SE Compatibility Tracking (Apr 23)

[tasairis]

57 minutes ago, Pfiffy said:

The whole thing is a workaround right now. We still don't know, why the armors get registered or not. There are a lot of open questions. 

The first one I have is: Why do all the ppl have to put MNC directly under CF, when it is working for me somewhere at the end of the load order?

I actually have a theory about that. No proof yet.

Quote

I have just made new packages for DD with the edited files, and didn't change the Headers... I usually don't change the Headers... Did anybody found a mod that didn't work because it has the old header?

It's known that some Oldrim ESPs/ESMs do not work, but why depends on the form records inside.

 

I was looking at Skyrim.esm earlier and noticed it has some form 40 records. And some 43s I think. And presumably some 44s.

Given that SSE definitely crashes for some non-44 records, the fact that some 40s and 43s work most likely implies (a) that their formats have not changed for SSE and (b) that SSE doesn't check if records are pre-44. Or it could be that it explicitly supports some pre-44 types, but that's unnecessary extra work and software developers are lazy. The form 40, 43, and 44 formats are the same for those particular form types. For others they are not the same, such as... I don't remember exactly which but I think it was related to dialogue... SSEEdit was giving an error about it that wasn't present in a CK-converted version.

 

I think Bethesda used some automated tool to convert the Oldrim ESMs for SSE because if they had used CK then (they would have seen lots of errors, and) it would have changed everything to form 44.

 

So unless someone compiles a list of records that have definitely changed, likely by examining vanilla ESMs and seeing what are 44, then the safest course of action is to load ESPs into CK and resave. Skipping that step can work in some circumstances, but the problem is that nobody (IIRC) knows exactly what those are.

 

edit: minor wording changes

[tasairis]

20 minutes ago, Pfiffy said:

@tasairis: Is there anyway of adding the debugspell without overwriting the SL debug spell?

I'd have to make a whole separate mod for it. Reusing that spell/script is quick and easy, which is why it exists in the first place.

 

The debug spell currently doesn't do anything useful, you know that right? In fact all it does is tfc, wait 5 seconds, and tfc again.

 

Anyway, speaking of that spell, I'm working on a revision that has a few more tests that might help to confirm my theory about the CF load order issue. And there is some more methods I can try to reproduce the issue.

[Pfiffy]

7 minutes ago, tasairis said:

I actually have a theory about that. No proof yet.

It's known that some Oldrim ESPs/ESMs do not work, but why depends on the form records inside.

 

I was looking at Skyrim.esm earlier and noticed it has some form 40 records. And some 43s I think. And presumably some 44s.

Given that SSE definitely crashes for some non-44 records, the fact that some 40s and 43s work implies (a) that their formats have not changed for SSE and (b) that SSE isn't checking for compatible form versions when it loads files. Or perhaps it does check versions but it intentionally CTDs without messages. Either way, the form 40, 43, and 44 formats are the same for those particular form types. For others they are not the same, such as... I don't remember exactly which but I think it was related to dialogue... SSEEdit was giving an error about it that wasn't present in a CK-converted version.

 

I think Bethesda used some automated tool to convert the Oldrim ESMs for SSE because if they had used CK then (they would have seen lots of errors, and) it would have changed everything to form 44.

 

So unless someone compiles a list of records that have definitely changed, likely by examining vanilla ESMs and seeing what are 44, then the safest course of action is to load ESPs into CK and resave. Skipping that step can work in some circumstances, but the problem is that nobody (IIRC) knows exactly what those are.

That is not an answer: The question was if someone found a mod that did not work because of the wrong header. Or to say it with other words: Just changing the header will not make a mod work. And skipping the step worked for me under ALL circumstances so far... Don't get me wrong I just want te get convinced that this step is really neccessary. 

[tasairis]

19 minutes ago, Pfiffy said:

That is not an answer: The question was if someone found a mod that did not work because of the wrong header. Or to say it with other words: Just changing the header will not make a mod work. And skipping the step worked for me under ALL circumstances so far... Don't get me wrong I just want te get convinced that this step is really neccessary. 

My answer to that was "It's known that some Oldrim ESPs/ESMs do not work". I don't know exactly which but I think I have a couple I could test with - basically, any mod that works fine in Oldrim and looks correct in TES5Edit, shows errors in SSEEdit on pre-44 forms, and does not show errors in SSEEdit after resaving with CK. Meaning the mod not just had a previous form version but that there was a technical difference between them that may or may not cause problems in SSE.

