Jump to content


Photo

TES5Edit (by ElminsterAU)


  • Please log in to reply
272 replies to this topic

#16 Besidilo

Besidilo

    Jarl

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 993 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 06:49 AM

We need to get someone more knowledgeable about ITMs in here, because I swear I remember reading a post by Arthmoor saying that it's almost impossible for removed ITMs to cause problems.

EDIT: This is the post I was thinking of: http://forums.bethso...st__p__21676083


I think it works like this:

1) Mod A relies on the vanilla game's Object 1, whilst modifying Objects 2 and 3.
2) Mod B modifies Objects 6-8 and Object 1.
3) Mod A is loaded AFTER mod B.
4) Both mods are cleaned of ITMs and UDRs.

Assuming that Mod A is cleaned with TES5Edit and is lower in the load order, Object 1 will be overwritten by Mod B, since the Identical to Master record was previously removed from Mod A.

So now Mod A relies on an incompatible record from Mod B.

But this is a mod incompatibility and what is required here is a compatibility patch. I still can't think of any "Objects" or records for that matter that would conflict this way.

I'm also sure there's a better way of making sure the vanilla records are used when a mod requires that.
  • 0

#17 Besidilo

Besidilo

    Jarl

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 993 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 06:52 AM


I am guessing that the way that TES5 compares two objects to determine if they are identical is not exactly accurate. I have isolated both files before with only the skyrim.esm and required masters and cleaned them and found on more than one occasion that this removes functionality from the plugin. In the case of destructible bottles, cleaning it makes bottles no longer destructible. Moving it to a different position to the load order doesn't solve it, it has to be reinstalled from the source with no edits. In the case of improved close faced helms,I have discovered missing textures (invisible heads) after cleaning it. The missing heads correspond exactly to the items removed as ITMS, in my place a khajit head mesh variant for dwemer helms. I need to look into it more, but tentatively going to say that cleaning ITMs indiscriminately could, possibly, harm the plugin.


That's why cleaning mods should ONLY be left to the mod author! TES5Edit currently is more or less a source for reference for a mod maker, how well his mod is set up and whether he needs to improve something. If cleaning ALL the mods in step with TES5Edit in it's current state will be explicitely named as a part of STEP I'll not do it. Most of the times it might work right, but it doesn't always, and who apart from the mod makers should take up the burden to verify whether every single mod they "cleaned" still works as well as before the "cleaning"?


TES5Edit is supposed to be a core part of STEP Thunderbolt, but I imagine it would be set to only clean the mods that really require it.
  • 0

#18 Farlo

Farlo

    Dragon Prince

  • Site Founders
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,677 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 03:46 PM


I am guessing that the way that TES5 compares two objects to determine if they are identical is not exactly accurate. I have isolated both files before with only the skyrim.esm and required masters and cleaned them and found on more than one occasion that this removes functionality from the plugin. In the case of destructible bottles, cleaning it makes bottles no longer destructible. Moving it to a different position to the load order doesn't solve it, it has to be reinstalled from the source with no edits. In the case of improved close faced helms,I have discovered missing textures (invisible heads) after cleaning it. The missing heads correspond exactly to the items removed as ITMS, in my place a khajit head mesh variant for dwemer helms. I need to look into it more, but tentatively going to say that cleaning ITMs indiscriminately could, possibly, harm the plugin.


That's why cleaning mods should ONLY be left to the mod author! TES5Edit currently is more or less a source for reference for a mod maker, how well his mod is set up and whether he needs to improve something. If cleaning ALL the mods in step with TES5Edit in it's current state will be explicitely named as a part of STEP I'll not do it. Most of the times it might work right, but it doesn't always, and who apart from the mod makers should take up the burden to verify whether every single mod they "cleaned" still works as well as before the "cleaning"?



TES5Edit is supposed to be a core part of STEP Thunderbolt, but I imagine it would be set to only clean the mods that really require it.

Even if we make TES5Edit part of the installation process in Thunderbolt and depending on how automated we can make it (both of which are questionable at this point since they're still in their infancy), we will definitely make a parameter in the Wiki Database for mods that should not be cleaned and proceed accordingly.  

As we design the Wiki as a database for STEP, we're trying to make sure we have everything accounted for and that we are collecting and storing as much useful information as we can.  If anyone's interested in our current progress, we've set up a Data Dictionary with all the variables and attributes we're looking to collect both for mod pages and for testing reports that you'll soon be able to submit, and this list is constantly growing.  If you guys have any useful suggestions for this list, toss one of us a PM (I'll eventually make a more detailed feedback/brainstorming thread to gather ideas).
  • 0

#19 mothergoose729

mothergoose729

    Thane

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 462 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 02:20 AM

Wow that is pretty involved. I guess as another category ITMS and UDRs and if the mods responds positively to cleaning.
  • 0

#20 Farlo

Farlo

    Dragon Prince

  • Site Founders
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,677 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 03:25 AM

Wow that is pretty involved. I guess as another category ITMS and UDRs and if the mods responds positively to cleaning.

