Arthmoor Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 http://forums.bethsoft.com/index.php?/topic/1154589-rel-construction-set-extender/Trust me here, modders take note. You NEED to take a look at this. Probably the single biggest achievement in modding since the CS itself. Easily the number one mod to hit the net for all of 2011, bar none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwip Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 *downloads**reads readme*INSANITY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthmoor Posted January 2, 2011 Author Share Posted January 2, 2011 Oh boy, this thing is great. I've already verified the batch editor for mass reference editing works. I just flagged about 40 crops in the VHB fixup and turned the "initially disabled" flag on them. 3 seconds to do what would have taken 20 minutes in TES4Edit just because of all the clicking.The parent flag stuff isn't working yet, so don't toss your TES4Edit out the window just yet.Fast exit from the CS = major cool.Deliberate dirty editing = nothing to clean. Holy cow. Still, I wouldn't toss the cleaning book out the window just yet. I only did a few things.Selecting assets from a BSA = total win.NO ERROR SPAM! Holy shit this alone is worth pounds of gold!And I haven't even gotten to messing with the script editor. CSE, where the hell have you been all our lives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conner Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Looks like a great new toy for you guys, is it something that's worth having for those who don't do modding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prettyfly Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Oh my god...download!Or as my some of my mates would put it, 'Orgasmic' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthmoor Posted January 2, 2011 Author Share Posted January 2, 2011 @Conner: No, probably not. Unless you plan to dabble in the CS at some point. Then you'll want this. Nothing like cleaning up huge amounts of bugs in the CS. Looks like he's caught all of the major stuff that was vital and that TES4Edit didn't already handle easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hana Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 I'd read the release thread but hadn't downloaded yet. Thanks for the review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwip Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 I'm pretty sure he had me sold at "script editor that looks and behaves like Visual Studio", but some of the other stuff looks pretty good too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conner Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 That was my initial impression, Samson, thanks for confirming that for me. I've sent my son an email suggesting he check out this thread and this tool since he wants to mod, presumably he'll drop by to visit us here at some point, but most likely he'll continue to remain anonymous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthmoor Posted January 2, 2011 Author Share Posted January 2, 2011 I don't know how he managed it, but it appears as though ShadeMe has obliterated the dirty edit. Even in one of my complex multi-master patches that ALWAYS throws tons of them for no reason. Not a single stray edit to be found. *tear of happiness* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hana Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Wait .... you can batch edit "initially disabled" in TES4Edit? And you guys let me do that all manually in the CS? :stare:Also, watching the thread closely. Even over all the love for it (wonders if Samson is over his moment), it's not without a few wrinkles. Think I'll hold off awhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthmoor Posted January 2, 2011 Author Share Posted January 2, 2011 No, you can't batch edit the "initially disabled" flag in TES4Edit. It throws an error. Which is why I am still having my moment. You can't take that away from me, I won't allow it! :ninja:I'm sure it has a few wrinkles. Any project of this magnitude would. So far it's been solid except for Vorians' non-compiled script that threw the thing for a loop. It appears to be perfectly safe though. I've done some edits in a few things, including a couple of quickies with complex patches and Frostcrag Village and what can I say? I'm in CS heaven. It's quite liberating to be able to load Frostcrag Village and not have to worry about flipping the ESM flag on the DLC first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prettyfly Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 No more dirty edits?Thank god, no more half hour sessions cleaning Elsweyr Plantations &co...that dirty piece of shit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthmoor Posted January 2, 2011 Author Share Posted January 2, 2011 It sure seems that way so far. Even with notorious sources like the UOP that the CS usually generates dozens of dirty edits with just because you saved it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conner Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 So what sort of wrinkles have been found so far?*wonders if this means he'll have to download all his mods over again now that modders have found a way to clean up all their mods quickly and easily...* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthmoor Posted January 3, 2011 Author Share Posted January 3, 2011 Well, one of Vorians' uncomplied scripts in the Better Cities master file crashes CSE right now due to something with the Intellisense feature.The batch editing of enable parent settings isn't working yet, but the interface is there, so I'm hoping this is temporary.I'd imagine that any scripts compiled with OBSE commands under CSE would require the user to have OBSE 0020, which is still in beta, so you'd have to watch that for now.We gained the ability to edit 3D properties on the door markers, but at the cost of losing the double-click shortcut to go to the linked door. So one is left to use the slightly longer way of double-clicking the door and then viewing it's linked door. Not that huge an issue.I should see what happens when a mod with dirty edits already in it is loaded and then saved. If that works it would be a phenomenally easier way to go about cleaning mods. So far clean in means clean out. But you know what they say about garbage in. Don't count on modders suddenly seeing the light either and cleaning their stuff in some kind of epiphany of enlightenment. I'd imagine you'll still have to clean what you download for some time to come.One potentially big wrinkle is that the new ESM editing feature also allows editing Oblivion.esm itself. Probably a bad idea, but I doubt anyone will be able to accidentally do something bad since it takes hours for it to finish loading and most people would task manager it before then. I think it would be interesting to see just what would happen to it though, given that it's got corrupt records that CSE might fix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conner Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 :nod: So I probably won't have to worry about redownloading updates for all my mods just yet then. Especially considering how many of the mods I've got were created by Dwip or Samson, we all know how slow those two can be to adopt new methods. ;)If just loading something dirty would more or less self-clean in it, maybe it would be worth it to spend the few hours involved to load up every esp/esm and let it do it's thing, maybe it'd make the UOPs obsolete? (Or at least go a fair ways towards that end?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthmoor Posted January 3, 2011 Author Share Posted January 3, 2011 It can't make the UOP/USIP obsolete because by definition Oblivion.esm cannot have a dirty edit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conner Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Maybe so, but if the Oblivion.esm was cleaner, wouldn't it have removed the need for the UOP/USIP to begin with? ...I mean, wasn't the idea behind the UOP to correct things that Bethesda didn't fix before release because they weren't releasing patches on their own to address them?Ok, granted clean isn't the right term since it implies fixing dirty edits which are, by definition, caused by making changes that essentially overwrite what's being done in oblivion.esm first, but I have confidence that you understand what I'm trying to say here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthmoor Posted January 3, 2011 Author Share Posted January 3, 2011 A dirty edit means a record in a mod is identical to one in Oblivion.esm. The UOP/USIP correct actual errors, even if it's just moving a rock 2 units down to cover a seam. Those don't count as dirty edits.The master file by definition can never be considered dirty. It CAN be rittled with bugs though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conner Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Yes, well.. it's those bugs that it can be rife with that I was really thinking of, but I suppose it'd just be way too much to ask if this tool could fix those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthmoor Posted January 3, 2011 Author Share Posted January 3, 2011 How would it fix them? It has no way of knowing if that rock that's half turned on its side was that way on purpose or not. Contrary to what it may seem like, the UOP is 95% fixing things like that by putting stuff into sensible positions. The other 5% is bad scripts that need to be debugged and quest stuff that's borked. CSE would have no way to help with that either, aside from the script editing aids it comes with. I suspect Dwip will be far more familiar with the new toys than I am in the script editor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conner Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Hmm, you'd think there really ought to be some way to come up with an algorithm that could tell if a rock made sense in the position it's in or if it needs a bit of tweaking. In theory, that's all our brains do too: apply an internal algorithm to make the determination if something looks right or not.Bad scripts and borked quest stuff should be fixable via automated checking almost easily, or at least detectable so they can be flagged for a human operator to adjust according to recommendations... Especially the borked quest stuff, just have the automated process test run through the quest to see if each quest script works through comparison of what the previous quest script components indicate should come next and what the next quest script component indicates should've happened last, no? Most broken scripts should be easy to test the same way gcc test code during compilation, fixing it might take a bit more intelligence, but even just automating finding the bad ones should help, you'd think, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthmoor Posted January 3, 2011 Author Share Posted January 3, 2011 As you well know, just because something compiles doesn't mean it's also valid. There's plenty of things that can bring down a MUD even with perfect compiles. The same holds true of scripts for TES games. Just because the script compiler told you it was fine (usually says nothing) doesn't mean it will do what you want. Case in point: The debacle I made of Faregyl's still in process update. It all compiled right, but no automated tool has the intelligence to know what the logic flow of something like this should be.Stage checks with the wrong condition, no way to know. Dialogue checking the wrong flag? No way to know. AI pack sending an NPC to the wrong location? No way to know. The automated tools can only tell you if the structure is valid, not the logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conner Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 We all know plenty of MUD coders who're entirely convinced that if gcc says it compiled cleanly (especially with warnings off) then it's all correct.. :lol:If we'll eventually have human-like androids, surely we can eventually figure out how to write algorithms that'll be able to catch those sorts of logic issues. But, fine, with present technology levels (given cost effectiveness), perhaps giving the compiler AI for those sort of errors might still be unreasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now