Sex animations.

[JohnHead444]

I had a thought or just some thing I've been trying to get working. Lets say using blender you export a .nif file like these animated armors. So that your animation is attached to the nif instead of a kf file. Then you add this as a armor to the game and use the nif file to play animations instead of the hkx system. Just a thought. Sorry if this has been mentioned or thought of but I've been trying to just get a simple animated body working. Then thought I would mention it here.

[DocClox]

and you are correct that does help' date=' but i believe he was saying its still a pain in the ass because you cannot currently add any of the animation information to the ESP/ESMs etc.(altho i could be wrong on that)

[/quote']

 

But if I understand it right, and if I rember this correctly, you can use his approach to parent custom animation to an existing race by setting the morph race.

 

Which apparently means that you can create a sex race with all new animations, set that race as the morph race for existing ones, and they'll pick up the new animations as well as keeping their current ones. Which is a major step forward.

 

The problem is that we only get one morph race, of course, and so we still have a conflict between any two mods that add animation. Which brings us back to the fundamental conflict: do we have a Fore-like keeper of an "official" behavior file, or do we have a tool to allow lesser beings to compile their own behavior files from multiple sources.

 

[sbseed]

you can have anims work...

there are at least two anim mods on the nexus currently that do not replace vanilla anims.

 

one of them is called naughty animations or just naughty or something... look at the file setup to find out what tricks were used and then you can share that with everyone else. was wrong about the name, dl is called naughty... http://skyrim.nexusmods.com/downloads/file.php?id=11002

the other was done by josh or something...

 

anyways, there are ways to not overwrite vanilla anims.

 

johnhead444's idea could work, the scripting would be tricky.... also there are ways to morph the meshes in-game and using that plus slots you can create fake anims without the same headaches.

 

were there is a will there will always be a way... forward.

so there, naysayers = L

 

hmm... not sure about the problem of setting a sex race as a morph.

should be able to completely bypass the sex race morph thing... it should be possible to create a suite of anims to be used by forcing name + item/skeleton + calls to the files outside of the game (maybe a using the call for armor meshes could double for call with anims)...

however we could place the anims in the resource mod so that the anims are available for calls from other mods(problem is bloat to the recourses mod lol).

[Guest]

Why did Bethesda make that engine if it's so hard to add new animations with it? The idea with TES is that players are free to create what mods they want. It's good that they made scripting better but it doesn't help much if we can't make new animations.

I can only suspect it's either a deliberate attempt to limit sex modding of the game or just a blantant management costcutting or incompetenace screwup.

 

 

I don't think they tried to limit sex mods because why would they care what kind of mods we make? They are not the morale police. Not that sex is immoral. It's just "explicit content that some people can find offensive". But you don't have to use the mods you don't like so I don't see the problem. I would rather see that they tried to limit cheat modding.

[Tefnacht]

Nah, for the developers Havok Behavior is a godsend. It externalizes all the animations and ingame character reactions. If the art department decides to create a new weapon, they can just knock themselves out and do it. No need to bug a programmer about it. Just add the draw, idle, move, attack, block, sheath and stagger animations to the Behavior tree, link up the existing engine event symbols with the art, save, done.

 

Sure ... it has to be tested and tweaked until it works right and looks good. But the artists can do that by themselves. The coders only need to get involved if the artists need some really new, out of the way feature. Recoil anyone? Although I bet that could be done with just Behavior too.

And remember: Skyrim is Bethesdas first title using Havok Behavior. They're in the rookie stage: Cocky but still inexperienced.

 

As far as modding goes ... yeah, we really got the stick this time around. Havok Behavior isn't modular. Its not designed that way and that sucks. For us.

 

... but there is light at the end of the tunnel. On the Nexus there is a mod called FNIS, or: “Fores New Idles in Skyrim.”

