TES V: Skyrim

[Ysne58]

Yet another reason why I no longer use NMM except to check for updated files.

[Thomas Kaira]

So, a bit of a dilemma here: my current scripts are designed to save details on all actors that the script touches, but on thinking about it, I don't think that may be the greatest idea. There's a lot of issues that crop up with storing details on minor actors, and personally, I don't think they are worth it.So: should I ditch the current plan and reset the scripting so that I only store data for the player's current follower and ditch any data on minor actors when it is no longer needed to keep script overhead down? Or should I keep it as-is? I'm banking on the former, myself. The latter seems to be a bit excessive.

[Arthmoor]

I think it would be best to go with dropping the minor actor data when its not needed anymore. Papyrus overhead is just too high to effectively allow for tracking them all forever.

[Thomas Kaira]

I agree. I've already axed out everything for random actor data storage, so all of the data my mod is keeping will be dropped when they get unloaded.However, an exception is being made for your Followers. And since I have made this change, it will allow me to track Followers with almost the same precision as I track the Player. I can detect any follower you may obtain at any point dynamically thanks to a bit of voodoo with Reference Aliases and track them with the full Injury model until they are no longer your companion. At which point, I drop them the next time they unload. This has all been tested and is working properly now, so now it is time to test the Injuries model for them and implement their treatment capabilities. Most of this will be using the same stuff I use for the Player script, so minimal porting work will be needed. I'm probably also going to add a contingency where if they are currently not loaded, the script will wait until they are loaded again and then pick up where it left off, just to be sure things are optimized as best they can.

[Thomas Kaira]

More Dynamic Injuries 1.1 is extremely close to being finished. I've just performed some last-minute bug checking and ironed out the remaining issues, everything is working as it should, and I believe the package will be hitting the interwebz very soon.(This is the one containing NPC and follower support, so get ready).

[Thomas Kaira]

Kinda amusing when people say Skyrim modding is "dieing."I don't think so.

[Arthmoor]

Always amusing. Dying? Not really. Hibernating due to CK bugs? Possibly. I'd wager it's about to thaw out now that the navmesh bug is fixed.

[Hana]

Arthmoor, I updated the OB Gates file if you're interested in testing again.Cleaned up the meshes, added new textures - 5 to choose from, pick any (except the spike textures go with the spike only)Pretty sure I'm gonna release as is, so if you can grab a couple of promo shots for me, that'd be great. Edit: Ooops, I left obgate03.dds in there, scrap it, it sucks.

[Arthmoor]

You and your timing :PI was JUST getting to a point where I was thinking "you know, this would be a good spot for a ruined gate" and then here you are with an update.Do they still not have collision? If not I can fake some with collision cubes but it would be nice not to have to.

[Hana]

Nope, sorry, collision not gonna happen. I'm not even sure a simple convex collision will work. You could try it, open a mesh in Nifskope, right click on the object in the render window, Havok > Create Convex Shape. Go with whatever default it gives you.

[Arthmoor]

So are the gates supposed to be using this brown rock texture? Nothing is going to use the red one?Also should have asked sooner, any chance of getting one that's Great Gate sized? Like the one at the Battle of Bruma?

[Hana]

Gates and rocks can use any of the 5 obgate textures you like. Red one is gone, it sucked too. After thinking about it some more I realized 200 years later the gates would no longer be red. Or, if you liked it, keep it exclusively. Um, great gate, eh? If it's no different couldn't you just scale it in the CK?

[Arthmoor]

Heh, cool. I do like the red one myself and have no problem with accepting it as simple a colorful rock.The Great Gate is considerably larger and isn't a simple matter of scaling a regular one. Have a look in BrumaMQ13Battlefield04 at the size difference. Would be nice to have, but certainly not a problem otherwise.Your promo shots: http://postimage.org/gallery/gqg7gss/35177b38/( missed one: http://postimage.org/image/4zkv3a2m9/full/ )If you'd like more, let me know what you want. Hopefully the image site hasn't butchered them.FYI the collision in nifskope didn't really work out either so they'll have to do without for now.

