SexTec (SexLab, SexOut, etc.) - Container thread

[Love Space]

i'm really waiting  this project, but at this point i'm afraid that it will be abandoned...

i wish you good luck anyway

F4SE may be release in a couple months. Patience is key.

[Masiaf1234]

 

i'm really waiting  this project, but at this point i'm afraid that it will be abandoned...

i wish you good luck anyway

F4SE may be release in a couple months. Patience is key.

 

 How do you know?

[Kimy]

 

 

i'm really waiting  this project, but at this point i'm afraid that it will be abandoned...

i wish you good luck anyway

F4SE may be release in a couple months. Patience is key.

 

 How do you know?

 

 

This assumption is way too optimistic. I have been looking at their progress (or rather lack thereof) since FO4 launched. At this speed, I'd say we're looking at least another year of development until F4SE will have reached a feature list comparable to SKSE. And even that I wouldn't take for granted. There are several problems: The first being a obvious lack of interest in FO4, made evident by them jumping at making a script extender for SSE rather than continuing the already started work on F4SE - despite nobody has ever demonstrated a truly compelling reason for using SSE over Oldrim. Then, their dev team is considerably less active and less large than it used to be in the Oldrim days, cutting their resources down once more.

 

Honestly, I gave up on F4SE a while ago. As I said above, my own experience after releasing a heavily scripted mod for FO4 is that F4SE is not truly needed for most of the things we want to do here. It would be -convenient-. Not more, not less. FO4 Papyrus is much more powerful than its Skyrim equivalent, and a lot of the things we dearly missed in Skyrim Papyrus are built right into the vanilla API now. It's funny that a lot of modders are still complaining about Beth not adding functions from the script extenders, when in a lot of cases, they actually DID. There are still some things missing, yes. But rarely dealbreaking ones. But that's just me and my 2 cents.

[pipdude]

Without any updates from them, it's tough to say if/when it will be available. Maybe they have a lot done and just haven't shared any news. So, a couple of months might not be too optimistic. I do wish they would announce something either way.

 

I think that they gave good reasons for SE. There are already a lot of mods built that could benefit from it. As soon as they build the extender, a bunch of already built mods can be converted over. And it is far more stable than Oldrim.

 

What functions from SKSE did they add in FO4? Anything for scaleform? Anything that would allow saving and loading data from files? Methods to transform nodes?

[Highborn]

 

Dynamic replacement of objects, ability to write and read structured files, dynamic aliasing, package overrides, mathematical operators, reliable disabling of collisions, scaleform interface (user interface), mod event management, ...

Just to say the very firsts that come to mind.

*scratches head*

 

That's all stuff I can see needed/desired for advanced versions of the mod. But the basics are probably doable with the vanilla API, no? E.g. mod events are part of vanilla Papyrus now, and overriding packages from the scripting engine has always been wonky anyway and at least can be done on the CK side, maybe with a bit more effort. User interfaces - I have seen a mod on Nexus trying to implement that, but yes, it's new and unproven. But MCM will not happen for Fallout 4 anyway.

 

Not trying to interfere with how you guys build your mod, but it's very, VERY evident that F4SE is not really a priority to them. There has been almost zero progress in one and a half years now, despite the game executable has been reasonably stable for a while now. At this pace, Bethesda will have released Fallout 6 before F4SE is done. I decided not to wait for F4SE a while ago and personally I am very happy with the decision. At this point I am not sure if I will set a dependency on it even if it releases, in 10 or 20 years from now on.

There is a "light" version of the MCM for Fallout 4 on Nexus. It was uploaded last month. Would that help?

[Guest]

No, it does not actually has scaleform interface, cannot load mods interfaces dynamically, neither can save/read values.

[F0rg0TTenGrave]

i'm still thinking that they give up on fo4 script extender... but there is already some animation wich work without it, and the only mod that need the script extender is looksmenu, i have nearly 150 mods and none of them need it, in skyrim you need script extender and fnis for almost everything + unofficial patch etc... install sexlab and pray the god of mod to not crash... i guess i can be proud to myself it only crash few time now and stable most of the time x) 

well, i'm not a modder and i understand how difficult it could be to creating it, but just asking, could it be possible to make sex mods without script extender? 

 

ps: sorry for my bad english 

[Kimy]

 

could it be possible to make sex mods without script extender? 

 

Yes.Totally. Actually somebody made a working prototype of a FO4 sex animation a while ago. No script extenders needed.

 

What's not possible without a script extender is creating a 1:1 port of SexLab. Some of its functionality would need API functions not present in the FO4 vanilla API, which people think/assume/hope will be a part of F4SE. One day, when it releases and assuming we all haven't died of old age by then.

[F0rg0TTenGrave]

oh i see, and maybe it will be easier to create without f04se? and also really easy to install if its just some .esp and .esm

so maybe thats why bethesda doesn't work on it anymore

[pipdude]

 

 

could it be possible to make sex mods without script extender? 

 

Yes.Totally. Actually somebody made a working prototype of a FO4 sex animation a while ago. No script extenders needed.