 

To be clear, neither the header nor form version itself are a problem. What could be a problem is a pre-44 form that is not binary compatible with a version 44 form.

 

My sources that I take as somewhat authoritative:

Quote

http://forum.step-project.com/topic/11699-about-file-header/#entry190717

All form versions are supported and safe to use, been so since Fallout 3 back in 2008 when they added it.

Resaving plugins in CK before release is a good modding practice to fix whatever issues the official editor won't like just in case.

Quote

http://forum.step-project.com/topic/11699-about-file-header/#entry191783

People just need to resave plugins in new CK as Beth told to, that's it.

Quote

https://afkmods.iguanadons.net/index.php?/topic/4633-skyrim-se-things-to-know-when-converting-standard-mods-to-sse/

ESP files need to be loaded into the new CK and saved out to be sure they're updated correctly. If your mod includes edits to NPCs or new NPCs entirely, you absolutely MUST do this. Failure to do so will result in your NPCs having heads which are entirely black - not just the usual issues with the familiar grey-face. The CK will automatically update any needed facegen data in your mod, and it may generate some for you that you didn't know you needed. When it does, don't include the .tga files it still generated because the game will ignore them entirely. This step should be performed before moving on to anything more specific to fix in xEdit so that you don't end up with possible form data conflicts or corruption from mixing versions.

 

[Pfiffy]

3 minutes ago, tasairis said:

My answer to that was "It's known that some Oldrim ESPs/ESMs do not work". I don't know exactly which but I think I have a couple I could test with - basically, any mod that works fine in Oldrim and looks correct in TES5Edit, shows errors in SSEEdit on pre-44 forms, and does not show errors in SSEEdit after resaving with CK. Meaning the mod not just had a previous form version but that there was a technical difference between them that may or may not cause problems in SSE.

 

To be clear, neither the header nor form version itself are a problem. What could be a problem is a pre-44 form that is not binary compatible with a version 44 form.

 

My sources that I take as somewhat authoritative:

 

Well if this would clean up  the errors that Bethesda left in game and the CK is complaining about it would make sense to me... And If I could save an ESP, that has one single entry for hearthfire, I would not have any problems with it.... 

[tasairis]

Okay, full truth version:

Spoiler

Pre-44 forms can work with SSE. But just because it worked in Oldrim does not mean it will work in SSE: there could be other problems with it that are not strictly related to the form version. And there's facegen.

If I say "Oldrim ESPs and ESMs work but you should resave in Creation Kit" then people are going to see the first part and skip the second part. And it will work for some people. But others will find a mod that does need CK, and they're going to say "this doesn't work" and I'm going to report that because I haven't tried myself. Then someone else will come and try it, have problems, run it through CK, and have it work, and they're going to say "this does work" and I'm going to be confused because now I don't know who to believe or why two people had two different results.

If I say "Oldrim ESPs and ESMs should be run through Creation Kit but may work without" then people are going to try it without, and it'll work for the most part, and they won't use CK so it won't get a chance to fix other potential problems with the mod, and something may break. Or they'll find a mod that doesn't work, not try CK because they didn't need it for the others, and report that it doesn't work.

 

But if I say "Run ESPs and ESMs through Creation Kit" then hopefully people will do that. If they manage to read the damn post in the first place. Yeah, maybe it was technically unnecessary, maybe they could have done without it, but that is the method that works best and there's no question about whether using it is good or not. Everyone takes the same steps with the same mods, and when people report that something does or doesn't work I can have a little more faith in what they said because using CK should remove any possibility that the plugin itself is responsible for the problems of a reportedly non-working mod and that the issue will be somewhere else. Fewer variables involved. And even better, CK could deal with other issues (like facegen) that the user might not have been aware of.

 

No disrepect to zilav but I can't take that information at face value and turn around and repeat it to everybody else unless I know for myself that it's correct. Maybe there's an official source/developer who said it, or maybe there's real proof that pre-whatever forms are definitely compatible (not just that it seems to work but that Skyrim has explicit support, such as "if form version 44 then ... else if form version 43 then..."), but I don't know what it is. So I'm going to assume the worst and say that people need to run files through CK - because it's the safest approach, and because it's just a good idea to do anyways.

 

[BazsiHUN]

Hey! I just want to say thank you for all of you, alot of mod working now, because of the many help, what i can read here.

 

I did not tried CF and MNC, but that will be the next step.