 

This guy actually cracked open the Behavior files and added 400 new idle animation events. This basically puts us back to the point where we were in the old games. We could only add idle animations there too. There is just the additional problem that we now need to agree on animation slots between mods to be compatible. The events are called “zFNIScXXX”, where XXX is any number from 001 to 400. Fore reserved the first 50 for himself, so we get 051 to 400.

The files corresponding to those events must be named FNIScXXX.hkx and be located in the “meshes\actor\character\animations\FNIS” folder.

 

Well ... it's not perfect. And it will break with every update by Bethesda that changes the basic Behavior files. And ... well, we depend on Fore's every whim. Totally.

 

However, its a start. No need for dummy races and all the problems inherited with that approach.

[IrisCerania]

Quick question from somebody without modding experience: So what exactly does it mean that we are subject to Fores whim? Is it so that only he knows the process and thus we need to ask him to put our animations into the mod or what?

 

If that´s so, couldn´t we try to reverse-engineer his mod and what little information he gave us to try to find ou how he does that? I am guessing that finding out how he does that would be hard but maybe what little we know of the process might be enough to at least get started. We now know it´s possible, we just need to find out how it´s possible.

 

Or maybe I am misunderstanding that issue completely.

 

But the 400 animation li it sounds bad. There will be overlaps, so if we ever get to do our own animations the modders here must coordinate. Maybe some kind of thread with a list in the OP of all slots, showing which ones are reserved, which ones are open and which slots are used by multiple mods, making these incompatible. That would require work though and considering some OPs I have seen for actually popular mods this might be a little much to ask for.

 

Also it would be harder to incorporate 3rd party mods into that whole mess.

 

Anyways, if what I wrote up there is a load of junk then I am sorry. My poor excuse is that I am writing on a 3DS making it hard to form arguments that are longer than 10 words.

[fore]

Tefnacht, Greader,

 

no, you are not subjerect to my whim. I have published commented "source" of all I have done. So everyone is free to dig in. But beware, some of the files have like 150,000+ lines of xml. I have 2 Nexus threads where I discuss technical issues with other modders: 593157-rel-fores-new-idles-in-skyrim-fnis-v10.

 

I'm constantly working to improve FNIS. Besides those 400 slots for looping animations, I have also 1-time animations, and animated objects running. And I try to encapsulate the changes more and more, so there is less risk and work, once Beth decides on another update, or DLC. Right now I'm working on paired animations (suited for all sex animations), but they are really complicated like hell.

 

Those 400 slots can "easily" be increased, but I don't like the idea. Every slot requires about 100 to 500 new lines of xml, depending on the type of slot. And I also don't like the idea to assign those 400 (or 4000) slots to every possible animation mod.

 

What I have proposed (in the readme, and in this thread about 100 posts ago) is a wrapper tool, which assigns these slots based on the users mod list. Sort of a bashed patch. But I will not write this tool myself. Someone has opted to write a tool which generates behavior files based on the user's mod list. But besides some other disadvantages, this does not make sense as long as myself or someone else is working on the behavior structure.

 

But whatever we will do, changing behaviors is a dirty work-around, because each change (me or someone else is making) is automatically incompatible with each of Beth's updates, and each other mod which modifies the same behavior files.

 

[DocClox]

Quick question from somebody without modding experience: So what exactly does it mean that we are subject to Fores whim? Is it so that only he knows the process and thus we need to ask him to put our animations into the mod or what?

 

I'm sure he'll answer that for himself in short while' date=' but briefly:

 

No, we're not subject to Fore's whim. Anyone can declare themselves the maintainer of a Fore style mt_behavior file and maintain their own animation set. It's not at all hard to do - just copy files into the relevant filenames.

 

The trouble is that we can't have multiple mt_behavior files. So if you start a collection and fore adds something cool, I have to choose. So ideally we need a single maintainer, or we risk mod incompatibilities due to using different behavior files.

