ljacquard Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 <lovers animated penis framework [ v1.6a1 ].7z> meshes\characters\_male\Idleanims\ani2\*.kf >>> 1171 files meshes\characters\_male\Idleanims\mb\*.kf >>> 27 files meshes\clothes\as+asbonersv5\*.nif >>> 140 files meshes\clothes\lovers\*.nif >>> 11 files meshes\idleobjects\lovers\*.nif >>> 72 files sound\fx\lovers\*.wav >>> 866 files textures\*.dds >>> 35 files Why no BSA for all these files ? Not recommended ?
fejeena Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Please no ! There are still published new animations and it is easier to open the Folder and check which numbers you can use. (Daedra Sutra and the Lovers Animations Workshop ) Also you can check/watch animations in NifSkope and decide if you want to replace. And some People have problems with the LoversAnimObjectsPriority.bsa, animations with objects (furniture) does not work right , so they unpack the bsa. Also you must not unpack the bsa to get the Lovers lower bodies and Change the glossiness so they match with your Body replacer, or if you want add piercings.
ljacquard Posted January 19, 2015 Author Posted January 19, 2015 Please no ! There are still published new animations and it is easier to open the Folder and check which numbers you can use. (Daedra Sutra and the Lovers Animations Workshop ) Also you can check/watch animations in NifSkope and decide if you want to replace. Of course, if the mod is still in WIP stage, I can understand it not to be turned into a BSA (to avoid the uncompress/recompress process). Once it goes live however, why would you keep them loose ? Also, having an animation in a BSA should not prevent you in a shape or form to override it with your own tweaked animation (provided the timestap is more recent on the loose file). Of course, you don't want to have the animation several times in different BSAs (might lead to crashes if their timestamp is the same), or there may be considerations about animations which shouldn't be in BSAs that I am not aware of. Again, Bethesda has ALL of their animations (nif and kf) in their BSAs, and it doesn't seem to cause me any issues so far to do the same with custom mods. And some People have problems with the LoversAnimObjectsPriority.bsa, animations with objects (furniture) does not work right , so they unpack the bsa. Sure, if some people have troubles with BSAs and need to have them unpacked, or prefer loose files for whatever reason, it's fine with me. My question really is to know if it's not recommended AT ALL all to turn LAPF into one (or several) BSAs. For technical reasons, with serious drawbacks (crashes, animations not working, etc.), not just for reasons of comfort or personal preference. LAPF's existing BSAs work fine for me for whatever it's worth. EDIT : Just want to mention that if the LAPF team decides not to use further BSAs it's perfectly fine with me. I don't want to impose anything, I am way too happy to be able to use whatever is given to us. Just looking for advice and motivated "DON'Ts", so that I can create these additional BSAs with the most knowledge available. Also you must not unpack the bsa to get the Lovers lower bodies and Change the glossiness so they match with your Body replacer, or if you want add piercings. I see. I trust you know this stuff better than me, having played around with it more than me. If I cannot change the mesh itself, can I still use <Blockhead> to safely add piercings ?
fejeena Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Blockhead only handles bodies ( don't think you can add clothes) I add piercings (tits,private parts and belly) , fingernails ,claws,... to the Body meshes. I don't like to equip piercings nails ,.. if I strip my clothes . (and during Lovers Sex you can not open your inventory). And it blocks no equipement Slots , so I can still wear rings, amulets. You can add piercings to the meshes in the Set Body Folders and use it with Blockhead, or only SetBody and in game the Setbody self spell. I replaced some bodies I did not like with my piercing/nails meshes and only my Player character use these meshes. ---------------------------- Yes if you make mods with meshes and textures you will hate bsa files. Unpacking consumes too much time.
gregathit Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 We have never put animations into bsa files...EVER. The reason for this is pretty simple, any bsa file is AUTOMATICALLY over-ridden by any loose files. The shear number of problems that would flood the tech support section would drive everyone crazy. Most folks do not have the mod savyness to hunt down a loose file that may be mucking up the works. This also would complicate the shit out of upgrading as folks would have to go and clean out all the loose files so the bsa stuff would actually work. So no, it won't ever happen. Sorry.
