framework Advanced Animation Framework

[prinyo]

11 hours ago, dagobaking said:

I vaguely remember this. I think the issue is that AAF uses functions in LLFP which may not be available in FO4VR.

The "issue" (that may exist) is not really relevant to the question/request, that is - let us have a DLL compiled for FO4VR and let people test and experiment. Every answer to this has been, similarly to this post, a deflection that I understand to mean unwillingness to deal with this. And I respect it so I have filed FO4VR in the category of "failed" projects (also the fact it runs like shit on even the best PC doesn't help). 

 

All the "problems" and "issues" are conceptually identical in SkyrimVR and they have been resolved in different ways in the past years depending on how advanced the framework has been. Technically the solutions can be different and a FO4VR sex system can be less advanced than the one for Skyrim VR , but that's OK and is not a reason to surrender before trying. 

However the DLL of LooksMenu has to also be recompiled and I can imagine the VR port can hide some unpleasant surprises, so as I said I respect the unwillingness to open this box of Pandora.

 

 

 

16 hours ago, mangybastard said:

TFC works well enough in SkyrimVR to insert yourself into a scene.

Don't do that, use the SL VR patch instead.

Edited August 17, 2021 by prinyo

[EgoBallistic]

2 hours ago, prinyo said:

The "issue" (that may exist) is not really relevant to the question/request, that is - let us have a DLL compiled for FO4VR and let people test and experiment.

The issue definitely does exist and the fix is not trivial.  Simply recompiling LLFP against F4SEVR won’t work because several functions in LLFP use offsets into the game executable that are not defined in F4SE.  Someone who owns FO4VR and has the equipment needed to run it would have to find the corresponding offsets in the VR executable.  

 

 

Edited August 17, 2021 by EgoBallistic

[prinyo]

29 minutes ago, EgoBallistic said:

Someone who owns FO4VR and has the equipment needed to run it would have to find the corresponding offsets in the VR executable.  

So it is not an "issue", but just a thing that needs to be done. I can appreciate it is not trivial and is probably a tedious process, but is not a "problem" or a blocking issue. However I do understand that "it is too much work" is a valid reason to decline teh request.

[vaultbait]

3 hours ago, prinyo said:

So it is not an "issue", but just a thing that needs to be done. I can appreciate it is not trivial and is probably a tedious process, but is not a "problem" or a blocking issue. However I do understand that "it is too much work" is a valid reason to decline teh request.

 

It's a blocking issue unless there is someone sufficiently interested in dedicating the necessary time to solving it. Maybe that someone is you? The mod source code and compilers are all available, so it's "just" a matter of investing enough effort to (perhaps learn how to) make it happen.

[prinyo]

1 hour ago, vaultbait said:

Maybe that someone is you?

Wow that fell earlier than expected ? 

If somebody has constructive remarks I'll be happy to reply. 

 

[mangybastard]

8 hours ago, prinyo said:

Don't do that, use the SL VR patch instead.

I've only done that when I forgot to check the first person option on a fresh install of SL. I've used the patch since it came out. Thank you for being proactive though I appreciate it.

 

I wish I had learned more than cosmetic mods and animations, but that's all I have experience with. Beyond wading through tutorials all I can offer is monetary support for anyone (experienced) who spends some time on this. Tutorials might be what I end up doing once I'm done playing Skyrim.

[vaultbait]

1 hour ago, prinyo said:

Wow that fell earlier than expected ? 

If somebody has constructive remarks I'll be happy to reply.

 

Okay, I'll bite. Yesterday you said:

 

Quote

I tried to get the AAF and some other mods DLLs recompiled against the VR script extender but only got non-answers that "it would probably not work anyway". This to make AAF work with FO4VR at all, not upgrading for specific VR compatibility.

 

And then later:

 

Quote

let us have a DLL compiled for FO4VR and let people test and experiment. Every answer to this has been, similarly to this post, a deflection that I understand to mean unwillingness to deal with this.

 

Have you tried to compile these yourself? If so, how did you go about it, and what compiler errors did you get? Do you know which functions are missing, what needs reimplementing, and so on?

 

My previous post was a genuine suggestion, if you have a strong interest in seeing this supported then your options are to lead the way and make it happen yourself, or sit back and wait for someone to (quite possibly never) hand it to you on a silver platter. They are both reasonable routes to take, but please remember that nobody is obligated to do any of it for you.

