Tannin42 - the new head developer of NMM

[DarkWingedEagle]

Reading through this whole thread I think one thing most people here have forgotten is this most, of us here are the minority of users for new games we're the ones who are willing to spend a day figuring out how MO works we're willing to take 5 or 6 hours to figure out why two new mods we want to use aren't playing nice some of us have been playing and modding skyrim since day one and are still at it.  The majority of players however are people who install some weapon and armor mods and maybe a quest mod or two and that's it they play the game for a couple months and then they move on. For them mods are just something extra on top of the base game while for most of us lets face it we play the game for the mods we don't boot up skyrim to be the dragonborn anymore we boot it up to try out the newest update of our favorite mod or because we saw a new one that caught our eye.  To put it in the most concrete words I can think of NMM was for people with a load order that numbered in the teens or twenties MO was for those of us whose load orders were pusing the cap.  And in most scenarios the majorities needs outweigh the minorities wants.  And quite frankly I had to go back to NMM for what I've done with FO4 so far simply because MO 2 wasn't playing nice with some of my other programs.

 

I think that when it first comes out the new NMM will be somewhere between NMM and MO but I personally don't think it will stay there for long by the time we get things that are heavy compatibility worry mods, like frostfall and the sexlab stuff,  we'll be in good shape thanks to addons.

 

One point I will stand up for the developers of the current NMM for is that it is freaking amazing they have been able to keep something based on ten year old code that was never meant to live this long going not that I think it was necessarily the best decision but the amount of work that would take is insane.  I mean just debugging someone else's software is bad enough when its brand new but I can't even imagine trying to maintain and add on to code that is that old and was not designed with that in mind

[RitualClarity]

 

 

Personally such prejudice of equating MO with some kind of superior qualification of playing with mods is one of the biggest turnoffs of the MO user base.  It's rare now but such attitude used to infest the help threads all over LL as NMM users were basically told switch to MO or else with total disregard of their problems. 

 

 

Fanboys are fanboys, my friend.

No matter what the argument is.

 

I am looking forward to seeing what Tannin will do in 3 months.

 

And I am curious because I do use MO for creating and testing mods (Skyrim)

I use NMM for a couple of other games (FO4 and Witcher.)

And some other modding tools/mod managers for other games that are not really supported by NMM.

 

Keep in mind that NMM is not just for Skyrim. While MO was pretty much only for Skyrim.

And the new "baby" probably will support more games.

 

 

Do you think it will only take three months for a real viable replacement for the current NMM to be developed?

 

Also you use NMM for Witcher? Which Witcher.. (Origins, Steam, other) also does it matter which one? Only modding I have done was ini configs. I just can't get anything else to work properly and I didn't want to mess up the game (my copy is fromOrigin) and have to clean it up and start over. (manual install) At least at that time.

 

MO actually in my opinion is pretty much for Fallout 3, NV, and Skyrim. I only use MO for those games currently. I have moved from FOMM awhile ago once MO had mods that handled the HUD issues that were present with Fallout NV. (before used FOMM through MO to handle that issue but it was a pain in my green alien ass )

 

Most use it for Skyrim as the other manager (FOMM) is pretty dam solid for use in Fallout 3 and NV. So many still use that to manage their mods. MO can only really be used with the disk version of Oblivion at least the full functionality so I don't even consider MO for Oblivion. And with that game they have the solid OBMM and Wyre Bash for it (at least most users I have known use either or both of those managers)  So I see your point with it being pretty much for Skyrim as you really only had NMM for modding Skyrim game until MO came along. Not to much talk about Wyre Bash and Skyrim.

 

With Tannin going to Nexus.. I really got to start playing around with Wyre Bash a bit more to get a good feel for its capabilities and functions to see if I like that for a replacement provided it can work for Fallout 4 and hopefully Skyrim SE..However not too much talk about that manager anywhere.

[Twycross448]

 

... by the time we get things that are heavy compatibility worry mods, like frostfall and the sexlab stuff,  we'll be in good shape thanks to addons.

 

Short interjection:

I thought both Fore and the SkyUI team said they wouldn't port FNIS repectively SkyUI over to the SE? If that still holds true, we can forget about any mods relying on animations and the MCM menu, which is a damn lot of the better mods out there.

[vsuamier]

 

 

...