We're using a binary IsClean attribute to designate that a mod has been thoroughly cleaned, and I'll see about adding a property for the mods response to cleaning tomorrow.
  • 0

#21 Neovalen

Neovalen

    Talos

  • Mod Authors
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,659 posts

Posted 06 February 2013 - 12:26 PM

New version available. Remember to restore and reclean your mods and Beth files with the new version.
  • 0

#22 justjr

justjr

    Commander

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 231 posts

Posted 06 February 2013 - 09:22 PM

Re-clean all mods :( It's for a greater good :)
  • 0

#23 moho25

moho25

    Prisoner

  • Members
  • 38 posts

Posted 12 February 2013 - 10:37 AM

Having already used TES5Edit to clean the update and DLC files, and having read up on as much literature as I can find, is there a guide that more clearly states which mods are safe to clean and which are not?

From what I understand, it's always best to let the mod author clean the mod (as indiscriminate cleaning can break a mod), but if a mod is dead and yet still compatible with the current version of the game, this is no longer possible. Is STEP's position then to not use the mod in question?

The Creation Kit's wiki says to essentially clean "everything" short of the Skyrim.esm and Unofficial Patches, but this goes against the tutorial posted by Gopher, who recommends that only mod authors clean their mods.

Any advice would be appreciated.

These questions also relate to my post on Cartographer's Map Markers, which is currently in STEP's 2.2.0a Core Mod list.
  • 0

#24 Farlo

Farlo

    Dragon Prince

  • Site Founders
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,677 posts

Posted 12 February 2013 - 11:46 AM

Having already used TES5Edit to clean the update and DLC files' date=' and having read up on as much literature as I can find, is there a guide that more clearly states [b']which [/b]mods are safe to clean and which are not?

From what I understand, it's always best to let the mod author clean the mod (as indiscriminate cleaning can break a mod), but if a mod is dead and yet still compatible with the current version of the game, this is no longer possible. Is STEP's position then to not use the mod in question?

The Creation Kit's wiki says to essentially clean "everything" short of the Skyrim.esm and Unofficial Patches, but this goes against the tutorial posted by Gopher, who recommends that only mod authors clean their mods.

Any advice would be appreciated.

These questions also relate to my post on Cartographer's Map Markers, which is currently in STEP's 2.2.0a Core Mod list.

BOSS says which mods are dirty, but I'm not sure how thoroughly they check whether to clean it or not.  As far as I remember, there aren't any STEP mods that shouldn't be cleaned and at the moment all of mine are clean.  Unfortunately there's no good way to tell if the cleaning will break the mod, you just have to try it and see how things go in-game.

For STEP v2.2.1 we're adding notes about which mods to clean, although it might not be complete.  The work-in-progress guide can be found here, and note that we have removed Cartographer's Map Markers.  If you find any other mods that need cleaning and aren't mentioned on the v2.2.1 guide please let us know so we can update it.


  • 0

#25 moho25

moho25

    Prisoner

  • Members
  • 38 posts

Posted 12 February 2013 - 12:12 PM

@Farlo -- Gotcha. Thanks for the info. Will do if I find anything else that's dirty and unlisted. I'll update the CMM thread with your comment, as well.
  • 0

#26 Pole

Pole

    Prisoner

  • Members
  • 20 posts

Posted 24 March 2013 - 10:10 PM

I keep getting an error when trying to load TESVEdit.  It started a few hours ago, and won't let me edit anything now. Background Loader: Fatal: Does anyone know a fix for this?  I was trying to do the edits for Lanterns of Skyrim when this started popping up.  I have not been able to do any other edits since. Thanks, Pole
  • 0

#27 Neovalen

Neovalen

    Talos

  • Mod Authors
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,659 posts

Posted 24 March 2013 - 10:47 PM

I keep getting an error when trying to load TESVEdit.  It started a few hours ago, and won't let me edit anything now.

Background Loader: Fatal: The system cannot find the file specified>

Does anyone know a fix for this?  I was trying to do the edits for Lanterns of Skyrim when this started popping up.  I have not been able to do any other edits since.

Thanks,
Pole

I'm guessing Its trying to load someone's master file and failing because it no longer exists. Make sure all the related mod files are activated.

If running MO and modifying file contents outside the UI be sure to restart MO.
  • 0

#28 Pole

Pole

    Prisoner

  • Members
  • 20 posts

Posted 25 March 2013 - 09:54 AM

It looks like I had a bad file in the Lanterns of Skyrim. After a redownload everything is now working correctly. Thanks!
  • 0

#29 noahroosen2003

noahroosen2003

    Prisoner

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 06:26 PM

Hello Skyrim Revisited, I'm loving the guide and am in awe of the shear amount of time it must take to maintain. I finally finished the whole thing, very worth it. Of course my hard drive decided that 4 hours after I started playing would be a fantastic time to stop spinning, and magically transform into a $200 brick. Not ideal. I switched to a new hard drive and am preparing to reinstall the whole damn thing, but it truly takes a very long time to do so. I was curious as to the actual importance of doing all of the handmade compatibility patches and other TES5Edit's (Other than cleaning). What would the implications be of not doing any TES5Edit's (Other than cleaning) be?


Thanks, noahroosen2003
  • 0

#30 statmonster

statmonster

    High King

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,249 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 10:49 PM

Probably not necessary. You might get a few more crashes and a few things won't work out correctly from time to time. One thing I have started to notice with Neo's list of these, quite a few mode authors have to incorporate these changes - thus you see some of the TES5Edits he recommends get remvoed from time to time.
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users