ljacquard Posted January 20, 2015 Author Posted January 20, 2015 We have never put animations into bsa files...EVER. The reason for this is pretty simple, any bsa file is AUTOMATICALLY over-ridden by any loose files. This is technically wrong, and it's unfortunate that such misconceptions remain so strongly rooted in the minds of even very experienced modders like you and others here. Please do a simple test if you don't believe me : 1/ create a BSA with a single mesh in it. I picked an *underwear* mesh from EVE : meshes\characters\_male\femaleupperbody.nif 2/ name the BSA whatever you wish, as long as it gets loaded by the game. I called mine : Alternative Start by Robert Evrae - TEST.bsa" to load the BSA through the plugin. 3/ set the timestamp on your BSA to "2006/01/01". Wrye Bash will do this automatically for you once you launch it. 4/ now pick another different mesh with the *same* name/path than above. I picked a *nude* mesh from EVE. Install it as loose file in the game folder : .\oblivion\data\meshes\characters\_male\femaleupperbody.nif 5/ set the timestamp on the loose file to "2000/01/01". 6/ start the game. What do you see ? The shear number of problems that would flood the tech support section would drive everyone crazy. Most folks do not have the mod savyness to hunt down a loose file that may be mucking up the works. This also would complicate the shit out of upgrading as folks would have to go and clean out all the loose files so the bsa stuff would actually work. So no, it won't ever happen. Sorry. You'll have the same number of issues with BSA than with loose files, and you know it. Probably less even, since most people will not be able to figure out how to uncompress BSA files, then restore them to the game folder and create a mess if they so wanted. Whereas with loose files, you can directly operate on the game folder, alter and potentially corrupt LAPF resources without any extra knowledge. Popular mods on the Beth forums, on TESalliance, on the Nexus or elsewhere, with several times the magnitude of LAPF in size, were released and keep being successfully updated through BSAs. <Better Cities> and <Maskar's Oblivion Overhaul> to name the two largest ones I currently use. For mod authors and players alike, it's no more difficult to operate with BSAs than it is with loose files, probably slightly more secure and performance-friendly even. To be honest, this is totally secondary however. I think that you answered in the way that you've answered because : 1/ it's probably not immediately obvious to everyone how BSA operate, and mistakes are possible/frequent 2/ historically, erroneous data was (and visibly continues to) spread about how BSA operate across various fora People have followed this general "consensus", without ever having a serious look into the question by themselves. Now, instead of antagonizing you, I would like to tell you the following : you remain a very capable modder in my eyes. If you care to do the test that I suggested, I am convinced that you may start to change in how you perceive BSAs, how they work, and how they could be useful. They are not the EVIL incarnate. Leaving BSA aside, there's stuff you do, and create, that I am unable to do. You have given us countless hours of your time, and you continue to do so. I don't know you otherwise, but I respect you for this generosity and expertise. I actually do not want the LAPF team (or anyone else) to change their ways regarding BSAs. Do *whatever* you prefer, in the way you feel comfortable with it. My initial question was to know if there were any known cons to put the LAPF resources into a single BSA. Refering to the answers I've received so far, it seems to me that there are none. I can do my own stuff if no one else feels it's worth it looking further into BSAs. This is really all.
