Jump to content

Sex Mod Framework - Development Discussion


Recommended Posts

  • Ashal pinned and unlocked this topic

What's wrong with going for a more of an Ostim kind of UI and functionality?
Isn't it open source already?
Not that I hate Sexlab, I really appreciate it's existence.
But it seems like it may be "two steps back" in terms of next-gen.

Edited by xXDeliteXx
Link to comment

I have some concerns with Starfield and adult modding.

 

Watching the gameplay I noticed you cannot loot the space suits off dead npc, but also some npcs had helmets... Maybe there are certain restrictions. 

A person on reddit mention that maybe in vacuum & hazardous environments they won't be lootable. Which would make sense.

Hopefully all npc have a base skin layer that modders can work with (an underwear model).

I assume it would be annoying for modders if the base skin layer is a bulky space suit. 

 

Also in the clips of New Atlantis you'll see what I assume are procedurally generated npcs. Do they all have a house? Do they walk out of site and despawn?

As we know there are only 4-5 romanceable npc, maybe a few others. Look at the Skyrim marry anyone mod. How would something like that even work on Starfield? Same questions as above.

These npcs will probably be for decoration, and will only have a few lines of dialogue. Maybe a Modder can make something where you can romance any npc, then they get a apartment you can go to. 

For more sex related questions. Can we sex those npcs and then when done they just walk away and despawn? Maybe?

These are questions that will have to be figured out when the game comes out.

 

I have more concerns for the adult modding community for Starfield, but I'm also very excited for the game.

 

Lets keep ourselves in a mind of cooperation and have a willingness to work with other modders to make sure this game has a the best potential for modding. 

Hopefully it'll be big like Skyrim.

 

Thank you.

Link to comment

I think that one of the first things than need to be made and "standardized" are the new Rigs (or 'parts' of them), cus I seriously doupt Bethesda will have included any penis bones in them. And if there are going to be any mods like Shlogs of Skyrim, and I am sure there will be, if those shlogs are animated, that will make animators lifes a loooooot easyer :) .

Link to comment

Depending on how the animation system functions in Starfield, my main hope is that the sex pose system has mandatory idle, active, and end animations with optional transition animations. 

It's hard to set up a consistent story in a scene when animations are piecemeal and don't come together cohesively.  It's fine for animations you're only going to see for perhaps 30 seconds to a minute, but not for scenes with dialogue and pacing. 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Trykz said:

 

And whatever else is needed to "standardize" a framework. Things need to be more "universal" this time around.

 

And I would say the same for body mods. ONE pair of universal bodies, capable of achieving any shape imaginable,

so everything fits neatly together. No conflicts, easy peasy. Given what I've seen thus far, Bethesda went with a slider

system almost identical to FO4. So center = 50% weight, I suppose?

 

We need to make the concerted effort to achieve as much of a standard of Starfield modding that everyone can get

comfortable with as possible. Modders NEED to communicate with each other, not just the users of their own mods.

If a mod conflicts, allow others to help you resolve it. Especially in a situation where you're unable to get to it any time

soon.

 

The entirety of this new game's modding community needs to move forward TOGETHER. Not in drips, drabs, and fractions.

 

That's where FO4 went all wrong.

The Issue I see with that is how much time modder's have to dedicate to modding, not to mention modders leaving, or ghosting. Bodies will likely become standardized ala Skyrim, where you have really only 2 body options, FO4's main issue, at least in my opinion, was the number of people cycling in and out of the modding scene, not the tools themselves. Honestly it really just depends on how much the game hold's people attention, Skyrim held people for a LOOOONNNG time, FO4 much less so, and with Starfield being a new IP, and garnering more attention and hype than FO4, so long as Bethesda doesn't f*ck it up like 76, it will probably last a decent while, filling a Sci-Fi RPG nitch that really hasn't been explored by a triple A studio since Mass Effect.