[tasairis]

16 minutes ago, Pfiffy said:

Well if this would clean up  the errors that Bethesda left in game and the CK is complaining about it would make sense to me... And If I could save an ESP, that has one single entry for hearthfire, I would not have any problems with it.... 

I don't dare try opening the official ESMs in Creation Kit. I also know that when CK reports errors it does not necessarily fix them: I often see errors about how some NPCs "aren't scriptable but have scripts attached" (why not?) but when I check them in SSEEdit after I see the scripts are still there. Fortunately, since SSEEdit doesn't fully support editing VMAD information and I wouldn't be able to add them back.

 

I kinda hope that USSEP will eventually fix those problems but realistically I wouldn't expect it. I mean, there are hundreds.

[Pfiffy]

9 minutes ago, tasairis said:

Okay, full truth version:

  Hide contents

Pre-44 forms can work with SSE. But just because it worked in Oldrim does not mean it will work in SSE: there could be other problems with it that are not strictly related to the form version. And there's facegen.

If I say "Oldrim ESPs and ESMs work but you should resave in Creation Kit" then people are going to see the first part and skip the second part. And it will work for some people. But others will find a mod that does need CK, and they're going to say "this doesn't work" and I'm going to report that because I haven't tried myself. Then someone else will come and try it, have problems, run it through CK, and have it work, and they're going to say "this does work" and I'm going to be confused because now I don't know who to believe or why two people had two different results.

If I say "Oldrim ESPs and ESMs should be run through Creation Kit but may work without" then people are going to try it without, and it'll work for the most part, and they won't use CK so it won't get a chance to fix other potential problems with the mod, and something may break. Or they'll find a mod that doesn't work, not try CK because they didn't need it for the others, and report that it doesn't work.

 

But if I say "Run ESPs and ESMs through Creation Kit" then hopefully people will do that. If they manage to read the damn post in the first place. Yeah, maybe it was technically unnecessary, maybe they could have done without it, but that is the method that works best and there's no question about whether to use it. Everyone takes the same steps with the same mods, and when people report that something does or doesn't work I can have a little more faith in what they said because using CK should remove any possibility that the plugin itself is responsible for the problems of a reportedly non-working mod and that the issue will be somewhere else. Fewer variables involved. And even better, CK could deal with other issues (like facegen) that the user might not have been aware of.

 

No disrepect to zilav but I can't take that information at face value and turn around and repeat it to everybody else unless I know for myself that it's correct. Maybe there's an official source/developer who said it, or maybe there's real proof that pre-whatever forms are definitely compatible (not just that it seems to work but that Skyrim has explicit support, such as "if form version 44 then ... else if form version 43 then..."), but I don't know what it is. So I'm going to assume the worst and say that people need to run files through CK - because it's the safest approach, and because it's just a good idea to do anyways.

 

That again leaves me with a ck that breaks on Hearthfire.. Hurray...

[Pfiffy]

29 minutes ago, tasairis said:

 

I kinda hope that USSEP will eventually fix those problems but realistically I wouldn't expect it. I mean, there are hundreds.

Simply opening the CK with nothing else than Skyrim and the DLC's enabled ended up with 6000 warning messages for me... A good base to create a new mod, because it will have the right header. No, I'm not convinced, that touching a mod in the CK will really solve any problems. It is not the erros that it ignores, that scare me: It's the things that it might correct...

If it really makes sense, then only if a mod is really not working without touching it. I think there is something different behind it, that makes me a bit more nervous... The new CK is under control of Bethesda and not distributed via Steam. I leave the rest to your imagination. 

[Pfiffy]

2 hours ago, tasairis said:

I'd have to make a whole separate mod for it. Reusing that spell/script is quick and easy, which is why it exists in the first place.

 

The debug spell currently doesn't do anything useful, you know that right? In fact all it does is tfc, wait 5 seconds, and tfc again.

 

Anyway, speaking of that spell, I'm working on a revision that has a few more tests that might help to confirm my theory about the CF load order issue. And there is some more methods I can try to reproduce the issue.

I just asked because it is based on a sl script, which might be needed there in the following versions. But your modications made it to a good testing tool to check weather a registration will work or not. And you can test it ingame over and over again, to see if CF breaks at a certain point. For the simple minded mod user it is a good start for troubleshooting.      

[tasairis]

Still can't reproduce. Having MNC as the first ESP works, having it at the bottom of the load order works (~100 mods and ~130 empty ESPs), limiting CPU cores isn't changing anything...

