Sexlab Aroused Redux December 05 2016

Slorm · November 30, 2016

Correct. Unless you turn off Redux with the new checkbox, the more people around, the higher the impact regardless of any other setting. However, the impact will be identical to what existed in versions 26 and below which most people never complained about.

Forgetting about the papyrus impact (I never had problems with the older versions) what's the effect on the character in game. Does this change in effect accelerate the rate (or frequency) of change in arousal as the aroused variable will be calculated more frequently, or am I misunderstanding the change?

*fishburger67* · December 1, 2016

Correct. Unless you turn off Redux with the new checkbox, the more people around, the higher the impact regardless of any other setting. However, the impact will be identical to what existed in versions 26 and below which most people never complained about.

Forgetting about the papyrus impact (I never had problems with the older versions) what's the effect on the character in game. Does this change in effect accelerate the rate (or frequency) of change in arousal as the aroused variable will be calculated more frequently, or am I misunderstanding the change?

There is no change in how arousal is calculated. There is no change in this calculation between 26 and below and 28. The only change in this regard is between 27 and 28 and then only if there are no naked actors around. If there are no naked actors around, the arousal calculation is done on every NPC in the scan. This means that arousal will increase or decrease (depending on the time rate value and days since last sex at the time) without changing the exposure (because there are no naked actors to change exposure).

The effective difference is that aroused will behave in a similar way to version 26. Beginning in 26 b or so, this calculation was not performed if there were no naked actors around.

Pet1Pet · December 1, 2016

Hi fishburger67,

FYI perhaps...I have upgraded&installed (from 27a loose file) ver 28 and noticed that the MCM menu options all have prefix of $SLA_

Also, I initiated a sex scene...I also saw a (debug?) $SLA_ message.

What is the debug message you saw and where did you see it. I did the same thing and saw no message, neither in the top left notification area or in the console.

Hi there,

Don't worry about the debug message. It seems to be with ver28 loose files ver only. It's not there with ver28a BSA ver. Thanks!

ForestElf · December 1, 2016

Correct. Unless you turn off Redux with the new checkbox, the more people around, the higher the impact regardless of any other setting. However, the impact will be identical to what existed in versions 26 and below which most people never complained about.

Forgive the stupid question, but i am having a hard time understanding this. So you made the mod heavier now???

*WaxenFigure* · December 1, 2016

Correct. Unless you turn off Redux with the new checkbox, the more people around, the higher the impact regardless of any other setting. However, the impact will be identical to what existed in versions 26 and below which most people never complained about.

Forgive the stupid question, but i am having a hard time understanding this. So you made the mod heavier now???

No, he made an Option to make the mod heavier for those who like/need the heavier functionality. The mod is not heavier by default.

ForestElf · December 1, 2016

No, he made an Option to make the mod heavier for those who like/need the heavier functionality. The mod is not heavier by default.

Oh, thanks, Because i swear i was so confused when i read the changes in the new version, that seemed to me that it's now heavier by default. I don't intend to change default settings, so it's fine by me.

No, he made an Option to make the mod heavier for those who like/need the heavier functionality. The mod is not heavier by default.

Oh, thanks, Because i swear i was so confused when i read the changes in the new version, that seemed to me that it's now heavier by default. I don't intend to change default settings, so it's fine by me.

Slorm · December 1, 2016

There is no change in how arousal is calculated. There is no change in this calculation between 26 and below and 28. The only change in this regard is between 27 and 28 and then only if there are no naked actors around. If there are no naked actors around, the arousal calculation is done on every NPC in the scan. This means that arousal will increase or decrease (depending on the time rate value and days since last sex at the time) without changing the exposure (because there are no naked actors to change exposure).

The effective difference is that aroused will behave in a similar way to version 26. Beginning in 26 b or so, this calculation was not performed if there were no naked actors around.

