framework Advanced Animation Framework

[kcs27]

On 7/22/2021 at 2:35 PM, vaultbait said:

 

What does your AAF\AAF_equipmentSetData.xml file have in it ("edit" it to open in notepad, don't try to view it with your browser)? Mine has 22 body slots to unequip because I chose the "compatible" option in the FOMOD installer menu.

Here is the file you ask about earlier, don't know enough myself to fully understand it.

AAF_equipmentSetData.xml

[dagobaking]

On 7/25/2021 at 1:42 AM, polska said:

nobody likes being forced to register on a random site that nobody ever visited before just to download 1 single file. why not megaupload, mediafire or any filehoster that doesnt require stupid registrations.

 

I understand the frustration with additional registrations.

 

The problem with no registration is that the mod list builders could then simply use an open download link to automate the install of any mod there.

 

I'm not against mod list builders as a concept. But, the way the feature has been approached is a big part of what many mod authors feel is problematic. So, I have taken the steps needed to opt out of it all and welcome mod authors to join if they have the same needs.

Edited July 26, 2021 by dagobaking

[RitualClarity]

[dosfox]

Hey all,

 

After installing beta164 i am still experiencing these problems :

1. - NPCs re-equip their default clothing/armor during animations.
2. - Entering build mode, pipboy, NPC inventory dialogues, or console breaks running animations.
3. - Fast travelling breaks running animations.
4. - Scenes on furniture ignore other NPCs already using that furniture.
5. - Autonomy Enhanced is the the only mod i use to generate NPC sex. Despite "3somes" being disabled in AE, multi-NPC scenes generated by AAF occur, and always result in bad misalignments, staging errors, equipping-default-outfit-during-animation, erectile disfunctions, furniture collisions, and require manually terminating each stage of the clusterfuck and manually redressing some of the NPCs. (Is there a way to completely disable this automatic feature without uninstalling all the animation packs that contain multi-npc animations?)

Any advice on how to address any of the above problems would be hugely appreciated.

 

Beta 164 does seem to be slightly more reliable redressing actors after animations. Thank you for that.

 

[dagobaking]

3 hours ago, dosfox said:

1. - NPCs re-equip their default clothing/armor during animations.

 

Cant reproduce.

 

3 hours ago, dosfox said:

1. - Entering build mode, pipboy, NPC inventory dialogues, or console breaks running animations.

 

Cant reproduce.

 

3 hours ago, dosfox said:

1. - Fast travelling breaks running animations.

 

It's supposed to if you travel a certain distance. You can try disabling the "distance_limit" setting.

 

3 hours ago, dosfox said:

1. - Scenes on furniture ignore other NPCs already using that furniture.

 

Cant reproduce.

 

3 hours ago, dosfox said:

1. - Autonomy Enhanced is the the only mod i use to generate NPC sex. Despite "3somes" being disabled in AE, multi-NPC scenes generated by AAF occur, and always result in bad misalignments, staging errors, equipping-default-outfit-during-animation, erectile disfunctions, furniture collisions, and require manually terminating each stage of the clusterfuck and manually redressing some of the NPCs. (Is there a way to completely disable this automatic feature without uninstalling all the animation packs that contain multi-npc animations?)

 

3somes happening would most likely have to do with how animations are triggered by Autonomy Enhanced.

 

From your description it sounds like there are issues beyond AAF in your build. Run the gfv.exe (available at the Discord server) and post a screenshot of its output here to confirm.

Edited July 27, 2021 by dagobaking

[dosfox]

5 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

... From your description it sounds like there are issues beyond AAF in your build. Run the gfv.exe (available at the Discord server) and post a screenshot of its output here to confirm ...

 

Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately Discord will not let me log in there. Perhaps you could make gfv.exe available at Moddingham?

[dagobaking]

6 minutes ago, dosfox said:

 

Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately Discord will not let me log in there. Perhaps you could make gfv.exe available at Moddingham?