Link to comment
55 minutes ago, soldier847 said:

The Issue I see with that is how much time modder's have to dedicate to modding, not to mention modders leaving, or ghosting. Bodies will likely become standardized ala Skyrim, where you have really only 2 body options, FO4's main issue, at least in my opinion, was the number of people cycling in and out of the modding scene, not the tools themselves. Honestly it really just depends on how much the game hold's people attention, Skyrim held people for a LOOOONNNG time, FO4 much less so, and with Starfield being a new IP, and garnering more attention and hype than FO4, so long as Bethesda doesn't f*ck it up like 76, it will probably last a decent while, filling a Sci-Fi RPG nitch that really hasn't been explored by a triple A studio since Mass Effect.

 

Likely so, but that's kind of the issue I'm referring to.

 

Standardizing reduces the need for multiples. Textures for example. 2-3 body options, but with how many countless texture sets borne

out of personal preference, but which in most cases, do not work across body types. It's the kind of thing that starts the countless

conversions for everything under the sun. The modder who can build for the standardized category, will likely stick with the standard.

They'd grow accustomed to it. Because the focus is on the standard. Like the early days of Skyrim CBBE. Most were creating armor and

clothing for it, with an extremely small handful creating for UNP. Now imagine one standard body, capable of achieving the entire

spectrum of shapes those individual bodies were capable of. Texture sets would still likely be plentiful due to personal preference, but

they would ALL work with the standardized body.

 

And I'm glad you mentioned Mass Effect. It was immensely popular. I loved that whole series of games. But they were all one-and-done

for me "because" they weren't as mod capable as Bethesda's games are. For me, based upon what I've seen about the game, this is THE

game I've been waiting for. There's SO MUCH stuff popping into and bouncing around my head right now, it sometimes gives me a headache ?

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Trykz said:

Standardizing reduces the need for multiples. Textures for example. 2-3 body options, but with how many countless texture sets borne

out of personal preference, but which in most cases, do not work across body types. It's the kind of thing that starts the countless

conversions for everything under the sun. The modder who can build for the standardized category, will likely stick with the standard.

They'd grow accustomed to it. Because the focus is on the standard. Like the early days of Skyrim CBBE. Most were creating armor and

clothing for it, with an extremely small handful creating for UNP. Now imagine one standard body, capable of achieving the entire

spectrum of shapes those individual bodies were capable of. Texture sets would still likely be plentiful due to personal preference, but

they would ALL work with the standardized body.

That's one of the things that bothered me about Fallout 4, I don't want to have to use Bodyslide on every piece of armour, I'd rather the joins were standardized between base body replacers so something like Bodyslide isn't necessary unless there's a massive difference between the two body replacers. 

Link to comment
On 8/27/2023 at 12:19 AM, ignite123 said:

I have some concerns with Starfield and adult modding.

 

Watching the gameplay I noticed you cannot loot the space suits off dead npc, but also some npcs had helmets... Maybe there are certain restrictions. 

A person on reddit mention that maybe in vacuum & hazardous environments they won't be lootable. Which would make sense.

Hopefully all npc have a base skin layer that modders can work with (an underwear model).

I assume it would be annoying for modders if the base skin layer is a bulky space suit. 

 

Also in the clips of New Atlantis you'll see what I assume are procedurally generated npcs. Do they all have a house? Do they walk out of site and despawn?

As we know there are only 4-5 romanceable npc, maybe a few others. Look at the Skyrim marry anyone mod. How would something like that even work on Starfield? Same questions as above.

These npcs will probably be for decoration, and will only have a few lines of dialogue. Maybe a Modder can make something where you can romance any npc, then they get a apartment you can go to. 

For more sex related questions. Can we sex those npcs and then when done they just walk away and despawn? Maybe?

These are questions that will have to be figured out when the game comes out.

 

I have more concerns for the adult modding community for Starfield, but I'm also very excited for the game.

 

Lets keep ourselves in a mind of cooperation and have a willingness to work with other modders to make sure this game has a the best potential for modding. 