Many thanks for answering that

BeamerMiasma · December 2, 2016

Honestly I'm not really sure why it should be an option. Correct me if I'm wrong Fish, but the way I see it:

- If there are generally always naked people around, then turning the option on or off makes no difference, because the code that is turned on/off by this option only runs when there are no naked people around. With naked people around, SLA will give correct arousal values and use the same amount of papyrus time regardless of this setting.

- If there are no naked people around, and the option is turned off, then SLA will give the correct arousal values, and the papyrus load will still be lighter than when you have 1 or more naked people around (arousal values are updated for everyone just as when there is a naked actor around, but there are no calls to UpdateNakedArousal, so no LOS/Exhibitionist checks).

- If there are no naked people around, and the option is turned on, the result will be that SLA uses less papyrus time, but:

Magic effects that depend on arousal will be using an incorrect value. This includes SLA's own Lover's Desire effect.
Dialogue checks that use arousal will be using an incorrect value.
Many script checks on arousal (those that check the faction rank rather than call GetActorArousal) will be getting an incorrect value.
When an actor does finally see nudity or sex, their arousal may suddenly make a big jump. For a sexually active PC with a high Timerate it may well go from 0 to 100 in 1 jump.

The same effects can be gotten by using the new disable option, which saves even more papyrus time and at least makes it clear that stuff won't be working correctly.

Airianna · December 2, 2016

I prefer this, version, as I enter a place I may not have been in a while, and see in the SLA Widget, someone with a 76, and no naked bodies, it still calculates on cell check, and then I can see, their number at 36 or 0, or what ever, as I slowly make my rounds from city to city, within a week or 2 of dungeon diving between. Otherwise, i would have to be naked, for the scan to kick in?

First thing I did, was set it so it would still adjust the arousal even if no naked bodies are there, Because I do run around with armor on, and almost all the NPCs remain clothed at all times.

*fishburger67* · December 2, 2016

Honestly I'm not really sure why it should be an option. Correct me if I'm wrong Fish, but the way I see it:

- If there are generally always naked people around, then turning the option on or off makes no difference, because the code that is turned on/off by this option only runs when there are no naked people around. With naked people around, SLA will give correct arousal values and use the same amount of papyrus time regardless of this setting.

I would say that there are generally NO naked people around during normal game play. There are only naked people around when the player is screwing off, not playing the game normally.

- If there are no naked people around, and the option is turned off, then SLA will give the correct arousal values, and the papyrus load will still be lighter than when you have 1 or more naked people around (arousal values are updated for everyone just as when there is a naked actor around, but there are no calls to UpdateNakedArousal, so no LOS/Exhibitionist checks).

- If there are no naked people around, and the option is turned on, the result will be that SLA uses less papyrus time, but:

Magic effects that depend on arousal will be using an incorrect value. This includes SLA's own Lover's Desire effect.

This is not correct. Arousal is still calculated with the box checked off.

Dialogue checks that use arousal will be using an incorrect value.

This is not correct. Arousal is still calcualted with the box checked off.

Many script checks on arousal (those that check the faction rank rather than call GetActorArousal) will be getting an incorrect value.

Ditto

When an actor does finally see nudity or sex, their arousal may suddenly make a big jump. For a sexually active PC with a high Timerate it may well go from 0 to 100 in 1 jump.

Arousal is still calculated even with the box checked off, so there will be no big jumps.

The same effects can be gotten by using the new disable option, which saves even more papyrus time and at least makes it clear that stuff won't be working correctly.

There is no need to do UpdateNakedArousal if there are no naked actors. The call is unnecessary and unneeded overhead. If there are no naked actors, there is only a need to change arousal based on dayssincelastsex and time rate and that happens regardless of the checkbox setting.

*fishburger67* · December 2, 2016

I prefer this, version, as I enter a place I may not have been in a while, and see in the SLA Widget, someone with a 76, and no naked bodies, it still calculates on cell check, and then I can see, their number at 36 or 0, or what ever, as I slowly make my rounds from city to city, within a week or 2 of dungeon diving between. Otherwise, i would have to be naked, for the scan to kick in?

First thing I did, was set it so it would still adjust the arousal even if no naked bodies are there, Because I do run around with armor on, and almost all the NPCs remain clothed at all times.