 

I'm not the author of that tool. But, they have hinted that they might put it on moddingham. I can't guarantee if/when that will happen though.

[Dragonjoe69]

1 hour ago, dosfox said:

 

Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately Discord will not let me log in there. Perhaps you could make gfv.exe available at Moddingham?

Check your f4SE plugins folder for a duplicate LLFP dll, also , if you updated on an existing save try starting a new game

Edited July 27, 2021 by Dragonjoe69

[dosfox]

1 hour ago, Dragonjoe69 said:

Check your f4SE plugins folder for a duplicate LLFP dll, also , if you updated on an existing save try starting a new game

 

Thank you for your suggestions. There are no duplicate llfp dlls.

 

When updating AAF i always purge and uninstall AAF, animations, and other dependencies with ReSaver, then reinstall AAF and animations etc on a clean functional save  - a very safe and reliable method.

 

 

[mircislav]

If I may suggest (applicable to all who has problem with AAF and animations - this has been explained numerous times from various modders and users) - Install AAF as described in tutorials linked on Dagobaking discord page, install animation described here https://www.loverslab.com/topic/139374-aaf-fucking-manual-up-to-date-adult-oriented-setup-guide-14june2021/ (literally) and there will be no problem with anything... For installing anything not covered on those pages, you'll have to use the gray matter between your ears - there is no other method.

[D_ManXX2]

do anyone know what is causing this ? AAF sometimes choses animation named smooching but the characters are both standing does anyone know what animation pack this is from ?

[dagobaking]

I just Googled "AAF smooching animation" and there were a few hits with reference to Rufgt. So, must be one of his packs?

[JB.]

Hello @dagobaking  I was testing the Remove Overlay Set today and AAF does not remove it, at leats for me. I leave you my demo if you want to try it (it already includes the overlay and all its own xml). After installing the demo, type in the console: coc SanctuaryBasementJahani

 

A man will put a set on you (if you are a female), and then try to get it out of you.

 

Overlay Demo.7z

 

I have AAF 164.

 

Maybe I am doing something wrong ?

Edited July 28, 2021 by JBpy

[davisev5225]

On 7/26/2021 at 11:38 AM, dagobaking said:

 

I understand the frustration with additional registrations.

 

The problem with no registration is that the mod list builders could then simply use an open download link to automate the install of any mod there.

 

I'm not against mod list builders as a concept. But, the way the feature has been approached is a big part of what many mod authors feel is problematic. So, I have taken the steps needed to opt out of it all and welcome mod authors to join if they have the same needs.

 

While I fully support your right to do what you wish with your code, I would like to point out that the argument you just made here is... irrelevant.  If someone wants to compile your work into their mod pack, they can just register and download it anyway.  All you're doing is making it more annoying and/or difficult for everyone else.

 

I, for one, will not register on a random website for a singular mod.  I'm "stuck" on 161.1b unless/until you change your mind.  ?

[dagobaking]

On 7/26/2021 at 11:50 PM, dosfox said:

 

Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately Discord will not let me log in there. Perhaps you could make gfv.exe available at Moddingham?

 

It is now posted at moddingham.com

 

23 hours ago, JBpy said:

Hello @dagobaking  I was testing the Remove Overlay Set today and AAF does not remove it, at leats for me. I leave you my demo if you want to try it (it already includes the overlay and all its own xml). After installing the demo, type in the console: coc SanctuaryBasementJahani

 

A man will put a set on you (if you are a female), and then try to get it out of you.

 

Overlay Demo.7z 2.22 MB · 3 downloads

 

I have AAF 164.

 

Maybe I am doing something wrong ?

 

I didn't have a set-up in place to test that feature thoroughly. So, it may need more work. I will use your example to investigate further. Thank you for sending it.