[dagobaking]

 

9 hours ago, prinyo said:

The "issue" (that may exist) is not really relevant to the question/request, that is - let us have a DLL compiled for FO4VR and let people test and experiment. Every answer to this has been, similarly to this post, a deflection that I understand to mean unwillingness to deal with this. And I respect it so I have filed FO4VR in the category of "failed" projects (also the fact it runs like shit on even the best PC doesn't help). 

 

All the "problems" and "issues" are conceptually identical in SkyrimVR and they have been resolved in different ways in the past years depending on how advanced the framework has been. Technically the solutions can be different and a FO4VR sex system can be less advanced than the one for Skyrim VR , but that's OK and is not a reason to surrender before trying. 

However the DLL of LooksMenu has to also be recompiled and I can imagine the VR port can hide some unpleasant surprises, so as I said I respect the unwillingness to open this box of Pandora.

 

Perhaps there is some kind of misunderstanding here?

 

I don't have any DLL to give you. AAF does use functions from a DLL that was made by another mod author. I have no control over that mod/DLL.

 

2 hours ago, prinyo said:

Wow that fell earlier than expected ? 

If somebody has constructive remarks I'll be happy to reply. 

 

Maybe you are unaware of this. But, your tone in making this "request" seems pretty aggressive.

 

I have no obligation to "deal with this", therefore my answer is not a deflection of anything. I'm explaining to you that my mod doesn't involve the areas where most of the big work would be needed to get what you want. And I don't have some kind of authority where I can or would demand that those authors do this work.

 

If you think that FO4VR is a failed project you should probably take that up with its authors. But, telling them that, imo, is unlikely to be very persuasive.

 

Could an entirely new animation framework be made for FO4VR without any further DLL work? Maybe. I'd have to spend quite a lot of time looking more closely at it just to even answer that question. Others who have already coded for FO4VR may already know its limitations, etc.

 

I don't like to ever say never. But, I'm unlikely to take on that project because I already have my hands full. I'm more likely to become interested in adding a framework for a new Bethesda game before I would make a new framework for FO4VR.

 

There is no reason why someone who is enthusiastic about FO4VR can't take the bull by the horns and start on such a project themselves. And that is not an insult or deflection. That is how all mods start.

[prinyo]

11 hours ago, dagobaking said:

Maybe you are unaware of this. But, your tone in making this "request" seems pretty aggressive.

I am in fact unaware. And I was very careful to not be aggressive so not to provoke the hostility that I got regardless. Can you quote the parts from my posts that you think are aggressive? In fact I was everything but:

 

Quote

a deflection that I understand to mean unwillingness to deal with this. And I respect it

Quote

However I do understand that "it is too much work" is a valid reason to decline the request.

 

My whole point was to say that I understand that it can be complicated and too much work for what is in essence a hobby. You can't be less "aggressively requesting" than this. But the reactions I got speak themselves and are a good answer to the question in the post that I was tagged in and that brought me here.

 

Edited August 18, 2021 by prinyo

[prinyo]

13 hours ago, vaultbait said:

[./..]

After been active for several years in the Skyrim/SkyrimVR modding and community I have learned that for all but a very few people the DLLs in mods are black boxes. If a mod has a DLL that is incompatible then that's the end of the road unless some nice soul takes pity and recompiles. If there is a working DLL and there are other problems people start to experiment, make script changes and things start to move forward. Not having a compatible DLL file is a hard blocking factor.

I personally have learned to use CK, Nifskope and other mesh editing software, learned Papyrus as much as I needed, spent hundreds of hours of debugging and experimenting of porting the pancake Skyrim mods to VR and I have set my boundary to DLLs and skeleton nodes and IK.

When I said "I tried to get" the DLLs recompiled I mean I did the things that did work for SkyrimVR and that resulted in practically all flat mod DLLs been recompiled: I contacted the mod authors with a very polite request. I searched for the source code with the idea to find somebody else to recompile (coudn't find it). I wanted to check the source code also in order to get an idea if it is possible to avoid using the DLL at all (the way SL Light did some time ago).

 

In the mean time I made a patch for 4Play that spawns a clone for the scenes involving  the PC. However I realized that the 4Play is not the way to go and decided against working on a VR patch for it. Instead I was hoping somebody will recompile the DLL used by AAF and unlock the further progress.