 

What's not possible without a script extender is creating a 1:1 port of SexLab. Some of its functionality would need API functions not present in the FO4 vanilla API, which people think/assume/hope will be a part of F4SE. One day, when it releases and assuming we all haven't died of old age by then.

 

 

This is true.

 

But, I would say that a port would be somewhere in the 1:3 range. And it's that proportionality that I suspect is the demotivator. SKSE allowed for a lot of tools to make developing in Papyrus easier. And even then, it was still a wonky, unstable environment to work in. The work-arounds to accomplish the same things in Papyrus without SKSE-dependent tools are not insignificant.

 

As mods, people are doing this in their free time. Having to kludge through dev in a way that will most likely have to be re-done when an extender comes out just isn't an exciting prospect.

 

I could theoretically build a framework now. But, I'd rather wait for tools that will make it take half the time and allow including better features.

oh i see, and maybe it will be easier to create without f04se? and also really easy to install if its just some .esp and .esm

so maybe thats why bethesda doesn't work on it anymore

 

F4SE isn't made by Bethesda. They are independent modders.

 

A framework, even a partial light version, is not easier to create without F4SE. That's the problem. It would be more difficult, with fewer features and once an extender comes out, much of that code would not be re-usable.

[DexesTTP]

As I understand it, the main missing part so far is the ability to dynamically add animations to the game. It is possible to do it via .esm files, but the actual binding/registration of the animations doesn't seem to allow adding them from other children mods (like what SLAL does).

 

We already know this is possible to do via the engine itself though, through tests, and F4SE would allow to use these dynamic animation bindings.

 

So, any work done with the "vanilla" system for animation launching will have to be completely redone with a new F4SE-based method. It's pretty hard to be motivated working on something you know will not be good enough and will have to be replaced at some point.

[Kimy]

As I understand it, the main missing part so far is the ability to dynamically add animations to the game. It is possible to do it via .esm files, but the actual binding/registration of the animations doesn't seem to allow adding them from other children mods (like what SLAL does).

 

Personally I consider that a plus. I never liked having to install two dozen (partially redundant) animation packs. I'd rather install ONE framework with ALL the animations in ONE pack and customize which ones I want THERE.

[Vader666]

 

As I understand it, the main missing part so far is the ability to dynamically add animations to the game. It is possible to do it via .esm files, but the actual binding/registration of the animations doesn't seem to allow adding them from other children mods (like what SLAL does).

 

I never liked having to install two dozen (partially redundant) animation packs.

 

You would still have to.

The only change is that every animation pack needs an .esp instead of just the animations and SLAL magic.

But honestly, the need of an esp for every animation pack is a rather small price to pay, espacially compared to have nothing at all.

[pipdude]

 

As I understand it, the main missing part so far is the ability to dynamically add animations to the game. It is possible to do it via .esm files, but the actual binding/registration of the animations doesn't seem to allow adding them from other children mods (like what SLAL does).

 

Personally I consider that a plus. I never liked having to install two dozen (partially redundant) animation packs. I'd rather install ONE framework with ALL the animations in ONE pack and customize which ones I want THERE.

 

 

At that point, it's more of a regular mod than a framework.

[Kimy]

 

 

As I understand it, the main missing part so far is the ability to dynamically add animations to the game. It is possible to do it via .esm files, but the actual binding/registration of the animations doesn't seem to allow adding them from other children mods (like what SLAL does).

 

Personally I consider that a plus. I never liked having to install two dozen (partially redundant) animation packs. I'd rather install ONE framework with ALL the animations in ONE pack and customize which ones I want THERE.

 

 

At that point, it's more of a regular mod than a framework.

 

 

Matter of perspective of what you believe should be a part of the API and what 3rd party mods should add and modify. Animations being separate from the base framework mod serves no tangible purpose I can see, but just creates additional complexity for the user having to collect/install all these mods.

[F0rg0TTenGrave]

id would like to try, and learn about making mods and animation etc... but i'm a newbie and need to learn about it 

 

[Choppytehbear]

id would like to try, and learn about making mods and animation etc... but i'm a newbie and need to learn about it 

 

I am the same. Also, it's a bit frightening to get into because you are competing with people who have been modding for years.

[pipdude]

 

 

At that point, it's more of a regular mod than a framework.

 

 

Matter of perspective of what you believe should be a part of the API and what 3rd party mods should add and modify. Animations being separate from the base framework mod serves no tangible purpose I can see, but just creates additional complexity for the user having to collect/install all these mods.

 

 

I think the purpose is that it eliminates the need for the framework authors to hard code animations every time a separate modder makes one. They would have to get into the business of deciding which animations to add and which not, etc.

 

If it loads them dynamically, it lessens the dependency.

 

 

id would like to try, and learn about making mods and animation etc... but i'm a newbie and need to learn about it 

 

I am the same. Also, it's a bit frightening to get into because you are competing with people who have been modding for years.

 

 

For modding in general, you should start by learning about how the CreationKit works. There are many tutorials about that around.

 

For animation, look up "0Sex". The mod author wrote a series of animation tutorials that were helpful for me.

 

I can't speak for others. But, I'm pretty sure that nobody views it as a competition. Just about any addition is welcome and a lot of people will offer help.