 

11 hours ago, davisev5225 said:

 

While I fully support your right to do what you wish with your code, I would like to point out that the argument you just made here is... irrelevant.  If someone wants to compile your work into their mod pack, they can just register and download it anyway.  All you're doing is making it more annoying and/or difficult for everyone else.

 

You're missing that they will have had to agree to the site TOS in order to download my work. So, I would then have a legal basis to enforce a Cease and Desist against anyone using the work without permission. And then if they ignore that I can approach their host provider and have their entire site taken off-line.

 

11 hours ago, davisev5225 said:

I, for one, will not register on a random website for a singular mod.  I'm "stuck" on 161.1b unless/until you change your mind.  ?

 

It's your choice of course. But, I don't find your position persuasive. I have spent a massive amount of time building and maintaining the mod. Asking people to take 2 minutes to make an account to download it seems like a small request in return. Especially when it's only being asked to protect from the actions of others.

 

You're basically saying, "I would rather that you cede your ability to authorize use of your work to any third party that wants it than to spend 2 minutes of my time making an account."

 

To that, I say, "Farewell and Adieu!"

 

 

Edited July 29, 2021 by dagobaking

[davisev5225]

19 hours ago, dagobaking said:

 

You're missing that they will have had to agree to the site TOS in order to download my work. So, I would then have a legal basis to enforce a Cease and Desist against anyone using the work without permission. And then if they ignore that I can approach their host provider and have their entire site taken off-line.

 

 

In most of the world, including the USA, a ToS is not legally binding unless it meets very specific requirements that would construe it as a contract.  Related, most websites do not take the necessary measures and/or have the necessary language to make it a contract.  You do, of course, have the option of sending Cease and Desist letters and DMCA letters if you truly believe a use is unauthorized, but those only hold weight if you're willing to shell out the thousands of dollars necessary to litigate when someone ignores them.  I'll repeat: anyone who wants to use your work in a manner you do not intend will do so anyway, irregardless of any pre-emptive measures you try to take.  You're not "protecting against the actions of others", all you're doing is annoying the people you purport to be creating this mod for: your user base.  I could draw perfect parallels to certain types of laws, but then I'd risk side-tracking things into political discussions, so I'm not going there.

 

If you find that unconvincing, fine.  And since there's no monetary interest (aside from the ad revenue I'm sure you'll be adding to your new website...), I realize you don't really see any down-sides to losing users because you're forcing people to jump through hoops to satisfy your own feelings.  I'm certainly no stranger to the concept - I pulled my mods from the internet due to a dispute regarding what I believe to be stolen content.  Just know that this is the second most common way for mods to die - by asking too much of the users.  I hope that doesn't happen to you, but the possibility exists.  Your mod also isn't so large as to be impossible to replace.  FNIS was essentially the only way to add extra animations to Skyrim for YEARS, and was therefore the gold standard until someone got fed up with how the author was so controlling over how it integrated certain features, so now Nemesis exists.  AAF itself, as you well know, replaced Four-Play.  It's entirely possible for something to come along that can replace AAF because someone doesn't like having to fork over personal information just to download it.

 

If you're OK with that, then I really cannot make any argument that would convince you otherwise.

 

And again, I support your right to do whatever you want with your code, so I hope you don't feel I'm trying to force you down a different path.  I'm just hoping to help you understand the full breadth of potential consequences to this decision.

Edited July 30, 2021 by davisev5225

[dagobaking]

4 hours ago, davisev5225 said:

In most of the world, including the USA, a ToS is not legally binding unless it meets very specific requirements that would construe it as a contract.

 

The requirements are very simple and moddingham.com meets them via the "Clickwrap" method.

 

4 hours ago, davisev5225 said:

Related, most websites do not take the necessary measures and/or have the necessary language to make it a contract.

 

There is no language requirement. You merely need to use one of a few approaches to agree (like checking a box or button) and the ability to review the language up front. I am already doing this.