 

I am looking forward to seeing what Tannin will do in 3 months.

 

And I am curious because I do use MO for creating and testing mods (Skyrim)

I use NMM for a couple of other games (FO4 and Witcher.)

And some other modding tools/mod managers for other games that are not really supported by NMM.

 

 

 

Do you think it will only take three months for a real viable replacement for the current NMM to be developed?

 

Also you use NMM for Witcher? Which Witcher.. (Origins, Steam, other) also does it matter which one? Only modding I have done was ini configs. I just can't get anything else to work properly and I didn't want to mess up the game (my copy is fromOrigin) and have to clean it up and start over. (manual install) At least at that time.

 

 

That is possible for one that the project is already running some months and because they can use the old code base. I don't believe that a lot will be reused but some stable highly optimized parts from whichever manager could make it in. Maybe some public beta test only. Keep in mind that the basic thing is copying files from A to B and maybe sorting a list of ESPMs using LOOT. Downloading and unpacking is already a on top.

[RitualClarity]

 

 

 

...

 

I am looking forward to seeing what Tannin will do in 3 months.

 

And I am curious because I do use MO for creating and testing mods (Skyrim)

I use NMM for a couple of other games (FO4 and Witcher.)

And some other modding tools/mod managers for other games that are not really supported by NMM.

 

 

 

Do you think it will only take three months for a real viable replacement for the current NMM to be developed?

 

Also you use NMM for Witcher? Which Witcher.. (Origins, Steam, other) also does it matter which one? Only modding I have done was ini configs. I just can't get anything else to work properly and I didn't want to mess up the game (my copy is fromOrigin) and have to clean it up and start over. (manual install) At least at that time.

 

 

That is possible for one that the project is already running some months and because they can use the old code base. I don't believe that a lot will be reused but some stable highly optimized parts from whichever manager could make it in. Maybe some public beta test only. Keep in mind that the basic thing is copying files from A to B and maybe sorting a list of ESPMs using LOOT. Downloading and unpacking is already a on top.

 

 

Yes perhaps some basics setup to let people see it however I see them waiting for a bit longer to release it. I don't remember MO being released to general public until most of all the basic functionality was created. Also the article states that they have been designing it since last August and now are starting to code it.

 

You have a point.. since it will be open source then many of the key components can be just ported over from stable proven code. I guess it depends on how much of the code they use. I think the delay wouldn't be just porting over some code and such. I believe it will be in the testing of the setup and flow. Only so much could be planed out before real world situation has to be tested.

 

Hopefully they will roll it out for beta testers to get their hands on to try it out. That would at least give the modding communities around the net something to discuss and something more concrete as to the features, layout and functionality. Also would be good for Nexus/DarkOne/Tannin to get a feel for the reception of the main core users (Heavy Nexus users being the most likely to adopt the new manager with a few curious individuals outside of Nexus "click" to try it out) so they can get some pretty good feedback and suggestions related to usability, simplicity and functionality.

[RitualClarity]

that makes me think. I'd like the new Manager when released to have "old school" functionality. Not that much above what NMM had before. That is just copy A>B and removal of mods. LOOT support and the game tool support included (perhaps) and that is about it. (of course being NMM it would have the site download functionality)

 

Basic, simple and old school manager. Little bells and whisles to start with. Just works.

 

Now the copy A>B would be nice if it also handled the main folder.. so that the script extenders, ENBs, Bat files and other tools and resources could be managed by the tool as well. Shouldn't be difficult. Then again I don't know. That alone would be a god send to people modding that want a dead simple mod installer. Now with this it wouldn't be a mod manager it would be a Mod and Tool Manager. MTM  Perhaps Nexus Mod and Tool Manager. (NMTM) lol.

 

Anyway.. once that is dead rock solid and almost unbreakable. Then add the option for Virtualization support One like NMM has now that clumps everything together (basic Virtualization support, and one that is like MO with individualized support. Then If it does handle the tools and such as well.. One wouldn't even need to look at the game folder ever again. Even though it is a easy fix.

 

You would have...

Old school install for any games that have problems, (new games before virtual support for the tools and mods are avalable.

Bulk VM support for ease of installation of mods that require seeing other mods and tools.

Detailed VM support for fine support and conflict resolution.