gregathit Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 This is technically wrong, and it's unfortunate that such misconceptions remain so strongly rooted in the minds of even very experienced modders like you and others here. Bullshit that it is technically fucking wrong. It is a fact. Your whole premise is based on manipulating the date of the bsa file and folks using Wrye Bash. Neither of which is going to be 100% the case. So don't give me your little steps and fucking attitude. You want to make it for yourself, go for it. You want to distribute it, go for it. Everything I have done on this forum is open for others to modify to their hearts desire. Just be ready to provide support as I fucking won't. You'll have the same number of issues with BSA than with loose files, and you know it. Probably less even, since most people will not be able to figure out how to uncompress BSA files, then restore them to the game folder and create a mess if they so wanted. Whereas with loose files, you can directly operate on the game folder, alter and potentially corrupt LAPF resources without any extra knowledge. Again, fucking bullshit. I don't know it and neither do you. Especially since most folks are scared spit-less of Wrye Bash and won't use it. What are they supposed to do? Do you know how many folks are experienced and patient enough to figure out how to purge all loose files? Fucking precious few. For fuck's sake, the installation instructions of the LAPF and as simple as it gets and there is ALWAYS a number of folks who can't get it right. I've been doing tech support here since my join date so I've damn near seen it all. Popular mods on the Beth forums, on TESalliance, on the Nexus or elsewhere, with several times the magnitude of LAPF in size, were released and keep being successfully updated through BSAs. <Better Cities> and <Maskar's Oblivion Overhaul> to name the two largest ones I currently use. For mod authors and players alike, it's no more difficult to operate with BSAs than it is with loose files, probably slightly more secure and performance-friendly even. Large mods are released in bsa format as it is easier to avoid conflicts and much more organized. This has NOTHING to fucking do with the LAPF. It is NOT a large overhaul mod. It is a VERY sensitive mod that can be very easily broken by damn near anything. Thus it makes ZERO sense to compare it. I think that you answered in the way that you've answered because : 1/ it's probably not immediately obvious to everyone how BSA operate, and mistakes are possible/frequent 2/ historically, erroneous data was (and visibly continues to) spread about how BSA operate across various fora People have followed this general "consensus", without ever having a serious look into the question by themselves. You are doing absolutely nothing but making some wild ass assumptions that are based on YOUR opinion and not mine. I do know how bsa files operate and I have been providing help for folks with mods for several years. So knock off the assumptions. Now, instead of antagonizing you, I would like to tell you the following : you remain a very capable modder in my eyes. If you care to do the test that I suggested, I am convinced that you may start to change in how you perceive BSAs, how they work, and how they could be useful. They are not the EVIL incarnate. Leaving BSA aside, there's stuff you do, and create, that I am unable to do. You have given us countless hours of your time, and you continue to do so. I don't know you otherwise, but I respect you for this generosity and expertise. I actually do not want the LAPF team (or anyone else) to change their ways regarding BSAs. Do *whatever* you prefer, in the way you feel comfortable with it. Way too fucking late pal. You antagonized me throughout your whole fucking post with your tone and content. I don't need to test fucking anything, as I already know how it works. There is nothing wrong with BSA files in and of themselves AND I NEVER SAID THAT THERE WERE. I have most of my personal armor mods in a bsa file, uncompressed of course. BSA files are fine for some things, and not fine for others. Disagree? Fine, but don't fucking act like you know it all as you clearly don't. Go read all the debate about bsa files. There is no clear and definitive "this way is always better" position. Probably never will be. Several points you are missing and shouldn't if you were half as smart as you think you are: 1. BSA files are NOT user friendly to update. The whole freaking point of the LAPF is to make it simple for folks to install, use and MODIFY. Want different animations in your game, no problem, grab the Daedra Sutra and swap them out. Want to disable some animations, no problem, move the ini file out of the ini folder and you won't see it anymore. The list goes on. 2. BSA files require more work on my end to update. Like I have any more time to freaking spend on crap that folks really don't care about. Thanks but no fucking thanks. I could go on but I won't. Do whatever the hell you want, but don't put words in my mouth or assume crap. My initial question was to know if there were any known cons to put the LAPF resources into a single BSA. Refering to the answers I've received so far, it seems to me that there are none. I can do my own stuff if no one else feels it's worth it looking further into BSAs. This is really all. Your entire post should have just been this, instead of all the Bullshit you wrote.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.