[Hana]

AWESOME! That should about cover it. Many thanks.The "size comparison" one was exactly what I was hoping for. Edit: I got so excited and ran off ..... sure, I'll take a look at the great gate, just for you.

[Hana]

Here we go again with blatant stolen assets.

[Thomas Kaira]

A quick notice: Mods save with Creation Kit version 1.6 will no longer work with previous versions of the game, so make sure you update your requirements accordingly.Hana: I just reported the file, but I did make a small request that whichever mod comes knocking go easy on the banhammer because of all the misinformation going through the comments about your being allowed to do that. Some talk of Trademarks entered the fray, but that bullshit is invalid, because this rule is part of the EULA which is a legally binding contract.

[Arthmoor]

I'm surprised that file is still up there after this long, and that people are still trying to use the debunked Michael D letter as justification.

[prettyfly]

It does look very nice at least, Seems like Bethesda needs to be more public about the fact that this violates the EULA for the majority of people who inevitably won't bother to read it.

[Arthmoor]

It does, and Bethesda's stance on this has always baffled. I've downloaded it and will poke around with it, might use it, might not, but it looked interesting enough to grab before the moderators yank it.

[AndalayBay]

Have you guys reported it then?Because yes, Bethesda is still defending that policy. They don't want stuff ported from other games, including TES. I'll report to Gstaff if you want.You understand Beth's position, right? It's just peoples' impression that it's ok to port or that customer service letter that confuses you? Also, that customer service letter said it was fine as long as he didn't release the mod publicly. It wasn't spelt out, but I think that's what the person meant. That so called letter may have been edited to make it sound ok too.

[Arthmoor]

Yes, I understand their legal position on this. It doesn't change the fact that I and others think it's a daft policy anyway.Yes, I reported the file (after I downloaded it ) yet it still remains. I have to wonder if this new policy on Nexus of "we won't hide it until we can prove it" isn't backfiring in this case.

[Thomas Kaira]

Hmm... maybe it's time I build my dream home?

[AndalayBay]

Yes' date=' I understand their legal position on this. It doesn't change the fact that I and others think it's a daft policy anyway.

Yes, I reported the file (after I downloaded it ) yet it still remains. I have to wonder if this new policy on Nexus of "we won't hide it until we can prove it" isn't backfiring in this case.[/quote']I thought so too at one point. Then I downloaded the HAVOK engine sdk. It's available for free for non-commercial, or small commercial use. Basically if you're going to sell your game for $4.99 USD or less, it's free. I took a look at the EULA. Believe it or not, they very clearly state that you may not distribute the documentation as part of your game. So even though you are permitted to use the HAVOK engine and it's a free download, you may not distribute any part of the documentation even though that would help others either expand your game or create mods for it.Once I saw that, I understood Beth's position a little better. And now I know why they don't release any documentation on the NIF format. There really are third party agreements in place that prevent them from allowing their resources to be used elsewhere. While a lot of the content of Oblivion, Morrowind etc. is theirs and they might be inclined to allow their use in other games, they can't come up with a comprehensive list, so it's easier to just say "no" right from the start.And it's Sunday. Maybe even Nexus has a few people who aren't around right now.

[Arthmoor]

Well then that's Havok's silly policy because all someone needs to do is link to their download and say read the docs inside of it..nif files are Gamebryo assets though, and the only reason they're subject to this level of craziness is because 99.9% of them contain collision blocks that use Havok. Technically speaking, stripping the collision and then remaking it in Blender can absolve you of this problem. Practically speaking, nobody is going to waste the time doing that.Besides, since Havok only seems to cry about the documentation and not the end result, one is still left to wonder what the problem is.And Sunday or not, it surprises me this has remained up for as long as it has when moderators ARE about. The files are very clearly ripped directly from Oblivion, textures are identical even.

[Arthmoor]