[Lurker001]

I wonder... is it possible to make a framework that uses the crafting system for now?

Kind of like, enter into a build menu sort of thing but instead of buildings and markers, you can trigger animations, scenarios, etc... It already uses script injection, so modders could inject their stuff in and so on.

I'm not a modder, and I very well could be spouting nonsense here, but it was just an idea I was thinking of.

[Kimy]

 

 

 

At that point, it's more of a regular mod than a framework.

 

 

Matter of perspective of what you believe should be a part of the API and what 3rd party mods should add and modify. Animations being separate from the base framework mod serves no tangible purpose I can see, but just creates additional complexity for the user having to collect/install all these mods.

 

 

I think the purpose is that it eliminates the need for the framework authors to hard code animations every time a separate modder makes one. They would have to get into the business of deciding which animations to add and which not, etc.

 

That's called "quality control"

 

Also, experience with Skyrim has shown that there will be less than a handful of people making animations, so that little downside isn't really a problem. Honestly, in life in general, many problems people see are in reality much smaller than they think. The price we pay for waiting for the perfect tools to make the perfect framework with, is having no framework at all in the long, long meantime. I guess I am just a type who can live with a 85% good solution. It doesn't always have to be perfect. Again...my two cents.

[D_ManXX2]

 

 

 

 

 

 

At that point, it's more of a regular mod than a framework.

 

 

Matter of perspective of what you believe should be a part of the API and what 3rd party mods should add and modify. Animations being separate from the base framework mod serves no tangible purpose I can see, but just creates additional complexity for the user having to collect/install all these mods.

 

 

I think the purpose is that it eliminates the need for the framework authors to hard code animations every time a separate modder makes one. They would have to get into the business of deciding which animations to add and which not, etc.

 

That's called "quality control"

 

Also, experience with Skyrim has shown that there will be less than a handful of people making animations, so that little downside isn't really a problem. Honestly, in life in general, many problems people see are in reality much smaller than they think. The price we pay for waiting for the perfect tools to make the perfect framework with, is having no framework at all in the long, long meantime. I guess I am just a type who can live with a 85% good solution. It doesn't always have to be perfect. Again...my two cents.

 

 

 

 

Even without a framework there was always a modder who created prostitution mods on nexus also for skyrim before there even where sexlab there where other framework who was doing the same in a limited event. maybe something like that needs to be started once the real framework comes we could always do a switch.

[DexesTTP]

Even without a framework there was always a modder who created prostitution mods on nexus also for skyrim before there even where sexlab there where other framework who was doing the same in a limited event. maybe something like that needs to be started once the real framework comes we could always do a switch.

 

That's the thing though. There's already AP out for FO4 since a few months already, and it still works. What would the benefit of copying AP be ?

 

SexLab is way more than a simple sex mod. It's a framework, and it would be expected of the SexTec framework to hold the same base functionalities and to improve on the way it's done.

 

I'm not sure if SexLab began before FNIS/SKSE. What's known about SexTec is that while it won't require a FNIS-like solution, it should rely more on the engine to hook the animations so F4SE is a given for a perfect mod.

 

That's called "quality control"

 

Also, experience with Skyrim has shown that there will be less than a handful of people making animations, so that little downside isn't really a problem. Honestly, in life in general, many problems people see are in reality much smaller than they think. The price we pay for waiting for the perfect tools to make the perfect framework with, is having no framework at all in the long, long meantime. I guess I am just a type who can live with a 85% good solution. It doesn't always have to be perfect. Again...my two cents.

 

I hear you, and to a certain degree I agree with you. SexTec could be done with compromises, to make a first version and not rely on tools that may come out who-knows-when. Several others have actually a similar point of view, and this was actually somewhat the idea behind the "Mini" version CPU talked about.

 

Now, it depends what compromises need to be made for SexTec to still work, and to still be SexTec. The "mini" version wouldn't be at all what SexTec needs to be, and barely enough to build anything on top of it. SexTec was planning to go way further than SexLab did originally, with a lot of "broken" stuff from SexLab redone without worrying about keeping compatibility and more work done on the "modules" aspect of the framework. And I'm not sure if going without that, even for a first version, would be better or worse than having nothing.

[F0rg0TTenGrave]

i think that just add simple sex animation would be great and everyone would love it...

its true that sextec without fo4se will be limited, but why not just add some sex animation mod? till you get youre full script extender?

and the things i want to learn is to make nice sexy outfit and armour, i think there is a lack of it in fo4 x)

[Kimy]

 

And I'm not sure if going without that, even for a first version, would be better or worse than having nothing.

 

 

Personally? I know the world is telling people to always aim high and shoot for the stars. The realist knows that the stars are out of reach for the foreseeable future We don't even know how to make it to Mars.

[Love Space]

 

 

And I'm not sure if going without that, even for a first version, would be better or worse than having nothing.

 

 

Personally? I know the world is telling people to always aim high and shoot for the stars. The realist knows that the stars are out of reach for the foreseeable future We don't even know how to make it to Mars.

 

A nasa ship perhaps?