This is essentially correct. Even if you wear armor, the arousal value is calculated regardless of the setting of the checkbox. There is no real value in setting it off that I can see. It just adds unnecessarily to your papyrus load by calling UpdateNakedArousal where there are no naked players to check anyway.

BeamerMiasma · December 2, 2016

Honestly I'm not really sure why it should be an option. Correct me if I'm wrong Fish, but the way I see it:

- If there are generally always naked people around, then turning the option on or off makes no difference, because the code that is turned on/off by this option only runs when there are no naked people around. With naked people around, SLA will give correct arousal values and use the same amount of papyrus time regardless of this setting.

I would say that there are generally NO naked people around during normal game play. There are only naked people around when the player is screwing off, not playing the game normally.

I've been told some people run around with naked followers, no idea why

- If there are no naked people around, and the option is turned off, then SLA will give the correct arousal values, and the papyrus load will still be lighter than when you have 1 or more naked people around (arousal values are updated for everyone just as when there is a naked actor around, but there are no calls to UpdateNakedArousal, so no LOS/Exhibitionist checks).

- If there are no naked people around, and the option is turned on, the result will be that SLA uses less papyrus time, but:

Magic effects that depend on arousal will be using an incorrect value. This includes SLA's own Lover's Desire effect.

This is not correct. Arousal is still calculated with the box checked off.

Dialogue checks that use arousal will be using an incorrect value.

This is not correct. Arousal is still calcualted with the box checked off.

Many script checks on arousal (those that check the faction rank rather than call GetActorArousal) will be getting an incorrect value.

Ditto

When an actor does finally see nudity or sex, their arousal may suddenly make a big jump. For a sexually active PC with a high Timerate it may well go from 0 to 100 in 1 jump.

Arousal is still calculated even with the box checked off, so there will be no big jumps.

The same effects can be gotten by using the new disable option, which saves even more papyrus time and at least makes it clear that stuff won't be working correctly.

There is no need to do UpdateNakedArousal if there are no naked actors. The call is unnecessary and unneeded overhead. If there are no naked actors, there is only a need to change arousal based on dayssincelastsex and time rate and that happens regardless of the checkbox setting.

Yes you are right, I see now that you added it as a negative to the IF condition in OnUpdate, rather than as a condition to the ELSE check, sorry I should have checked the code first. But if there are no naked people, then "while ((j < nakedCount) || ((j <= nakedCount) && bPlayerNaked))" in the original code already always resolves to false, because in that case nakedCount is 0 and bPlayerNaked is false. So in that case UpdateNakedArousal isn't called anyway, the while loop is skipped and it jumps straight to "if (bFactionNeedsUpdate) / slaUtil.GetActorArousal(actLoop)".

The original problem I reported was that the loop was never traversed at all when there were no naked people (because of "if(nakedCount > 0 || bPlayerNaked)"). The 2 possible solutions were to add a second loop for this specific case (the solution I proposed) or to always make sure the first loop is traversed. You seem to have implemented both and gave us the option to choose between the two. Since there seems to be no functional difference, and I suspect most people will have a hard time understanding what the option does, wouldn't it make more sense if you just picked the optimal one and hardcoded that?

Might just save you a bunch of support questions

*fishburger67* · December 2, 2016

Honestly I'm not really sure why it should be an option. Correct me if I'm wrong Fish, but the way I see it:

- If there are generally always naked people around, then turning the option on or off makes no difference, because the code that is turned on/off by this option only runs when there are no naked people around. With naked people around, SLA will give correct arousal values and use the same amount of papyrus time regardless of this setting.

I would say that there are generally NO naked people around during normal game play. There are only naked people around when the player is screwing off, not playing the game normally.

I've been told some people run around with naked followers, no idea why

- If there are no naked people around, and the option is turned off, then SLA will give the correct arousal values, and the papyrus load will still be lighter than when you have 1 or more naked people around (arousal values are updated for everyone just as when there is a naked actor around, but there are no calls to UpdateNakedArousal, so no LOS/Exhibitionist checks).