 

4 hours ago, davisev5225 said:

You do, of course, have the option of sending Cease and Desist letters and DMCA letters if you truly believe a use is unauthorized, but those only hold weight if you're willing to shell out the thousands of dollars necessary to litigate when someone ignores them.

 

If someone does ignore them you can just go to their hosting provider. I assure you that the host will not ignore them and will take the entire site down if the abuser continues to ignore.

 

4 hours ago, davisev5225 said:

I'll repeat: anyone who wants to use your work in a manner you do not intend will do so anyway, irregardless of any pre-emptive measures you try to take.  You're not "protecting against the actions of others",

 

You can repeat your argument ad nauseam and it won't make it more compelling. The TOS on the site IS legally binding and ignoring Cease and Desists has consequences. The DMCA that protects hosts and ISP's from liability of their users requires that they take down copyright infringing material when reported or they lose their DMCA protection.

 

It's the exact opposite of what you claim. THEY will be forced to choose between compliance or spending thousands of dollars trying to explain some novel reason why it was ok to use someone's copyrighted work without their permission. No host provider would look at the easily demonstrated source of work and TOS and decide to take their side. That is because doing so would risk involving the host in a losing law suit. Additionally, no lawyer would review the facts with a copyright thief and advise them not to comply with a Cease and Desist.

 

4 hours ago, davisev5225 said:

all you're doing is annoying the people you purport to be creating this mod for: your user base.

 

I have never "purported" to be making the mod for a user base. Just the opposite, I have been clear from the beginning of the project that I was making the mod for private, personal use and later decided to share it. I don't regret that decision as it has led me to meet a lot of cool people. But, I'm still motivated by specific ideas rather than popularity.

 

4 hours ago, davisev5225 said:

I'm certainly no stranger to the concept - I pulled my mods from the internet due to a dispute regarding what I believe to be stolen content.  Just know that this is the second most common way for mods to die - by asking too much of the users.  I hope that doesn't happen to you, but the possibility exists.  Your mod also isn't so large as to be impossible to replace.  FNIS was essentially the only way to add extra animations to Skyrim for YEARS, and was therefore the gold standard until someone got fed up with how the author was so controlling over how it integrated certain features, so now Nemesis exists.  AAF itself, as you well know, replaced Four-Play. 

 

lol

 

So, you start off by threatening to not use my mod if I don't just give up on enforcing my IP rights. That is an absurd position to take even if you did have a point about the effectiveness of a TOS (which you do not).

 

Now you try to up the ante by threatening the death of the project or the emergence of a replacement mod. Everyone in the world could stop using the mod tomorrow and I would shrug my shoulders and remember it fondly. I'm all for others making more frameworks. More options is what modding is largely about. Because everyone wants something just a little different from the next person.

 

4 hours ago, davisev5225 said:

It's entirely possible for something to come along that can replace AAF because someone doesn't like having to fork over personal information just to download it.

Is it possible though? I think it's pretty far-fetched that someone would rather spend hundreds of hours making a mod in order to avoid "forking over" an email address and spending 2 minutes on a registration.

 

4 hours ago, davisev5225 said:

And again, I support your right to do whatever you want with your code, so I hope you don't feel I'm trying to force you down a different path.  I'm just hoping to help you understand the full breadth of potential consequences to this decision.

 

I must have missed the part where I asked you for any advice.

Edited July 30, 2021 by dagobaking

[davisev5225]

3 hours ago, dagobaking said:

 

(stuff)

 

I am disappointed by your apparent hostility towards me.  All I did was provide some honest feedback and advice, and then some information when it was obvious you had gaps in your understanding of IP law.  Contrary to your claims, I also never threatened you with anything.

 

I had a long reply detailing out what you were wrong about legally speaking, plus some additional personal feedback, but it's clear you're not interested (and therefore would not accept anything I wrote), so I'm honestly not sure why I was still trying.  I'm tired of trying to help people that aren't interested in being helped, so I'm not going to continue.