Hopefully it'll be big like Skyrim.

 

Thank you.

 

 

Procedurally generated npcs are not really problems. We have made love with ghouls, gaints, wolfs. These race have 10x issues to over come than humanoid creatures.

Though space suit may course some problems, It looks like it's something like power amors with individual race and skeleton and need efforts to make suit romance  Immersive

Link to comment

Let‘s get back to the animation framework.

Things we may needed:

 

1. Separate the PC x NPC module and NPC x NPC module. The PC module could be heavily coded while the NPC module would better be lighter for better perfromance.

2. Better support for funiture animation. with the outpost building system we will really need funiture animations

3. API for sex reaction. Let npc to evaluate your service will be useful to prostitution mods

4. Better support for Futa gender.

5. 4 stage is too much to foreplay?

 

Edited by alcurad90
Link to comment
3 hours ago, alcurad90 said:

Let‘s get back to the animation framework.

Things we may needed:

 

1. Separate the PC x NPC module and NPC x NPC module. The PC module could be heavily coded while the NPC module would better be lighter for better perfromance.

2. Better support for funiture animation. with the outpost building system we will really need funiture animations

3. API for sex reaction. Let npc to evaluate your service will be useful to prostitution mods

4. Better support for Futa gender.

5. 4 stage is too much to foreplay?

 

I heaviliy agree with the furniture support point. Popping in furniture was and ever will be a bad idea :)

 

Points that I would add are:

 - Branched animation support

 - Better standard sounds/Better sound system

Edited by Wasmachensachen
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Wasmachensachen said:

I heaviliy agree with the furniture support point. Popping in furniture was and ever will be a bad idea :)

 

Points that I would add are:

 - Branched animation support

 - Better standard sounds/Better sound system

Are you me? Those are the exact 3 things I had in mind and seeing your comment made me chuckle :D

Link to comment
11 hours ago, alcurad90 said:

1. Separate the PC x NPC module and NPC x NPC module. The PC module could be heavily coded while the NPC module would better be lighter for better perfromance.

I don't think it works that way, the NPC and PC modules are essentially the same thing just with additional handling to lock the character down so players can't move around. 

The animation framework is one part of it, I think you're thinking about the stuff like stat trackers or whatever, and stuff like position editors, that's all something that comes later, it's added on top of the sex framework.  Though stat trackers aren't that hard to code, it'd be like a single function added to whatever handles animation calls. 

Gender has nothing to do with the animation framework exactly, it's something handled by the animators and body creators, the animation part of things just decides who goes where and plays what animation.  The sex framework could have a built-in genital swap if it's built like SoS for both base body types. 

I think things like reactions would be better handled by another mod and modder, not built-in to the sex framework. 

Edited by Veniat
Link to comment

Maybe this is obvious to other people, but would it make sense to have a single widely-used NSFW skeleton mod? One thing I wish Skyrim NSFW mods had was better-looking buttholes and more rimming animations. My understanding is that this was more due to a limitation of the XP32 skeleton than a lack of demand.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Veniat said:

Gender has nothing to do with the animation framework exactly

I think it would be benefitial if the framework doesn't limit characters to "male" and "female", but instead focuses on their "capabilities" like if they have boobs, penis, and/or vagina; and these are the properties animators should reference. (though I wonder if AA boobs count, you can't really do a boob job with these, can you? ?)

 

That way futa aren't either classified as "female" (and never use their dick) or "male" (and never get anything inserted into their vagina), but can have a more versatile role.

 

There might be a point in cassifying characters' appearence as male/female so you can work with sexual orientation, but you can probably deduce that from body parts, too (or use the game's body type).

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Veniat said:

I don't think it works that way, the NPC and PC modules are essentially the same thing just with additional handling to lock the character down so players can't move around. 

 

The PC module world batter have more API to support other mods, like a galgame style dialogue tree to support branched animation.

