installation.  It's completely useless in the context of using a mod manager.

 

Min:  switching from loose to bsa is only a headache for those that installed the loose scripts manually and don't know how to uninstall manually properly (uninstall properly manually?  properly uninstall manually?  Anyway...)  And those people (those who do not understand how to properly uninstall manually) will always post issues related to that regardless of switching to bsa.  Those that use a mod manager (NMM, MO, WB, etc) to install mods will not see this problem because uninstalling through the mod manager will remove the loose scripts as well (if that mod manager is doing things properly - NMM I know does this and I assume MO and WB do as well).  I do agree though that there is no true incentive to switch from loose scripts to bsa, other than cleanliness on the users part (hell of a lot of scripts for DDI), and cgi makes a good point about speed when using bsa vs loose (nearly ninja'd me there cgi).  If having a bsa will save you more issues in the long run, it may be better to move to bsa even with the potential headaches from the changeover.

Sure, if a user follows an uninstall procedure through a mod manager prior to the update, the loose scripts might (Depending on your mod manager) be cleaned up properly. This still relies on the thousands of users that currently use this mod reading the instructions, though (A very unlikely proposal). Switching to using a BSA will prevent zero issues in the long run. Creating a BSA will inevitably cost me many hours (In the form of me continuing to offer support for the mod), continuing many versions in to the future.

 

Most people that have problems with mod managers not doing a proper rollback (NMM more affected then Wrye, don't know why; MO excluded due to the way it works) are installing in mixed mode.

Mod Manager, Manual/Steam Shop and possibly other sources/methods (like Mods with installer). How is a mod manager supposed to know of those changes if they was not done by himself?

Hiccups due to hard drive fragmentation and/or file system corruption are another story.

 

it's like what Einstein said about the universe and the stupidity of mankind.

 

What it all comes down to, is that the switch from Loose to BSA means that less time will be spent on development of the mod (As more time would have to be spent on troubleshooting), for no real gain. An extremely slight performance gain, maybe. Easier uninstallations, sure. Maaaaaany more error reports that I'd feel obligated to take the time to respond to, definitely. Probably 90~% of the posts seeking help are due to users not using the search feature / not reading instructions. My confidence in the average user's reading comprehension / likeliness to read my upgrade instructions is basically nil.

 

Given all of this, I have no plans to make the switch to BSA files for this mod at any point in the future. Future mods that I develop will likely be packed in BSA archives from the get-go.