- If there are no naked people around, and the option is turned on, the result will be that SLA uses less papyrus time, but:

Magic effects that depend on arousal will be using an incorrect value. This includes SLA's own Lover's Desire effect.

This is not correct. Arousal is still calculated with the box checked off.

Dialogue checks that use arousal will be using an incorrect value.

This is not correct. Arousal is still calcualted with the box checked off.

Many script checks on arousal (those that check the faction rank rather than call GetActorArousal) will be getting an incorrect value.

Ditto

When an actor does finally see nudity or sex, their arousal may suddenly make a big jump. For a sexually active PC with a high Timerate it may well go from 0 to 100 in 1 jump.

Arousal is still calculated even with the box checked off, so there will be no big jumps.

The same effects can be gotten by using the new disable option, which saves even more papyrus time and at least makes it clear that stuff won't be working correctly.

There is no need to do UpdateNakedArousal if there are no naked actors. The call is unnecessary and unneeded overhead. If there are no naked actors, there is only a need to change arousal based on dayssincelastsex and time rate and that happens regardless of the checkbox setting.

Yes you are right, I see now that you added it as a negative to the IF condition in OnUpdate, rather than as a condition to the ELSE check, sorry I should have checked the code first. But if there are no naked people, then "while ((j < nakedCount) || ((j <= nakedCount) && bPlayerNaked))" in the original code already always resolves to false, because in that case nakedCount is 0 and bPlayerNaked is false. So in that case UpdateNakedArousal isn't called anyway, the while loop is skipped and it jumps straight to "if (bFactionNeedsUpdate) / slaUtil.GetActorArousal(actLoop)".

The original problem I reported was that the loop was never traversed at all when there were no naked people (because of "if(nakedCount > 0 || bPlayerNaked)"). The 2 possible solutions were to add a second loop for this specific case (the solution I proposed) or to always make sure the first loop is traversed. You seem to have implemented both and gave us the option to choose between the two. Since there seems to be no functional difference, and I suspect most people will have a hard time understanding what the option does, wouldn't it make more sense if you just picked the optimal one and hardcoded that?

Might just save you a bunch of support questions

Yep, you are probably right on the support question issue. But, this way, things can be exactly like they used to be if the box is checked off.

BeamerMiasma · December 3, 2016

Honestly I'm not really sure why it should be an option. Correct me if I'm wrong Fish, but the way I see it:

- If there are generally always naked people around, then turning the option on or off makes no difference, because the code that is turned on/off by this option only runs when there are no naked people around. With naked people around, SLA will give correct arousal values and use the same amount of papyrus time regardless of this setting.

I would say that there are generally NO naked people around during normal game play. There are only naked people around when the player is screwing off, not playing the game normally.

I've been told some people run around with naked followers, no idea why

- If there are no naked people around, and the option is turned off, then SLA will give the correct arousal values, and the papyrus load will still be lighter than when you have 1 or more naked people around (arousal values are updated for everyone just as when there is a naked actor around, but there are no calls to UpdateNakedArousal, so no LOS/Exhibitionist checks).

- If there are no naked people around, and the option is turned on, the result will be that SLA uses less papyrus time, but:

Magic effects that depend on arousal will be using an incorrect value. This includes SLA's own Lover's Desire effect.

This is not correct. Arousal is still calculated with the box checked off.

Dialogue checks that use arousal will be using an incorrect value.

This is not correct. Arousal is still calcualted with the box checked off.

Many script checks on arousal (those that check the faction rank rather than call GetActorArousal) will be getting an incorrect value.

Ditto

When an actor does finally see nudity or sex, their arousal may suddenly make a big jump. For a sexually active PC with a high Timerate it may well go from 0 to 100 in 1 jump.

Arousal is still calculated even with the box checked off, so there will be no big jumps.

The same effects can be gotten by using the new disable option, which saves even more papyrus time and at least makes it clear that stuff won't be working correctly.