 

Having the ability to directly access the game folder would also be useful for those games that require direct editing of the main folders as well. Edit or get an edited ini file for a game like Witcher etc. Change or even replace entire files for Mass Effect (premade modules) to get selected features so that those that understand the structure and tools to edit and change those files cna create packs for the installation.

 

However I have doubt any of the above will be done

[Guest]

 

 

 

1) Do you think it will only take three months for a real viable replacement for the current NMM to be developed?

 

2) Also you use NMM for Witcher? Which Witcher.. (Origins, Steam, other) also does it matter which one? Only modding I have done was ini configs. I just can't get anything else to work properly and I didn't want to mess up the game (my copy is fromOrigin) and have to clean it up and start over. (manual install) At least at that time.

 

3) MO actually in my opinion is pretty much for Fallout 3, NV, and Skyrim. ....

 

 

1) To have an idea of what it will be, yes, it will be enough. Final product? Probably not.

 

2) Witcher 3 from Steam.

 

3) Never played Fallout 3/NV. Or Oblivion.

[Anrakis]

 

Actually I assumed that you already know the modding basics before starting using a tool like NMM, TMM or MO. I'm willing to learn (I always do) but if a tool is not in some way intuitive to learn (if you know the basics) then it will not attract the audience it is made for. I have not looked at MO for some time but if I interpret you correctly MO is still to hard to use for those people it was made for. I find that a disappointing weakness for such a great tool.

 

 

Actually I tried NMM for Fallout 4 after using MO for Skyrim quite some time.... and I do think that the MO UI is much more intuitive.

It took me some time to see in NMM in which exact order I had installed my mods and I had some other issues.

But maybe I am not the target audience because I am a software developer and used to tools that are a little bit complex. For me everything was fairly clear in MO.

All mods in correct order at the left side. My load order on the right side. Downloads in their own tab. Only thing a little bit complicated is the UI for adding other tools to run and at first I did not realize that there is an "override" area.

 

 

Therefore I am looking forward to the new tool. I hope I will get the best of both worlds and I know that a UI designed by Tannin is intuitive to use for me. I do think there will be two different UI modes. One for those that preferred NMM and one for thoe that used MO. I hope both sides will be happy and can then enjoy the technical superiority of MO while using a UI that suites their needs.

[fred200]

I would be happy if it were possible to build Mod Organizer from the Github source.

 

I wish someone - anyone - would take over the build process and make it both intelligible and functional.

Some documentation would not hurt either.  The code is pretty much comment-free.

At this point I think only Tannin can build Mod Organizer from source.

Note: Whoever takes this on has to really really love Python.

 

[RitualClarity]

 

 

 

1) To have an idea of what it will be, yes, it will be enough. Final product? Probably not.

 

2) Witcher 3 from Steam.

 

3) Never played Fallout 3/NV. Or Oblivion

[27X]

Steam/Origin

 

Next time GOG has one of their anniversary sales, you really should pick up witcher from there, all the mods work, and no bullshit after that, you 'own' the games flat.

 

[RitualClarity]

 

Steam/Origin

 

Next time GOG has one of their anniversary sales, you really should pick up witcher from there, all the mods work, and no bullshit after that, you 'own' the games flat.

 

 

 

Haven't used GOG at all yet. I really hate having two game managers and having three will be even more awful. However eventually I might have to.

 

[27X]

It sucks having four of them (Steam, Gog, Stardock, Origin), buit with gog once it's registered to you, you're done; no file checks, no authentication no nada unless you specify you want it to.

 

 

[vsuamier]

I would be happy if it were possible to build Mod Organizer from the Github source.

 

I wish someone - anyone - would take over the build process and make it both intelligible and functional.

Some documentation would not hurt either.  The code is pretty much comment-free.

At this point I think only Tannin can build Mod Organizer from source.

Note: Whoever takes this on has to really really love Python.

 

Taking a short look I understand why it is difficult for people not used to many different build system. I believed scons was dead... If Tannin42 used a special (maybe even patched) version of scons that would of course explain problems for other people to build it ootb. Maybe they only tried cmake but used the wrong version (like cmake3 instead of 2, that is error phrone) or cmake is outdated in some way. I would not trust the build instructions however... or just the wrong version of one of the dependencies. Can't see any real problems but would have to try it out myself if I can build it.