 

[b']However[/b], if we do have a single maintainer then we have a bottleneck. Nothing gets added to its final place until the maintainer gets around to it. If he has RL issues then you could wait for a long time. If there is competition for the limited slots, you might not get in at all. And if he has moral or philosophical objections then you won't get added either. None of that is to suggest that any of that applies to Fore. But we have one man to manage 350 slots for every new animation in the entire world of Skyrim modding. So I don't think the single maintainer approach is sustainable.

 

The alternative is to go with prideslayer's approach and build a new behavior file as part of the mod install process. And I agree.

 

 

If that´s so' date=' couldn´t we try to reverse-engineer his mod and what little information he gave us to try to find ou how he does that? I am guessing that finding out how he does that would be hard but maybe what little we know of the process might be enough to at least get started. We now know it´s possible, we just need to find out how it´s possible.

[/quote']

 

Already done. Fore posted the hacked XML he used earlier in this thread, along with enough comments to follow the process. And if you look back a few pages, I posted a perl script that lets anyone build a brand new behavior xml file from arbitrary animations. It's not a perfect solution since it requires you to have perl installed, and still needs hkxcmd to regenerate the new behavior file, but it does everything we need. And it also opens the possibility of experimenting with some of the other XML settings in those records.

 

But the 400 animation li it sounds bad. There will be overlaps' date=' so if we ever get to do our own animations the modders here must coordinate.

[/quote']

 

Got it sorted. My script lets you build a tool for as many actions as you need. And no more than that.

 

Maybe some kind of thread with a list in the OP of all slots' date='

Anyways, if what I wrote up there is a load of junk then I am sorry. My poor excuse is that I am writing on a 3DS making it hard to form arguments that are longer than 10 words.

[/quote']

 

I'd very much like a list of what animations we have available and where to get them. I have about 100 animation files at the moment and about 50% of them are called mt_idle.hkx.

 

I want to spend some time getting a game framework sorted out so we can use these things in mods without needing a PhD in rocket surgery. Having some anims to play with would help.

 

[edit]

 

Not only along shortly, he beat me to it!

[fore]

Already done. Fore posted the hacked XML he used earlier in this thread' date=' along with enough comments to follow the process. And if you look back a few pages, I posted a perl script that lets anyone build a brand new behavior xml file from arbitrary animations.[/quote']

 

So doc, did you update your script to Skyrim 1.5? Doesn't look like. So the result of your script won't run with current Skyrim. See, this is one of the problems with your approach. If ther is a Skyrim update (or an incompatible 3rd party mod), you have to wait for the FNIS behavior update, then you have to interpret the new behavior sources, and then you have to modify your tool. I don't think, all animation users want to wait that long. With a "wrapper" aproach everything needed is the new behavior file. A lot less delay.

 

I'd very much like a list of what animations we have available and where to get them. I have about 100 animation files at the moment and about 50% of them are called mt_idle.hkx.

So why don't you simply rename 45 of them to FNIScnnn.hkx, and activate them with the FNIS spells? That's what those spells were made for...

 

[DocClox]

So doc' date=' did you update your script to Skyrim 1.5? Doesn't look like. So the result of your script won't run with current Skyrim.

[/quote']

 

Haven't looked at it yet, to be honest. I've been hoping either you or pride would have had this sorted out by now. But SSG is getting to the point where we need a proper animation framework.

 

The way I see it, I can piss and moan and whine about how other people aren't doing all the work for me, or I can get off my ass and do the job myself. Quite why you're so opposed to that is a source of deep, ongoing perplexity to me.

 

See' date=' this is one of the problems with your approach. If ther is a Skyrim update (or an incompatible 3rd party mod), you have to wait for the FNIS behavior update, then you have to interpret the new behavior sources, and then you have to modify your tool. I don't think, all animation users want to wait that long. With a "wrapper" aproach everything needed is the new behavior file. A lot less delay.

[/quote']

 

Look, Fore: All due respect, you did a marvelous job trail-blazing the XML format and all that, but honestly? It's not rocket science.