 

I hope you change your mind about this course of action, but I suspect you won't; so instead, I'll wish you the best and part ways here.  I only ask that, in the future, please don't assume that someone is hostile just because they're being honest.  It's rude, and tends to derail what could have otherwise been good conversation or debate.

 

Good luck to you.

Edited July 30, 2021 by davisev5225

[dagobaking]

 

  

7 minutes ago, davisev5225 said:

"Clickwrap" (or any method, for that matter) doesn't guarantee compliance (and therefore legal enforcement), especially by itself.  You're essentially at the mercy of the judge's interpretation of contract law, and there's a lot of case law precedent against you on this one.  ToS being upheld in court is a recent development and not at all consistent.

 

You seem to be confusing the existence of arguments that some people make against TOS compliance (in or out of court) and what legal precedent actually is.

 

https://www.theregister.com/2017/08/18/eula_tos_legally_binding_us/

 

Not only does the legal precedent support the validity of TOS you don't even need a TOS to have copyright standing for your work. The burden to prove that the use was authorized is on the person who is caught using the work. Not the other way around.

 

My burden of proof in court would simply be to establish that I made the code and that I was clear about how it could be used.

 

7 minutes ago, davisev5225 said:

Yes there is.  For starters, if you do not explicitly state that the ToS serves as a binding contract, then the user can potentially reasonably conclude that it is not.

 

False. There is no such requirement.

 

7 minutes ago, davisev5225 said:

You also have to make sure you don't have any unenforceable clauses, and since you're not actually collecting a signature (or getting separate consent for a digital signature), I'm not entirely sure you can use a severability clause.

 

False. Having an unenforceable clause in a TOS does not render the entire thing void or nullify your rights as a copyright holder.

 

7 minutes ago, davisev5225 said:

(By the way, I haven't looked - do you even have a severability clause?)  I am not a lawyer, so I'm sure there's far more nuance to be had here, plus many more pitfalls that you're likely falling into.

 

A severability clause it not required in order for clauses to be severable in the eyes of a judge. It doesn't hurt to have as it prevents some desperate attorney from trying to make this claim. But, it wouldn't work provided that your contract is otherwise protecting reasonable business objectives.

 

7 minutes ago, davisev5225 said:

Hosting providers are under no obligation to help you out.

 

Yes. They literally are required by law: https://www.mandourlaw.com/cease-and-desist-letter-copyright-infringement/

 

7 minutes ago, davisev5225 said:

In fact, I've read plenty of cases of hosting providers that simply ignore requests either because they offer "unmanaged" hosting (i.e. they cannot specifically remove the offending content without disrupting the rest of the site owners' content, which would be a breach of tort), or because the site owner has a DMCA process clearly outlined on their website and you are therefore supposed to take it up with the site owner.

 

As I point out above the host is required by law to investigate and take down copyright infringement or they lose DMCA protection.

 

If you really found a case like this you simply found a dumb company that won't be around long.

 

22 minutes ago, davisev5225 said:

Also, a DMCA is not an obligation for a host to remove content, it's more a suggestion.  Possibly to their detriment if they don't, but then you'd have to litigate.  Again, thousands of dollars just to get started.  Also, even if a host does accept a Cease and Desist or DMCA, many of them will internally decide if your request has merit before they take action.  That arguably makes them a publisher (and therefore subject to other parts of the DMCA), but you're right back to thousands of dollars to get a day in court at that point...

 

False.

 

22 minutes ago, davisev5225 said:

Claiming it is legally binding does not make it so just because you want it to be.  Case law is generally against you on this one.

 

No it is not. What you have on your side is a history of random people bitching on the internet about not knowing what is in a TOS. In the real world, contracts matter and courts have consistently ruled that an internet TOS is a binding contract.

 

And again, my position doesn't even rely on a TOS standing in court. I own the copyright to my work automatically and the burden is on the user to prove they are authorized to use it. Not the other way around.