 

Not completely wrong, but I see now why people gave up on building: All dependencies are build manually so they are some kind of package for MO. But the main problem I see is that they include debug symbols which is a really bad idea in general. As developer you don't want to dig into your dependencies... also IMO using Boost and Qt is redundant.

 

Summed up I would not recommend to continue development of MO itself if you need a power machine for just building dependencies. Even if you use prebuild binaries from last release you have get all the modules and create (develop) a top-cmakefile setting up the build environment (include + lib paths) for cmake to find them and maybe check if anything else needs to be set. You would start from any of these modules and ignore linker problems in the beginning.

[fred200]

 

I would be happy if it were possible to build Mod Organizer from the Github source.

 

I wish someone - anyone - would take over the build process and make it both intelligible and functional.

Some documentation would not hurt either.  The code is pretty much comment-free.

At this point I think only Tannin can build Mod Organizer from source.

Note: Whoever takes this on has to really really love Python.

 

Taking a short look I understand why it is difficult for people not used to many different build system. I believed scons was dead... If Tannin42 used a special (maybe even patched) version of scons that would of course explain problems for other people to build it ootb. Maybe they only tried cmake but used the wrong version (like cmake3 instead of 2, that is error phrone) or cmake is outdated in some way. I would not trust the build instructions however... or just the wrong version of one of the dependencies. Can't see any real problems but would have to try it out myself if I can build it.

 

 

Challenge!  Run a test build, see how you do, and report back here!

 

I would love to see the results from someone else.

 

I never got as far as compiling. My build hung up trying to download the NMM source.

 

I was not willing to downgrade my Visual Studio installation, so I modified the build to use version 14 and not version 12.

I did install C++ compiler with my version. None of this is documented... The build should not even use Visual Studio.

[vsuamier]

 

 

 

I would be happy if it were possible to build Mod Organizer from the Github source.

 

I wish someone - anyone - would take over the build process and make it both intelligible and functional.

Some documentation would not hurt either.  The code is pretty much comment-free.

At this point I think only Tannin can build Mod Organizer from source.

Note: Whoever takes this on has to really really love Python.

 

Taking a short look I understand why it is difficult for people not used to many different build system. I believed scons was dead... If Tannin42 used a special (maybe even patched) version of scons that would of course explain problems for other people to build it ootb. Maybe they only tried cmake but used the wrong version (like cmake3 instead of 2, that is error phrone) or cmake is outdated in some way. I would not trust the build instructions however... or just the wrong version of one of the dependencies. Can't see any real problems but would have to try it out myself if I can build it.

 

 

 

 

Challenge!  Run a test build, see how you do, and report back here!

 

I would love to see the results from someone else.

 

I never got as far as compiling. My build hung up trying to download the NMM source.

 

I was not willing to downgrade my Visual Studio installation, so I modified the build to use version 14 and not version 12.

I did install C++ compiler with my version. None of this is documented... The build should not even use Visual Studio.

 

 

I edited my post...

I would not even use the python script file. I would completely overwork the build system to only use cmake.

I would force the users to download all the repositories manually not via scripting (seems much more safe).

 

Only compile real dependencies like boost or Qt when necessary (certainly not for debug symbols), install them from their source, and use official win32 (supposedly 32bit ?) binaries. Much more safe. Also enables you to use the latest version of tools except when stated that this version is not working. I know f.e that Qt5.5 should not be used, it has several critical issues fixed in 5.6.

When building everything from scratch the compiler should not matter, however it looks like the build system is looking for something specific in certain paths and that might only work with VS2013. That's one reason to scratch the original build system. It's painful in the beginning but pays off.

 

I will not accept the challenge. I'm not that much interested myself in MO. But if you need help just ask. The cmake web pages have cmake very well documented. Boost is a holy grail for me. Qt I know very well.

 

It could make sense to actually drastically reduce the number of repositories and put everything in subdirectories of mo except maybe optional things (like when MO can only be built for one game at a time). CMake handles this perfectly.

 

Edit: Just saw there is a NMM importer, that's why you probably needed NMM source. Scratch that, I can't believe it is a good idea to actually convert a repository from NMM to MO. Easier to leave out this feature.

 

Even with my > 200 mod installation I would gladly reinstall everything before converting it. All mods are kept in the TMM (obmm) folder in my case anyway, so that would not be a problem.