 

10 hours ago, Veniat said:

Gender has nothing to do with the animation framework exactly, it's something handled by the animators and body creators, the animation part of things just decides who goes where and plays what animation.  The sex framework could have a built-in genital swap if it's built like SoS for both base body types.

 

The framework handle the animation filter, for futa.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, nugerumon said:

I think it would be benefitial if the framework doesn't limit characters to "male" and "female", but instead focuses on their "capabilities" like if they have boobs, penis, and/or vagina; and these are the properties animators should reference. (though I wonder if AA boobs count, you can't really do a boob job with these, can you? ?)

 

That way futa aren't either classified as "female" (and never use their dick) or "male" (and never get anything inserted into their vagina), but can have a more versatile role.

 

There might be a point in cassifying characters' appearence as male/female so you can work with sexual orientation, but you can probably deduce that from body parts, too (or use the game's body type).

I'd group it by body type, masculine and feminine body type so animations match differing body scales, when it comes to futa they'd be completely interchangeable with any strap-on poses, then group it based on what position they're in.  

Most of that's up to the animators, not the sex framework though.  Like, I think the sex framework would mostly just be a way to call specific poses or pose groups by mods, it's not usually something that players ever touch.  The gender stuff would just be a search filter added on top of it in whatever database is made to index all the poses. 

Link to comment

I'd like to see a better Ui for selecting animations. Sexlab tools was cool and all but it would only let you choose a section of animations and not a specific one that you wanted iirc. Hopefully this will have something like whicked whims where you can either select a animation by category or find animations by the animation authors name. Also bigger animation limit or unlimited amount.

Link to comment

I keep circling back to what is known, and how some things may affect others.

 

The thing I keep going back to, is how "resource heavy" the game is purported

to be. It's enough that it has many either upgrading major pieces of hardware, or

even buying/building brand new gaming rigs.

 

I'm sure we would all love to have a truly "feature rich" framework. However, it may

turn out that we all need to tone down our expectations until we know more about

just how resource heavy the game actually is, but more importantly, how hard and

far the game's engine can be pushed.

 

So I'm thinking "streamlined and efficient" may be the order of the day here.

Link to comment

I think moving fully away from Papyrus (or whatever is the Starfield equivalent) is a must, especially if it has the same sort of built-in performance limitations as Skyrim/Fallout 4. SKSE/SFSE (starfield script extender?) generally means less engine roadblocks in the long-term, even if Starfield ships with a more robust scripting engine... the scripting engine is designed for quest scripting at its core, not the kind of stuff that the modding community quickly started using it for. Looking to the future of Starfield from the beginning I think would be the right way to go. Thanks @Ashal for "returning" and I am super stoked to see what is in store for the Starfield modding community!!

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Trykz said:

I keep circling back to what is known, and how some things may affect others.

 

The thing I keep going back to, is how "resource heavy" the game is purported

to be. It's enough that it has many either upgrading major pieces of hardware, or

even buying/building brand new gaming rigs.

 

I'm sure we would all love to have a truly "feature rich" framework. However, it may

turn out that we all need to tone down our expectations until we know more about

just how resource heavy the game actually is, but more importantly, how hard and

far the game's engine can be pushed.

 

So I'm thinking "streamlined and efficient" may be the order of the day here.

That's exactly what I think.

I think the sex framework should only be used to start animated sex scenes.  I'd love a way to set the stage, I guess, with the ability to encapsulate and register static repetitive scenes or calls ahead of time and then do something like 'my_scene.play()' if the scripting language allows it, but otherwise I look at Sexout as an example.  

I want a trimmed-down Sexout with a few modern features to make setting up scenes easier and none of the backward-compatible older methods weighing down the scripts.

 

I think the only thing I want to be changed is a focus on poses containing a package of linked contiguous animations rather than single animation calls; especially if temporary poses can be created on the fly to create custom animation sets.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. For more information, see our Privacy Policy & Terms of Use