 

It's a very big file, yes. But it's made up of big repeating chunks, and the format isn't all that complex. I don't want to minimize your contribution, but can we please try and keep a sense of proportion here?

 

I'd very much like a list of what animations we have available and where to get them. I have about 100 animation files at the moment and about 50% of them are called mt_idle.hkx.

So why don't you simply rename 45 of them to FNIScnnn.hkx' date=' and activate them with the FNIS spells? That's what those spells were made for...

[/quote']

 

Oddly enough, that's what I've been doing. Though I appreciate the validation

 

[fore]

Quite why you're so opposed to that is a source of deep' date=' ongoing perplexity to me.[/quote']

Sorry Doc, but I feel just the same. Because I just can't understand, why you insist making a behavior generator, ignore my arguments, and apparently don't think one minute about what I think is the "better" solution: the wrapper.

 

It's a very big file' date=' yes. But it's made up of big repeating chunks, and the format isn't all [b']that[/b] complex. I don't want to minimize your contribution, but can we please try and keep a sense of proportion here?

Because you havn't seen 80% of what I have done so far, and more than 95% what I hope I can achieve.

The cyclic animations you are generating are different from the 1-time animations (you are not generating yet), which are different from the cyclic animated objects, different from the 1-time animated objects. And paired animations will probably be more complicated than the forementioned alltogether.

 

And (to encapsulate the changes as much as possible) the place where I hook up all the slots is different now to the place and the structure you know. And when I'm done with paired animatiopns, I want to move most of the changes into 1 or 2 new behavior files.

 

You really want to follow all those moves? Good luck.

 

[DocClox]

Quite why you're so opposed to that is a source of deep' date=' ongoing perplexity to me.[/quote']

Sorry Doc, but I feel just the same. Because I just can't understand, why you insist making a behavior generator, ignore my arguments, and apparently don't think one minute about what I think is the "better" solution: the wrapper.

 

I see two problems with your wrapper.

 

Firstly it doesn't address the basic problem of a single point of failure. You've set up a system that needs a single arbiter of who gets their animations included, where and when. Ultimately that's going to lead to conflicts as different modders (for whatever reason) start maintaining their own behavior files.

 

The second problem is this: it doesn't exist. And from what I understand it won't exist until ianpat gets his RL issues together and we get a papyrus interface to the SKSE functions you requested. And even when ianpat does finish his interface we'll probably still be waiting, because I don't see your requested functions in the list for the next release.

 

It will give us a more user friendly way to access animations than FNIS provides on its own, granted. But we don't need a wrapper to do that. Meanwhile, the single point of failure issue remains unaddressed.

 

It's a very big file' date=' yes. But it's made up of big repeating chunks, and the format isn't all [b']that[/b] complex. I don't want to minimize your contribution, but can we please try and keep a sense of proportion here?

Because you havn't seen 80% of what I have done so far, and more than 95% what I hope I can achieve.

 

Well possibly. Releases aside, you tend not to post here execpt for occasional dollops of sarcasm and negativity whenever someone suggests doing something constructive. That makes it difficult to gague your progress. For all I know you have the solution to the whole problem waiting in the wings and ready for release. And if that turns out to be the case then I for one will have no hesitation in eating humble pie.

 

Meanwhile, don't be surprised if other people take a crack at the problem.

 

You really want to follow all those moves? Good luck.

 

Does it ever occur to you that there might be something insulting in your continual assumption that only you have the mental capacity to solve complicated problems? Last time we had this discussion you modestly compared yourself to Robert Oppenheimer and suggested that only you possesed the wisdom and strength of character not to be corrupted by the awesome power of the behavior file. Now here we are again and it's "don't you worry your pretty little head about all that nasty old science stuff ... daddy will fix it when he gets time. Now why don't you run along and play?"