 

Edit2: (Sorry) I saw that there are some QtWebKit issues. If this Qt module is needed than I need to inform you that it is no longer part of Qt. You can however download it from the Qt download server somewhere and build it separately (I think I only have done this on Ubuntu for a tool called gammaray), binaries are not provided. QtWebEngine replaces it (Porting guide: https://wiki.qt.io/Porting_from_QtWebKit_to_QtWebEngine )

[27X]

 

 

Steam/Origin

 

Next time GOG has one of their anniversary sales, you really should pick up witcher from there, all the mods work, and no bullshit after that, you 'own' the games flat.

 

 

 

Haven't used GOG at all yet. I really hate having two game managers and having three will be even more awful. However eventually I might have to.

 

 

 

https://www.gog.com/news/the_witcher_9th_anniversary_sale_up_to_85_off

[Lexi SubZero]

 

 

Steam/Origin

 

Next time GOG has one of their anniversary sales, you really should pick up witcher from there, all the mods work, and no bullshit after that, you 'own' the games flat.

 

 

 

Haven't used GOG at all yet. I really hate having two game managers and having three will be even more awful. However eventually I might have to.

 

 

You're talking about the GOG Galaxy? You don't need to install that at all. Unlike Steam client, Uplay or Origin that's completely optional..

[27X]

As I've already stated.

[I'm The Wabbit]

 

 

 

 

1) To have an idea of what it will be, yes, it will be enough. Final product? Probably not.

 

2) Witcher 3 from Steam.

 

3) Never played Fallout 3/NV. Or Oblivion

 

My same expression. Thing is, I've never played Oblivion because I don't know how to use MO with it.

[myuhinny]

Most use OBMM (oblivion mod manager) for oblivion. MO can be used but it'll take lots of work to get it up and running and not many use MO with oblivion so getting help might take awhile.

[Ark of Truth]

I wish him the best of luck. It is open source and anyone can pickup MO2 where he left off. Any developer or modder working in his spare time deserves credit and recognition.

 

Until he changes his mind and says its no longer open source. Seen that happen before. Plus MO uses part of NMM in its coding.

[Loogie]

Fucking sell out is all I have to say. But I don't care because SKyrim is the last Beth game I play so I have no worries about it. I'll never use NMM ever

 

Yeah, fuck that guy for turning a hobby he loves into a job instead of a chore piled on top of what he needs to do to live.

 

Seriously. If someone gave you the choice to do something you do for free, but as a career, you cannot honestly say you wouldn't take the offer.

[DoctaSax]

 

I wish him the best of luck. It is open source and anyone can pickup MO2 where he left off. Any developer or modder working in his spare time deserves credit and recognition.

 

Until he changes his mind and says its no longer open source. Seen that happen before. Plus MO uses part of NMM in its coding.

 

 

Both are under a gpl; it'd be perfectly illegal to reverse their free open-source status. Besides, I don't see any grounds for even thinking Tanning would want to revert MO's copyleft; coders who pick it tend to do so knowing what they're getting into. I wouldn't worry too much about NMM's status either; apart from it already having been announced it'll stay open-source, it's obviously largely based on FOMM, which is also under gpl, forcing it on NMM in the first place.

 

[RitualClarity]

 

 

I wish him the best of luck. It is open source and anyone can pickup MO2 where he left off. Any developer or modder working in his spare time deserves credit and recognition.

 

Until he changes his mind and says its no longer open source. Seen that happen before. Plus MO uses part of NMM in its coding.

 

 

Both are under a gpl; it'd be perfectly illegal to reverse their free open-source status. Besides, I don't see any grounds for even thinking Tanning would want to revert MO's copyleft; coders who pick it tend to do so knowing what they're getting into. I wouldn't worry too much about NMM's status either; apart from it already having been announced it'll stay open-source, it's obviously largely based on FOMM, which is also under gpl, forcing it on NMM in the first place.

 

 

 

As DoctaSax stated It would be illegal to reverse their open source status on what has been released.

 

concerns about the new NMM being closed source... is also nothing to be concerned about. Being open source is to Dark One's advantage well more than to try to make closed source software. Also many of the components and code that  will likely be used is also open source already. So there should be very little concern with this.