 

 

[vaultbait]

6 hours ago, prinyo said:

I searched for the source code with the idea to find somebody else to recompile (coudn't find it). I wanted to check the source code also in order to get an idea if it is possible to avoid using the DLL at all (the way SL Light did some time ago).

 

In the mean time I made a patch for 4Play that spawns a clone for the scenes involving  the PC. However I realized that the 4Play is not the way to go and decided against working on a VR patch for it. Instead I was hoping somebody will recompile the DLL used by AAF and unlock the further progress.

 

The DLL in question is this one, and its archive includes the source code for it as well:

 

[mangybastard]

13 hours ago, prinyo said:

I am in fact unaware. And I was very careful to not be aggressive so not to provoke the hostility that I got regardless. Can you quote the parts from my posts that you think are aggressive? In fact I was everything but:

 

 

My whole point was to say that I understand that it can be complicated and too much work for what is in essence a hobby. You can't be less "aggressively requesting" than this. But the reactions I got speak themselves and are a good answer to the question in the post that I was tagged in and that brought me here.

 

I don't want to involve myself but I think it might be worth suggesting you read the past few pages of this thread. I did while trying to look for VR discussions and Dagobaking has been responding to a lot of hostility lately. Just wanting to point that out in hopes that understanding what he's been dealing with softens some blows.

[dagobaking]

14 hours ago, prinyo said:

I am in fact unaware. And I was very careful to not be aggressive so not to provoke the hostility that I got regardless. Can you quote the parts from my posts that you think are aggressive? In fact I was everything but:

 

My whole point was to say that I understand that it can be complicated and too much work for what is in essence a hobby. You can't be less "aggressively requesting" than this. But the reactions I got speak themselves and are a good answer to the question in the post that I was tagged in and that brought me here.

 

 

This whole paragraph comes off as aggressive:

 

On 8/17/2021 at 4:47 AM, prinyo said:

The "issue" (that may exist) is not really relevant to the question/request, that is - let us have a DLL compiled for FO4VR and let people test and experiment. Every answer to this has been, similarly to this post, a deflection that I understand to mean unwillingness to deal with this. And I respect it so I have filed FO4VR in the category of "failed" projects (also the fact it runs like shit on even the best PC doesn't help). 

 

This is not to be argumentative. But, to simply answer your question about what appears aggressive:

 

A) In the first sentence you make a semantic assumption about what was meant by an "issue" and claim that it is irrelevant anyway. That is discourteous toward someone who was simply trying to answer a question in good faith.

 

B) In the next half of that sentence you imply that I have something that I am withholding (a DLL).

 

C) While you say that you respect an "unwillingness to deal with this" you are still making the clear accusation that it is a "deflection" and is in fact an "unwillingness to deal with this" which is by no means established anywhere.

 

D) The negativity of this paragraph is only reinforced with a cherry on top in the last sentence when you declare that FO4VR is a failed project and runs like shit. As if that has anything to do with myself. And even if it did, do you seriously think that the authors or many users that happily use FO4VR without needing an animation framework will just agree with that sitting down?

[prinyo]

19 hours ago, vaultbait said:

 

The DLL in question is this one, and its archive includes the source code for it as well:

 

 

Thanks for this, Maybe it will be possible to use AAF without DLL, even in some limited form.

[ParovStelar]

with respect, such a dick forum to redirect us to download.
Loverslab never been like this.

kudos.

[blastikor]

14 minutes ago, ParovStelar said:

with respect, such a dick forum to redirect us to download.
Loverslab never been like this.

kudos.

 

This is absolutely not true. Just a couple examples off the top of my head are Buffout, and Atomic Lust. LL redirects to Nexus for those. I really do not see what the big deal is about having to obtain a mod from redirect.

[vaultbait]

1 hour ago, ParovStelar said:

with respect, such a dick forum to redirect us to download.
Loverslab never been like this.

kudos.

 

The AAF entry on LL directed downloads to Nexus Mods for years, and was only recently switched to direct downloads to Moddingham instead.

 

The overwhelming conclusion at this point is that anyone who complains about it being hosted somewhere else NOW is probably actually just trying to make money off including it in some modpack, and so only complains because mod author freedom is getting in the way of ulterior motives to turn a profit. Otherwise why didn't they complain years ago?