 

Honestly' date=' you're not the only member of this community with a brain. I really don't want to talk down your contribution so far, but could you [i']possibly[/i] find it in your heart not to assume that everyone else on the planet was a mental incompetant? I'm sure I'm not the only one who would appreciate the courtesy.

 

[GrimReaper]

Can you pls be nice to eachother. :c

[fore]

Can you pls be nice to eachother. :c

I think I havn't said any bad so far. And I won't. Because on ignorance and offensiveness I react with the ignore list. Very helpful.

 

[DocClox]

I'm not quite sure where the ignorance lies in pointing out a likely failure case for your proposal. Nor can I see the offence in asking not to be patronised.

 

But then since it seems unlikely you're reading this, I don't suppose any of that matters.

 

At least we both know where we stand now. Which is progress of a sort, I suppose ...

[omegau]

You know, last time I looked in here, you seemed to have almost cracked it...now you're all fighting over it again...Just what the hell did I miss? You all worked together just fine before, and now you're at each others throats. Get it together, and stop bashing each other. You're acting like children.

[sbseed]

it was because fore was having a tizzyfit over some non-issue in regards to 'HIS' work on animation for skyrim.

 

its done with, or should be now... hasnt effected overall progress fortunately so no worries on that front.

 

need to get information into a resource file still

[Cudayn]

I didn't read every page of this thread and it appears from what I did read that someone seems to have some animations already. And I did not want to start a new topic in case someone had already posted about it somewhere in this thread.

 

Anyhow, I found a mod on the skyrim nexus site that was done by JoshNZ called Animated Prostitution, which lets you target any npc that you can start a conversation with and have a dialog that will allow you to have sex with them.. It only has a few animations but it involves m/f m/m and f/f.

 

I gave it a whirl and it's an OK mod. You need to be on a flat surface with a lot of free space around you, though. I tried one of the animations on a hill and my character looked like they were crab crawling up the hill while the npc was moving side to side as if they were trying to target in on the correct position.

 

I would post the link, but I am not sure if it is allowed to post links to other sites and I am to tired to go see if there is a forum rule about it right now. Anyhow, just search the site with the name of the mod and it should come up. I did a search for it already and it appeared to work for me.

 

Have fun!

 

 

[sbseed]

yes, it that particular mod has already been discussed at length... lol thanks for the information tho.

 

people are working on trying to have added anims without overwriting existing or other mod added anims. thats what is on the current docket anyways... its to bypass the restrictions that the CK currently has on adding more than one new animation and adding animations with mods in general.

[Guest Donkey]

Is there currently a simple tuturial for 3dmax how to import 2 skeleton and start animating. Like was created for blender ??

 

Currently only able to do single one. the moment the second get imported and i try export things seem to be messed up.

[omegau]

Good. I hope I can eventually make a Bosmer whorie(As in luring men to bed before sticking them in the back, like the first edition D&D class) one day. Don't let stupid get in the way of progress.

[canderes]

You can add two skeletons to the scene by taking the first one and using the rename object tool to add a suffix to all the objects for the first skeleton. Add _male for the first skeleton, then import the second one and select those and rename them as _fmale. You can't have the same name for both skeletons. Once you finish making your animation just export one of the skeletons to a separate max file and remove the last few digits from the name so all the bones and objects retain the original names.

 

I've made this animation but I can't be bothered to redo all the havok objects, specifically the constraints. The animations play fine except for the occasional tweaking at the shoulder. Since I cant get havok to work properly whenever there is any collision with the player or active npc the animation goes nuts and all the body parts go to the root. The animations that came with joshNZs mod confuse me because they don't seem to do that which means either he rebuilt the skeleton with the havok objects or he used something else to create the animations. Anyone have any ideas? I'll post a few pictures later to show what I mean.