 

22 minutes ago, davisev5225 said:

Also, ignoring a Cease and Desist (or DMCA) only has consequences if you're willing to retain a lawyer, often times a private investigator as well (since you have to get enough personal information on the site host in order to serve them and that information is often not readily available), file in an appropriate court (usually the jurisdiction for the site host), etc.  It is expensive to litigate, and that is your ONLY recourse.  The expense is why most people don't litigate and why "free" code theft (such as mods) is so rampant.

 

False. As I already pointed out above, you do not need to hire a lawyer or private investigator to cause consequences for an internet copyright violation.

 

22 minutes ago, davisev5225 said:

You have to sue them, not the other way around.

 

Again. No I don't.

 

But, they do have to get a lawyer if they want to challenge their provider demanding take down of the infringing work (or their entire site if they just ignore the emails they will get).

 

22 minutes ago, davisev5225 said:

That means you're forking out money first, thousands of dollars, long before the defendant has to spend a single dollar.  And most hosting providers will get their lawyers to dismiss any case against them on the grounds that they are a platform not a publisher, leaving you litigating against just a site owner.  Hosting providers won't help you because if they do, they potentially leave themselves open to a second lawsuit - breach of tort.  (Related: the site owner could also sue YOU for tortious interference by asking their host to disable their website, even if you do successfully litigate your IP rights and/or even if the host doesn't comply with your request.  It's a can of worms most people wisely don't open.)

 

Nobody is going to be in breach of tort because they stopped one of their customers from infringing someones copyright on their service.

 

22 minutes ago, davisev5225 said:

It is implied in the fact that you have ...

 

In other words you assumed. You assumed wrong.

 

22 minutes ago, davisev5225 said:

It was just an off-hand statement about how strange your actions seemingly are.

 

I gave a reasonable explanation for my actions. You want them to be strange because you have a bug up your ass over having to reveal your email address and spend 2 minutes registering in order to use something for free that someone else spent hundreds of hours on.

 

22 minutes ago, davisev5225 said:

I haven't threatened anything.  For starters, "not using your mod" isn't a threat, and I also never said I wouldn't use it - just that I have no interest in updating beyond 161.1b if I have to register on your website to do so.

 

Which is a threat: "If you keep doing this I will no longer use your updates."

 

22 minutes ago, davisev5225 said:

I figured it would be important feedback that a lot of people are just unwilling to actually speak up about.

 

Now you're just adding dishonesty to your position. The focus and tone of your input, from the beginning, reveals that this was never friendly advice.

 

22 minutes ago, davisev5225 said:

I suspect you're seeing far fewer downloads from your website than you were from Nexus, though given your other statements, I doubt you care.

 

I have no idea because I haven't looked!

 

22 minutes ago, davisev5225 said:

Fair enough, I suppose, and though I highly doubt you'd agree to share it, I wouldn't be interested in seeing your download count(s) from your website vs Nexus, normalized for time the file(s) are available if possible.

 

You may be right. I have no idea and I don't care. Let me make this clear:

 

If registering for an account on a web site is too steep a cost for you to help me try to protect my rights as an author (even if you doubt my methods) then you are a user that I don't want.

 

22 minutes ago, davisev5225 said:

 

You didn't, but I offered it anyway.  Since I'm not breaking any rules here, I'm free to do so.  Noted that you apparently don't want it, but since you engaged in discussion with me, I'll continue to respond.  My disappointment in your decision aside, that attitude not a good way to treat someone that's just trying to help.  I'm disappointed you would treat me that way when I'm just providing honest feedback.  If you don't want any (further) advice or feedback, you're certainly free to stop responding to this conversation.

 

You made a complaint. You weren't giving friendly advice and you continue to lecture me in a condescending manner. Come at me like you are and I will defend myself.

