Used SSEEdit-Autoclean on Creation Club

[shymasogurl]

I finally got sseedit working and I cleaned what Loot suggested, including CreationClub, Hearthfire, Dragonborn etc , now I've read it's might not be a good idea. I was wondering if I should try to undo the changes using this method : 

 

"Restore: Copy the backup plugin file (e.g., Update.esm.backup) and move it back to your Data folder, removing the .backup extension to replace the cleaned file."

 

I installed Creation Club content as mods into a separator, so I would go to there folders in mo2 to replace, except for the one's not handled by mo2 like Hearthfires , Dawnguard etc 

 

Does anyone know if this seems ok? 

 

[traison]

Back in the day, xEdit used to brick the Dragonborn DLC when it was cleaned. This was fixed years ago. As far as I'm aware cleaning the official DLC is fine.

 

15 minutes ago, shymasogurl said:

I was wondering if I should try to undo the changes using this method.

 

You should pick the method which allows you to restore the backup you made previously. If you didn't make a backup, there won't be an option to restore a previous state. Can't use something you don't have.

[shymasogurl]

Thx for the quick reply!

 

Ya I do have backups in my sseedit ouput - sseedit backups , it's just I was reading that there's certain mods that rely on the dirty edits ,  mods that overhaul those mods , so I wasn't too sure, some sources said it was fine some said no.

[traison]

So called dirty edits, or ITM records, that are actually needed by some mod are more about ensuring compatibility with other mods.

 

For instance, if your sword mesh mod absolutely requires the enchantment shader to be unaltered, you could include the vanilla shader record as an ITM to prevent sword enchantment mods from causing issues. Personally I remove all ITMs I see and deal with the problems (if there are any) myself. I don't think I've ever had to restore an ITM yet, but I almost certainly have made compatibility fixes afterwards. So take that any way you want I guess.

[shymasogurl]

I'm still not too sure tbh, for now I reverted the changes but I'm going to keep reading up on it and I guess that will be up next on my to do list , learning how to make compatibility patches, so I can hopefully one day be a able to do a real play through, two actually, I'm building one mod list for debauchery and one for a  Bard/immersion/role-playing where without blindfolds and restraints will allow me to see more of the game,land and lore. Except without fast travel....and possibility of wounds, illness etc....

 

maybe I won't be seeing too much of the lands but I;m sure it will be better than this alternate start  cell I've been rotting in for who knows how long, oof woah this is super immersive, been in this cell for weeks on end now! 😁🙂😭

 

So ya patches...for freedom!!!

 

[traison]

10 minutes ago, shymasogurl said:

...how to make compatibility patches...

 

That's as simple as selecting the override record in xEdit and drag-n-dropping changes over from the overridden record(s).

[shymasogurl]

Ok, that's why I was seeing comments on different mod pages saying things like just make a patch/batch patch. Cool, that's gonna help a lot I hope, I'm at 1185 active mods/ 1017 act plugins on this one!

[traison]

9 minutes ago, shymasogurl said:

...just make a patch...

 

When you don't already know the subject, finding these "just do it" -posts is perhaps one of the most annoying things. My "it's simple" -post above left out a key thing which is that in order to make a patch, you'd have to know what to patch and how.

 

A simplified, hypotetical, example following up on the sword enchantment shader thing mentioned before: lets say you identify that a shader used by an enchantment is the problem, now what? If you know it's supposed to be an ITM, you can copy everything over from the master record to make the winning override an ITM. But if you end up in a situation where you actually need to know which field is the problem, because you want to keep changes from other mods - to make a proper patch as it were - this requires more effort; is it the pink shader color change, or the heart icons that replace the flames, ...

 

ITM - Identical To Master, meaning an override that contains the exact same fields and values as the master record is it overriding. ITM is not a record type, it only describes the contents of a record.

[shymasogurl]

On 4/12/2026 at 7:13 PM, traison said:

 

When you don't already know the subject, finding these "just do it" -posts is perhaps one of the most annoying things.

 

Ya tell me about it! 

 

Good thing there's a lot of resources avail to try to figure it all out as best as possible

 

And here's something I was reading last night on a mods page about cleaning ITM's , i think they meant the CC content plugins

 

https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrimspecialedition/mods/30622

 

 

[traison]

I would be careful cleaning CC content. There's some weird setup with CC content and Update.esm. This even breaks the Creation Kit in some places. I would only use automated tools to clean mods if there's a problem. The only reason why I clean the official esms is because DynDOLOD throws a fit if it's not done. I question whether it actually needs it or if they're just following a religion; but it's probably less effort to clean the esms than it is to bytecode patch the check out of the exe so here we are...

 

The date check that invalidates the DynDOLOD exe is BS though, that one I bytecode patched out. But that's a story for another time.