[canderes]

You can add two skeletons to the scene by taking the first one and using the rename object tool to add a suffix to all the objects for the first skeleton. Add _male for the first skeleton, then import the second one and select those and rename them as _fmale. You can't have the same name for both skeletons. Once you finish making your animation just export one of the skeletons to a separate max file and remove the last few digits from the name so all the bones and objects retain the original names. I'm not sure if this would work for paired animations since I've never tried importing those.

 

I've made this animation but I can't be bothered to redo all the havok objects, specifically the constraints. The animations play fine except for the occasional tweaking at the shoulder. Since I cant get havok to work properly whenever there is any collision with the player or active npc the animation goes nuts and all the body parts go to the root. The animations that came with JoshNZs mod confuse me because they don't seem to do that which means either he rebuilt the skeleton with the havok objects or he used something else to create the animations. Anyone have any ideas? I'll post a few pictures later to show what I mean.

 

Nevermind I got everything sorted out. I was missing some bones, but I can properly export now. Ill see if I can make something interesting...

[Guest]

Tefnacht' date=' Greader,

 

no, you are not subjerect to my whim. I have published commented "source" of all I have done. So everyone is free to dig in. But beware, some of the files have like 150,000+ lines of xml. I have 2 Nexus threads where I discuss technical issues with other modders: 593157-rel-fores-new-idles-in-skyrim-fnis-v10.

 

I'm constantly working to improve FNIS. Besides those 400 slots for looping animations, I have also 1-time animations, and animated objects running. And I try to encapsulate the changes more and more, so there is less risk and work, once Beth decides on another update, or DLC. Right now I'm working on paired animations (suited for all sex animations), but they are really complicated like hell.

 

Those 400 slots can "easily" be increased, but I don't like the idea. Every slot requires about 100 to 500 new lines of xml, depending on the type of slot. And I also don't like the idea to assign those 400 (or 4000) slots to every possible animation mod.

 

What I have proposed (in the readme, and in this thread about 100 posts ago) is a wrapper tool, which assigns these slots based on the users mod list. Sort of a bashed patch. But I will not write this tool myself. Someone has opted to write a tool which generates behavior files based on the user's mod list. But besides some other disadvantages, this does not make sense as long as myself or someone else is working on the behavior structure.

 

But whatever we will do, changing behaviors is a dirty work-around, because each change (me or someone else is making) is automatically incompatible with each of Beth's updates, and each other mod which modifies the same behavior files.

 

 

Oh my god. Is the reason they require so many lines that you've done a workaround that wasn't meant to be done? It's just an animation slot. I never imagined it would be more than 10 lines. But then I know very little about HTML and avoid it like a pest. But I'm glad everyone isn't like me.

[BronyGames]

Sorry for interrupting the argument, but if I had a new "MyNewActor" folder with copies of Bethesda's behavior files in the proper sub-folders, with my own, custom (four legged) skeleton.hkx replacing the vanilla one, I would assume I wouldn't have to worry about any changes made to the original behavior files, which are all in the "character" race folder. Is that correct?

 

If so, then the tool that DocClox is working on would be extremely valuable to someone like me, who is trying to make their own race that's separate from any humanoid race. (and every other race for that matter)

 

I'll be blunt, I couldn't care less about making sex mods. Honestly, it makes me cringe to see so much talent being used on mods that let players see polygon group "A" be inserted into polygon group "B" or to give characters jiggly parts.

I will never complain about it though. I'll never tell anyone here that what they're doing is worthless, nor will I ever ask any of you to stop what you're doing and work on something that I think is much more productive and worth while, because:

 

A) Everything you people are working on is going to make my life much easier, and I would never be able to figure this shit out on my own.

 

Because I can hardly say my own project to make playable candy colored ponies is any more valid than the projects I've seen on this site.

 

C) Who am I to tell anyone else what to do with their skills?

 

TL;DR

Let others do what the hell they want with these behavior files. If they make progress, then that's fantastic and it only helps everyone. If it also causes a problem like the one Fore mentioned, then someone will come up with a solution.

 

One step at a time.