 

Updated debug spell: sslEffectDebug.pex

+4 OK messages (total 6) and +7 ERR messages (total 15). Previously it focused on JContainers, now it also tests different ways to load forms from mod files. Still checks using the xx027C73 form from MoreNastyCritters.esp.

[Pfiffy]

18 minutes ago, tasairis said:

Still can't reproduce. Having MNC as the first ESP works, having it at the bottom of the load order works (~100 mods and ~130 empty ESPs), limiting CPU cores isn't changing anything...

 

Updated debug spell: sslEffectDebug.pex

+4 OK messages (total 6) and +7 ERR messages (total 15). Previously it focused on JContainers, now it also tests different ways to load forms from mod files. Still checks using the xx027C73 form from MoreNastyCritters.esp.

Adding it to the cf files or making it a seperate mod? (package with just one pex file..)

 

I think we can approve this a working... tricky, but working...

[tasairis]

29 minutes ago, Pfiffy said:

Adding it to the cf files or making it a seperate mod? (package with just one pex file..)

 

I think we can approve this a working... tricky, but working...

...I'm confused. This is the SL debug spell updated for some more tests. It's not fixing anything.

 

But sure, you can put it in its own mod, if you want to enable/disable it at will.

[Pfiffy]

4 minutes ago, tasairis said:

...I'm confused. This is the debug spell updated for some more tests. It's not fixing anything.

 

But sure, you can put it in its own mod, if you want to enable/disable it at will.

I have the permission to upload MNC and HCOS and some of the Anim Packs I have converted. But without CF this will not work. Due to the fact, that you and Lazy girl did most of the work I would have to ask you both for permission to upload it along with the other stuff. And I need some help with an istallation guide, because I'm not a native speaker of english and i think my abilities are not much better than a machine translation.

 

The next thing would be to ask other Authors if we could open up some sort of patch area for all those edited Scripts to make the other mods work.

 

To make the DD stuff work you just have to put a few files in the right folders. PPL still have to convert the mods themselves, but they just have to download one single patch. And in they will not ask around for the same things over and over again. Maybe we get some more ppl to test things out.

 

[tasairis]

Here's also a CreatureFramework.pex that does some logging (Papyrus log only) when CF loads mods and it seems there is a problem loading meshes.

 

24 minutes ago, Pfiffy said:

I have the permission to upload MNC and HCOS and some of the Anim Packs I have converted. But without CF this will not work. Due to the fact, that you and Lazy girl did most of the work I would have to ask you both for permission to upload it along with the other stuff. And I need some help with an istallation guide, because I'm not a native speaker of english and i think my abilities are not much better than a machine translation.

You have my permission to reuse all code I've included in posts, as well as for uploaded PEX files if I also uploaded the PSC at the same time (if I did not then it was not meant to be redistributed outside of this thread).

 

As for installation guides, you're talking about conversions of the entire mod - not just individual fixes, right? That's what it sounds like.

A guide for the full mod would be the same as the Oldrim mod. A guide for just the converted/fixed files would be to install the original version first and the files second.

 

This is complicated enough that I suggest making a separate thread for it.

 

Quote

The next thing would be to ask other Authors if we could open up some sort of patch area for all those edited Scripts to make the other mods work.

Before the patch area, authors should have the chance to see the fixes and decide whether they want to include the changes in their mod. That would reach the most users.

 

If they're not active then we can treat this like a set of mod compatibility patches. Users must install the original mod, then they can install the patches to make it work for SSE. But only if there only a couple changes to a mod - replacing most of a mod's files is not good. For Creature Framework that's 3 files (ESM, CreatureFramework.pex + source, CFEffectCreature.pex + source) out of 9 (not including translation files) which sounds okay to me.

 

But I would want to hear a moderator approve of the idea, with specific guidelines for what is and isn't allowed.

 

Quote

To make the DD stuff work you just have to put a few files in the right folders. PPL still have to convert the mods themselves, but they just have to download one single patch. And in they will not ask around for the same things over and over again. Maybe we get some more ppl to test things out.

Have you tried DD with those changes mentioned earlier? Is everything working for you?

[Pfiffy]

1 hour ago, tasairis said:

Here's also a CreatureFramework.pex that does some logging (Papyrus log only) when CF loads mods and it seems there is a problem loading meshes.

 

You have my permission to reuse all code I've included in posts, as well as for uploaded PEX files if I also uploaded the PSC at the same time. If I did not then it was not meant to be redistributed outside of this thread.