 

22 minutes ago, davisev5225 said:

(2) need to brush up on legalities. Regarding (2), though, you may want to do some more research.  I've done quite a bit relatively recently, and consulted with several lawyers for similar reasons.  Again, I am not a lawyer, but I've spoken with enough to have a surface-level understanding of what I'm talking about here.

 

Ok. Well you have only revealed that I have way more experience with this than you do. My work, going on many years, routinely involves these subjects, including actual legal disputes and directly experiencing these processes. My position comes from much more than surface-level understanding.

 

22 minutes ago, davisev5225 said:

On a side note, this is a strange way to try and "get back" at Nexus.  They are so large, you're not going to change their minds.

 

A) You're missing the point. I'm not trying to get back at Nexus at all. They simply changed the equation so that the small amount of work needed to make a site and regain control of my work was justified. So I did it.

 

B) I'm not alone. Others are leaving. I am pretty sure that Nexus will indeed have to backtrack on this issue eventually. Otherwise, their site will be left without many key mods that users want.

 

22 minutes ago, davisev5225 said:

If you take nothing else away from this conversation (besides apparently thinking I'm an asshole or something?), please take away that you should do some more research into IP rights and your legal recourse.

 

?‍♂️

[dagobaking]

1 hour ago, davisev5225 said:

 

I am disappointed by your apparent hostility towards me.  All I did was provide some honest feedback and advice, and then some information when it was obvious you had gaps in your understanding of IP law.  Contrary to your claims, I also never threatened you with anything.

 

I had a long reply detailing out what you were wrong about legally speaking, plus some additional personal feedback, but it's clear you're not interested (and therefore would not accept anything I wrote), so I'm honestly not sure why I was still trying.  I'm tired of trying to help people that aren't interested in being helped, so I'm not going to continue.

 

I hope you change your mind about this course of action, but I suspect you won't; so instead, I'll wish you the best and part ways here.  I only ask that, in the future, please don't assume that someone is hostile just because they're being honest.  It's rude, and tends to derail what could have otherwise been good conversation or debate.

 

Good luck to you.

 

I find this statement incredibly ironic.

 

Instead of being disappointed by my hostility maybe you should do some self-reflection and consider that maybe you approached someone in an insensitive manner. Maybe you made repeated incorrect assumptions about them and the subject and should not have tried to keep wearing the old lecturing jacket.

 

I clearly don't need your help on this and I do not buy for a second that you were motivated by charity here. It is very obvious that you felt inconvenienced and you wanted to let me know that you were taking action by not using new versions of my mod unless I change my ways.

 

I believe the appropriate outcome for that is an apology. Not a final declaration that you were just trying to be the Lone Ranger.

Edited July 30, 2021 by dagobaking

[tuxagent7]

You know what would be fantastic ?

 

Having all the fallout 4 mod authors that left the nexus go to moddingham

 

 

[dagobaking]

8 hours ago, tuxagent7 said:

You know what would be fantastic ?

 

Having all the fallout 4 mod authors that left the nexus go to moddingham

 

 

 

The invitation is there!

 

There are a few different site efforts I've seen. So, there could end up being 3-4 variations of moddinghams.

[dagobaking]

ANNOUNCEMENT:

 

We needed to install different software on moddingham.com. Unfortunately, no conversion tool was available to transfer the accounts and other data from the old site to the new. So, you will need to make another account there to access AAF.

 

I realize that is annoying and I apologize for the inconvenience. The decision was not made lightly. While the old software had some good qualities, it just didn't have all of the features we needed. It also seemed like the community around that software was dying out and it may not have been supported long-term. Which is probably why no conversion tools were available.

[darthvaapad]

I don't get why people are complaining so much about this mod being moved somewhere else from nexus. Other mod sites existed before nexus and still do (Mod db is one I often frequent). If you don't want to put your main email onto a new site just do what I did and make a new one where you attach all of these new site to that one. Also wonderful mod by the way keep up the good work.

[Arthacs]

moddingham is suposed to be a joke, right ?