There is no need to do UpdateNakedArousal if there are no naked actors. The call is unnecessary and unneeded overhead. If there are no naked actors, there is only a need to change arousal based on dayssincelastsex and time rate and that happens regardless of the checkbox setting.

Yes you are right, I see now that you added it as a negative to the IF condition in OnUpdate, rather than as a condition to the ELSE check, sorry I should have checked the code first. But if there are no naked people, then "while ((j < nakedCount) || ((j <= nakedCount) && bPlayerNaked))" in the original code already always resolves to false, because in that case nakedCount is 0 and bPlayerNaked is false. So in that case UpdateNakedArousal isn't called anyway, the while loop is skipped and it jumps straight to "if (bFactionNeedsUpdate) / slaUtil.GetActorArousal(actLoop)".

The original problem I reported was that the loop was never traversed at all when there were no naked people (because of "if(nakedCount > 0 || bPlayerNaked)"). The 2 possible solutions were to add a second loop for this specific case (the solution I proposed) or to always make sure the first loop is traversed. You seem to have implemented both and gave us the option to choose between the two. Since there seems to be no functional difference, and I suspect most people will have a hard time understanding what the option does, wouldn't it make more sense if you just picked the optimal one and hardcoded that?

Might just save you a bunch of support questions

Yep, you are probably right on the support question issue. But, this way, things can be exactly like they used to be if the box is checked off.

After some more investigation, I'm afraid things still aren't entirely correct though. In my proposed solution, I had put this block of code before the "if(nakedCount > 0 || bPlayerNaked)" condition in OnUpdate:

    if(checkForLock(2))
        debug.trace("Already locked for OnUpdate - This should never happen.  Your machine is too slow")
        return
    endif
    actorCount = getAllActors(2)

This is necessary because otherwise actorCount will always be 0 and nearby actors won't be scanned for when this block of code runs:

    else
        int k = actorCount
        while (k)
            k -= 1
            slaUtil.GetActorArousal(theActors[k])
        endwhile
        slaUtil.GetActorArousal(PlayerRef)
    endif

In the current version the call to getAllActors is still placed inside the "if(nakedCount > 0 || bPlayerNaked)" block, so the only line in the above ELSE block that will ever run is the call that updates the Player's faction rank, because k is always 0. The faction rank of nearby actors is still not being updated.

With the getAllActors call before the IF block, the performance difference between having the option on or off all but disappears. With 3 nearby actors I'm measuring an insignificant 0.01 second difference (out of 1.6 seconds) over an average of 5 measurements.

*fishburger67* · December 3, 2016

Honestly I'm not really sure why it should be an option. Correct me if I'm wrong Fish, but the way I see it:

- If there are generally always naked people around, then turning the option on or off makes no difference, because the code that is turned on/off by this option only runs when there are no naked people around. With naked people around, SLA will give correct arousal values and use the same amount of papyrus time regardless of this setting.

I would say that there are generally NO naked people around during normal game play. There are only naked people around when the player is screwing off, not playing the game normally.

I've been told some people run around with naked followers, no idea why

- If there are no naked people around, and the option is turned off, then SLA will give the correct arousal values, and the papyrus load will still be lighter than when you have 1 or more naked people around (arousal values are updated for everyone just as when there is a naked actor around, but there are no calls to UpdateNakedArousal, so no LOS/Exhibitionist checks).

- If there are no naked people around, and the option is turned on, the result will be that SLA uses less papyrus time, but:

Magic effects that depend on arousal will be using an incorrect value. This includes SLA's own Lover's Desire effect.

This is not correct. Arousal is still calculated with the box checked off.

Dialogue checks that use arousal will be using an incorrect value.

This is not correct. Arousal is still calcualted with the box checked off.

Many script checks on arousal (those that check the faction rank rather than call GetActorArousal) will be getting an incorrect value.

Ditto

When an actor does finally see nudity or sex, their arousal may suddenly make a big jump. For a sexually active PC with a high Timerate it may well go from 0 to 100 in 1 jump.

Arousal is still calculated even with the box checked off, so there will be no big jumps.