 

As for installation guides, you're talking about conversions of the entire mod - not just individual fixes, right? That's what it sounds like.

A guide for the full mod would be the same as the Oldrim mod. A guide for just the converted/fixed files would be to install the original version first and the files second.

 

This is complicated enough that I suggest making a separate thread for it.

 

Before the patch area, authors should have the chance to see the fixes and decide whether they want to include the changes in their mod. That would reach the most users.

 

If they're not active then we can treat this like a set of mod compatibility patches. Users must install the original mod, then they can install the patches to make it work for SSE. But only if there only a couple changes to a mod - replacing most of a mod's files is not good. For Creature Framework that's 3 files (ESM, CreatureFramework.pex + source, CFEffectCreature.pex + source) out of 9 (not including translation files) which sounds okay to me.

 

But I would want to hear a moderator approve of the idea, with specific guidelines for what is and isn't allowed.

 

Have you tried DD with those changes mentioned earlier? Is everything working for you?

I have tested several clothes on followers, and they worked as intended, To give it a full test, I would have to play a bit... Right now I'm still at the point where Ralof ask me to pick up the Stuff from the dead guy in Helgen. I went to Quasmoke and tested CF with the Hentai Creatures on spawned Followers/NPC's. Same for DD. But what I have seen was working fine. And to give a confirmation that it all works, there has to be someone testing, that is more familliar with DD(or two or three....). It's not very much more than: its not crashing the game.

 

What I did to DD was Replacing the .DLL and the wrong .dds, and the niocheck, convered the nifs and the Anims, repacked everything without touching the ESM's.... and installed it. Here we go...

What I would do is to put this in a simple package that puts them in the right place and let the users do the rest. If there are any problems, more ppl will be able to find them faster... But DD is not so important for me. I just use it because it is a dependencie... 

 

CF is not that big so I would take it as a whole... This will prevent ppl from loading down jut the patch and complain that it is not working. As far as I can remember it was included in MNC 9.3.

I would also include the apply patch from LG, too. So we don't have discussions about wrong switching meshes on scenestart. It is working fine... 

 

 

Edit: maybe we should do a seperate patch for oldrim... this would definitly reduce the spam on the MNC pages...

[Farass]

10 hours ago, MadMansGun said:

be careful when changing masters/file names because you may need to edit the json files in the creatures.d folder to match your changes (you can open/edit them with notepad). Creature Shlongs does not have a esp or json files so it should not be harming anything CF related, (but i do question the folders in CSSE that have "NW" in there name, do the meshes in SE have different file paths than in classic?, and what about the FormIds for the races & armors, did any of them get changed when things got converted to 64bit? because that would make my json files buggy for sure)

 

make sure the BDIC 64 your using is based on the most up to date version (v3.0) or there will be problems when used with MNCv11.

After changing dependancies/masters, the .json files have to be changed accordingly. Skyrim immersive creatures.esp must be changed to skyrim immersive creatures special edition.esp and so on, but the formID's seems to be the same. Converted BDIC v3.0, Bad dog vanilla creatures and BDICSkyTestPatchV3.0 to work with CF and FormID's seemed ok and only .json files needed change.

[Farass]

Anyone looked into immersive first person mod ? Would say this mod complements a lot of the Loverslab mods, but I see that there is a .DLL file in there so maybe not so easy.

[Farass]

1 hour ago, tasairis said:

Here's also a CreatureFramework.pex that does some logging (Papyrus log only) when CF loads mods and it seems there is a problem loading meshes.

 

You have my permission to reuse all code I've included in posts, as well as for uploaded PEX files if I also uploaded the PSC at the same time (if I did not then it was not meant to be redistributed outside of this thread).

 

As for installation guides, you're talking about conversions of the entire mod - not just individual fixes, right? That's what it sounds like.

A guide for the full mod would be the same as the Oldrim mod. A guide for just the converted/fixed files would be to install the original version first and the files second.

 

This is complicated enough that I suggest making a separate thread for it.

 

Before the patch area, authors should have the chance to see the fixes and decide whether they want to include the changes in their mod. That would reach the most users.

 

If they're not active then we can treat this like a set of mod compatibility patches. Users must install the original mod, then they can install the patches to make it work for SSE. But only if there only a couple changes to a mod - replacing most of a mod's files is not good. For Creature Framework that's 3 files (ESM, CreatureFramework.pex + source, CFEffectCreature.pex + source) out of 9 (not including translation files) which sounds okay to me.