[dagobaking]

12 hours ago, prinyo said:

Thanks for this, Maybe it will be possible to use AAF without DLL, even in some limited form.

 

The transmission of data between Flash and Papyrus is vital. So, it's not really possible.

 

Also difficult is the switching to FreeCam. Without it, the camera is locked in place when the PC is in the animation.

 

A Papyrus-only framework could be made. But, it wouldn't have dynamic installation of animation packs, etc. like AAF.

Edited August 20, 2021 by dagobaking

[Carabosse]

1 minute ago, dagobaking said:

 

The most difficult DLL-provided feature to go without is the switching to FreeCam. Without it, the camera is locked in place when the PC is in the animation.

 

Otherwise, it could be done with some relatively small alteration to AAF.

 

Why is the freecam enabled by LL_Fourplay different to tfc in that you can't raise and lower the camera via (I think) the left and right mouse buttons. I might not be remembering that correctly though.

 

 

[VonHelton]

Wow, a shit storm of drama & I couldn't be blamed for it because I wasn't here. BRILLIANT!

 

(The gods, in their wisdom, clearly have protected me).

 

Hmmmmm........This may open the possibility of numerous apologies coming my way! (Yea, right, no one, in the history of the internet, has ever apologized sincerely to me).

 

But it's still funny as hell. Ok, back to modding......

 

 

 

[murf]

1 minute ago, VonHelton said:

Wow, a shit storm of drama & I couldn't be blamed for it because I wasn't here. BRILLIANT!

 

(The gods, in their wisdom, clearly have protected me).

 

Hmmmmm........This may open the possibility of numerous apologies coming my way! (Yea, right, no one, in the history of the internet, has ever apologized sincerely to me).

 

But it's still funny as hell. Ok, back to modding......

 

 

 

I agree. Watching people piss and moan about having to go somewhere besides Nexit... to download their free shit... STOP! My EPeen can not become more erect than it already is LOL!

 

To all the moaners I offer the following, fill it out before seeing your pharmacist. It may save you some time finding something to help your butthurt ?

 

 

[Mistress Jade]

7 hours ago, ParovStelar said:

with respect, such a dick forum to redirect us to download.
Loverslab never been like this.

kudos.

"with respect" thats a laugh because there is no respect in what you typed

 

[dagobaking]

5 hours ago, Carabosse said:

Why is the freecam enabled by LL_Fourplay different to tfc in that you can't raise and lower the camera via (I think) the left and right mouse buttons. I might not be remembering that correctly though.

 

I think it might be the same. But, there is no Papyrus command in the vanilla API. So, you would have to manually open the console every time. Also, IIRC (been a while since I put that part together), the timing is important. So, if you manually go into tfc after the animation starts it makes the body go invisible, etc.

 

3 hours ago, VonHelton said:

Wow, a shit storm of drama & I couldn't be blamed for it because I wasn't here. BRILLIANT!

 

?

[ebbluminous]

8 hours ago, VonHelton said:

Wow, a shit storm of drama & I couldn't be blamed for it because I wasn't here. BRILLIANT!

 

(The gods, in their wisdom, clearly have protected me).

 

Hmmmmm........This may open the possibility of numerous apologies coming my way! (Yea, right, no one, in the history of the internet, has ever apologized sincerely to me).

 

But it's still funny as hell. Ok, back to modding......

 

 

 

I have no idea who you are, You have never offended me, but here take a sincere apology from me. If only to prove you wrong about never getting a sincere apology on the internet...

[prinyo]

11 hours ago, dagobaking said:

Also difficult is the switching to FreeCam. Without it, the camera is locked in place when the PC is in the animation.

This is irrelevant in VR. You are always in free cam that is been guided by  the tracking of the headset. SkyrimVR even crashes if you try to enable "free cam", haven't tried it with FO4VR.

Basically before there is a compatible DLL or real problems encountered when attempting to recompile it, there isn't anything that can be discussed about AAF in VR as it is way too abstract.

Now I started thinking that the IK player body can maybe help with using 4Play. The big problem 4Play has is the misalignment but with scenes involving the player in VR that would not be a (big) problem. Will need to install FO4VR again and do some experiments.

Edited August 20, 2021 by prinyo