The same effects can be gotten by using the new disable option, which saves even more papyrus time and at least makes it clear that stuff won't be working correctly.

There is no need to do UpdateNakedArousal if there are no naked actors. The call is unnecessary and unneeded overhead. If there are no naked actors, there is only a need to change arousal based on dayssincelastsex and time rate and that happens regardless of the checkbox setting.

Yes you are right, I see now that you added it as a negative to the IF condition in OnUpdate, rather than as a condition to the ELSE check, sorry I should have checked the code first. But if there are no naked people, then "while ((j < nakedCount) || ((j <= nakedCount) && bPlayerNaked))" in the original code already always resolves to false, because in that case nakedCount is 0 and bPlayerNaked is false. So in that case UpdateNakedArousal isn't called anyway, the while loop is skipped and it jumps straight to "if (bFactionNeedsUpdate) / slaUtil.GetActorArousal(actLoop)".

The original problem I reported was that the loop was never traversed at all when there were no naked people (because of "if(nakedCount > 0 || bPlayerNaked)"). The 2 possible solutions were to add a second loop for this specific case (the solution I proposed) or to always make sure the first loop is traversed. You seem to have implemented both and gave us the option to choose between the two. Since there seems to be no functional difference, and I suspect most people will have a hard time understanding what the option does, wouldn't it make more sense if you just picked the optimal one and hardcoded that?

Might just save you a bunch of support questions

Yep, you are probably right on the support question issue. But, this way, things can be exactly like they used to be if the box is checked off.

After some more investigation, I'm afraid things still aren't entirely correct though. In my proposed solution, I had put this block of code before the "if(nakedCount > 0 || bPlayerNaked)" condition in OnUpdate:
    if(checkForLock(2))
        debug.trace("Already locked for OnUpdate - This should never happen.  Your machine is too slow")
        return
    endif
    actorCount = getAllActors(2)
This is necessary because otherwise actorCount will always be 0 and nearby actors won't be scanned for when this block of code runs:
    else
        int k = actorCount
        while (k)
            k -= 1
            slaUtil.GetActorArousal(theActors[k])
        endwhile
        slaUtil.GetActorArousal(PlayerRef)
    endif
In the current version the call to getAllActors is still placed inside the "if(nakedCount > 0 || bPlayerNaked)" block, so the only line in the above ELSE block that will ever run is the call that updates the Player's faction rank, because k is always 0. The faction rank of nearby actors is still not being updated.

With the getAllActors call before the IF block, the performance difference between having the option on or off all but disappears. With 3 nearby actors I'm measuring an insignificant 0.01 second difference (out of 1.6 seconds) over an average of 5 measurements.

You are 100% right. I'll put out a fix next week.

BeamerMiasma · December 3, 2016

Sometimes I think you worry too much about performance. Compared to other framework mods SAR is a jewel. If you look at the original SLA, SOS, Creature Framework, heck even RaceMenu, the amount of resources SAR consumes is peanuts. I've overloaded my papyrus engine with bad mods plenty of times, but not once have I seen SAR cause any performance problems. More than that, even when completely crapping out the papyrus engine SAR typically keeps purring on like a happy kitten while other mods fall left and right like one shot draugrs, thanks to its single threaded design and solid spinlocks.

So kudos for the great work, and don't get any grey hairs over trying to shave off another tenth of a second once every 2 minutes. Half of almost nothing is still almost nothing

December 3, 2016

To stop this mod's tracing temporarily I need what - uncheck the "cloak spell on player"?

How can I stop NPCs from getting exposure for seeing naked other NPCs? The manipulation mentioned above doesn't help. Besides, I keep receiving messages about my PC's insatiability.

Thank you.

*fishburger67* · December 5, 2016

To stop this mod's tracing temporarily I need what - uncheck the "cloak spell on player"?

How can I stop NPCs from getting exposure for seeing naked other NPCs? The manipulation mentioned above doesn't help. Besides, I keep receiving messages about my PC's insatiability.

Thank you.