 

But I would want to hear a moderator approve of the idea, with specific guidelines for what is and isn't allowed.

 

Have you tried DD with those changes mentioned earlier? Is everything working for you?

I just tried the DD suite of mods:

DDassets-3.0e.zip
DDexpansion-4.0.zip
DDintegration-4.0.zip
Devious Captures 2.9.0

I just replaced the the .DLL and the wrong .dds as mentioned in this thread, and then fixed the niocheck. Converted the nifs and the animations, repacked everything. Installed useing NMM. Converted the .esm's and  the.esp to Form 44. Everything seems to work fine so far, but needs to be tested some more ofcourse

 

Next up for testing will be SDplus 361..

CF works for me with HC11, BDIC3.0, Bad dog vanilla creatures and BDICSkyTestPatchV3.0  if I am careful with the loadorder and place the mods manually

[tasairis]

58 minutes ago, Farass said:

After changing dependancies/masters, the .json files have to be changed accordingly. Skyrim immersive creatures.esp must be changed to skyrim immersive creatures special edition.esp and so on, but the formID's seems to be the same. Converted BDIC v3.0, Bad dog vanilla creatures and BDICSkyTestPatchV3.0 to work with CF and FormID's seemed ok and only .json files needed change.

It looks like SIC SE changed a lot of form IDs. How did you update the BDIC ESP?

[tasairis]

58 minutes ago, Farass said:

Anyone looked into immersive first person mod ? Would say this mod complements a lot of the Loverslab mods, but I see that there is a .DLL file in there so maybe not so easy.

When in doubt, check the posts tab on the Nexus page.

Since there is a DLL you have to wait for the author to port it. And apparently he will do it... after he's done some other things.

 

There's also Joy of Perspective.

[t0m0ya]

1 hour ago, Farass said:

After changing dependancies/masters, the .json files have to be changed accordingly. Skyrim immersive creatures.esp must be changed to skyrim immersive creatures special edition.esp and so on, but the formID's seems to be the same. Converted BDIC v3.0, Bad dog vanilla creatures and BDICSkyTestPatchV3.0 to work with CF and FormID's seemed ok and only .json files needed change.

Thank you so much for this tip. And you are correct, the json files had the old esp file written to it. Changing them as I write this. A little more help. What about the DLC2.esp that is also part of BDIC? Should I change it to special edition too? Since IC SE version has only one esp, which I assume are a combined version of all dlc etc?

 

EDIT: Also, If I could get master updated BDICSkyTestPatch esp from you, it would be great. I did try again updating master dependencies via Creation Kit, it still crashes on me. And I've no idea how to remove masters from wrye bash, i do know how to add them. If file sharing is not possible, maybe a walkthrough on how to do it via wrye bash? Thanks. 

[t0m0ya]

42 minutes ago, tasairis said:

It looks like SIC SE changed a lot of form IDs. How did you update the BDIC ESP?

 

I don't know if SIC updated lots of forms ID, but after updating the json, i got 10 more pages of creatures, and a lot of missing or disabled 'all skins' got a sub-list of creatures. For example in Draugr's header, I got All Skins: Disabled and under that, I got 7 different type of Draugrs with either MNC or BDIC skins enabled on them. I still have blank panels. But the increased count does tell me I got more critter skins installed. 

[Farass]

1 hour ago, t0m0ya said:

Thank you so much for this tip. And you are correct, the json files had the old esp file written to it. Changing them as I write this. A little more help. What about the DLC2.esp that is also part of BDIC? Should I change it to special edition too? Since IC SE version has only one esp, which I assume are a combined version of all dlc etc?

 

EDIT: Also, If I could get master updated BDICSkyTestPatch esp from you, it would be great. I did try again updating master dependencies via Creation Kit, it still crashes on me. And I've no idea how to remove masters from wrye bash, i do know how to add them. If file sharing is not possible, maybe a walkthrough on how to do it via wrye bash? Thanks. 

Hi! I guess since the mod author of skyrim immersve creatures no longer has a DLC2  addon, I just figured he included those creatures in the main install. So I also changed the DLC2 in the .json files to skyrim immersive creatures special edition.esp. I have not double checked if this is correct, but that should be easy to do.

 

The BDICSkyTestPatch esp I did not put through the CK because it removed what ever changes I did in SSEDIT regarding removing or adding masters. I left The BDIC.esp and BDICSkyTestPatch.esp untouched by CK (That was how I did it). So, I don't use WryeBash, but SSEedit