The whole purpose of aroused is to add exposure to NPCs when they see naked actors. If you don't want it to work, there is an MCM menu option now to turn it off.

*fishburger67* · December 5, 2016

Version 28b is available for download

Fixes two bugs in how arousal is computed if there are no naked actors and was pointed out by BeamerMiasma. If you have a version below 28 and you want faster arousal computations if there are no naked actors, you should download and install this version. In version 28 and 28a, arousal was always calculated using the long version. This version should speed things up for you slightly (about .6 seconds with 10 actors) if there are no naked actors and you have onlynaked checked in MCM (no difference if it is checked off).

In versions 28 and 28a, arousal was not computed if you had no naked actors and you had the nakedonly MCM checkbox checked off (which is opposite of what is should have been).

It now works as intended which is that a minimal arousal computation is done if there are no naked actors and you have the box checked on. If you have the box checked off, the full arousal computation is done regardless if there are naked actors or not.

Even though BeamerMiasma doesn't think it is significant, I think .6 seconds is worth getting, so by all means, check the "Require naked actors to change arousal." on for best performance.

Jenova23 · December 5, 2016

How does one set up each actors sexual pref without having to target each specific npc?

*fishburger67* · December 5, 2016

How does one set up each actors sexual pref without having to target each specific npc?

You don't. Use the puppet master on each one.

Airianna · December 6, 2016

In conjunction with me always being dressed, I chose to set the tavern worker clothes as naked, just so while in most of the taverns.

Also, I went in and checked Eager NPC's shout activator, didn't take long to get all 3 words, for a massive boost on everyone's arousal rates nearby.

How does one set up each actors sexual pref without having to target each specific npc?

With the use of Eager NPCs, and being able to get an NPC to do something with you just once...

That mod will save that NPC's settings and display them in the MCM, then all you have to do, after you get through several "lovers" is go through the list in Eager NPCs and adjust their gender preferences there. Provided that you forget when you target NPC with arousal check, then go into the pupet master and just boost their arousal for a more rapid acceptance.

December 6, 2016

How does one set up each actors sexual pref without having to target each specific npc?

Another alternative, Manipulator. You still need to set each NPC once, but you can save the selections, and then load them on a new game.

Jenova23 · December 6, 2016

In conjunction with me always being dressed, I chose to set the tavern worker clothes as naked, just so while in most of the taverns.

Also, I went in and checked Eager NPC's shout activator, didn't take long to get all 3 words, for a massive boost on everyone's arousal rates nearby.

How does one set up each actors sexual pref without having to target each specific npc?

With the use of Eager NPCs, and being able to get an NPC to do something with you just once...

That mod will save that NPC's settings and display them in the MCM, then all you have to do, after you get through several "lovers" is go through the list in Eager NPCs and adjust their gender preferences there. Provided that you forget when you target NPC with arousal check, then go into the pupet master and just boost their arousal for a more rapid acceptance.

How does one set up each actors sexual pref without having to target each specific npc?

Another alternative, Manipulator. You still need to set each NPC once, but you can save the selections, and then load them on a new game.

I'm basically trying to find a way to play the game so that every npc in the game has the correct sexual prefernece, similar to how sexlife has a Json file which you can simply edit to your liking. That would simply take to much work.

Redoneter593 · December 6, 2016

Ok.... Because some mods are a bit different with their systems, I'd like understand how this mod calculates and stuff. I only get what a few things are so I've listed what I think I know. Feel free to correct me as I do sometimes act like a SGN (Spelling & Grammar Nazi)

(A Arousal levels show how much an actor wants sex and not how much ecstasy an actor is experiencing

(B Exposure levels show how much ecstasy an actor is experiencing

(C Timerate affects how fast arousal is increased and how fast the in-game clock is.

(D Both making and using mods for/with video games is often confusing and/or complex

(E "would reduce more exposure" makes my brain hurt and should be replaced with "would cause more exposure loss"

Sign In

Sexlab Aroused Redux December 05 2016

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Guest

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Guest ffabris

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Important Information