loose vs bsa files

[Razorsedge877]

When should I choose loose files over bsa files. Also what if there is a loose files option in the main section but the optional section the dawnguard/dragonborn download doesn't offer loose files version.

[phazer11]

I guess I should feel proud of my laptop and it's SSD then lmao. I had an SR:LE esque +SkyRe, magic overhauls, etc running on it as well as some STEP mods totaling ~67GB (about 58GB) were being used for this in particular profile 5-10 seconds to get to the main menu and blink and I'm in game. I was using loose files only. I've trimmed down the list a bit but am slowly adding more onto it lol.

[Kuldebar]

I've always disagrees with extracting ALL of the BSAs. The unofficial patch BSAs for example should not be extracted, that is recommended by the team that makes those patches. There is also a lot talk amongst modders that the engine changed from Oblivion to Skyrim, so the way loose vs archived files are handled no longer favors loose files. Also, the fixes section gets messed up if install loose files do to installation order.

I don't understand this but I know Arthmoor holds the same opinion.

In MO, the Unofficial Patches (in correct order) are at the top of the left side list and in their respective BOSS ordered positions on the right side pane.

I have MO unpack all BSA's on installation. I see no reason to say it's "bad" for one mod over the other. It's either a good practice or a bad one but yes it could be a problem if someone mixes all their files together.

 

There's a saying in the world of electronics: "electrically the same" thus I see no discernible/quantifiable difference between the two methods if you use Mod Organizer.

 

If you don't use MO, I could definitely see how a nightmare could quickly occur if you unpacked and dumped all those files into the same directory.

[phazer11]

I've always disagrees with extracting ALL of the BSAs. The unofficial patch BSAs for example should not be extracted, that is recommended by the team that makes those patches. There is also a lot talk amongst modders that the engine changed from Oblivion to Skyrim, so the way loose vs archived files are handled no longer favors loose files. Also, the fixes section gets messed up if install loose files do to installation order.

Where did you read that?

[Kuldebar]

@Phazer11:

I'm sure it's in the same vein as Arthmoor's comments:

If you are using Mod Organizer and are here to report issues with dragon souls, sorry, but you're on your own as we do not support issues caused by incorrectly letting that program modify the BSA load order system the game has. Your post is likely to just be ignored. We don't have time to keep fending off false bug reports caused by people who insist on unpacking their BSA files using the program and thus subverting the entire system the game relies on for proper behavior.

"Then you need to make sure Mod Organizer isn't subverting the BSA load ordering - it's notorious for that, and it doing so tends to lead to people posting about how everything is set right but still not working.If everything is set right, every other mod management tool will deliver a proper result. MO is the only one where this breaks down because of the daft feature where you can change the order that BSAs load in - or worse - force them all to unpack loose into MO's phantom Data folder."

 

The Arthmoor quotes are from a blurb on the Unofficial Skyrim Patch page and a forum post...

I think it is wildly off base because it fails to address the relatively easy way that MO user's can avoid having a problem...mainly via common sense practices. Yes, a powerful utility like MO in the wrong hands could undo the best laid plans of mice and modders but since when is that a reason to go full luddite on something? I can think of a thousand other ways a user could screw the pooch in Skyrim without painting MO as the problem.

 

A good reply from Tannin on the subject:

 

First things last: Mod Organizer should deal with "false esms" correctly in the current version (since a few versions actually).With MO, assuming all archives are "checked", the BSAs are treated exactly as if they were loose files. That means the priority depends solely on the mod order (that's the left pane in MO!) and NOT on the esp order. This is imho a neat feature because it lets you ignore BSA ordering completely. To understand BSA ordering under MO all you have to do is FORGET that they are supposed to be special. You sort your mods on the left pane so you get the assets you want, you sort the right pane according to boss for maximum compatibility. End of story, it doesn't matter how they are packaged.The difficulty with some mods (Unofficial Patches in particular) arises because the mod has dependencies that the author fails to document properly. USKP introduces an incompatibility with other mods (in particularly dragon soul related) and claims it has to be fixed by others. 

 

[Octopuss]

That last quote is interesting.

But I still prefer to use loose files as then I can clearly see which files conflict with which.

[Octopuss]

So just to make double sure, in order to not bother with loose files vs bsa and what takes priority over what, do I need to tick the checkboxes in the archives tab? I am a bit confused because MO says the archives will still be loaded because there is a plugin of the same name...

[PlanetExp]

If a mod has both an esp and bsa, if you tick the esp it will automatically load the bsa. If a mod has only a bsa archive, it needs to be ticked in the archives folder to load.

 

If a mod has a dummy esp which you leave unticked the bsa will still be loaded as well (not 100% sure about this).

 

So the only variant you should worry about is if you have a mod with only bsa and no esp. In this case tick it under archives tab.

 

Trying this only once will tell you exactly how it works.

[Octopuss]

Hm, but the tooltip in the archives tab says that it will still be loaded, BUT its files will not follow installation order. What does that mean? I don't think I want that.

 

Also Tannin wrote assuming all archives are "checked" - that looks like checking archives in their tab, not just checking the plugins.

 

There's also this post. I am still a bit unsure how it works.

Edited March 2, 2014 by Octopuss

[DoubleYou]

The only archives that you potentially should NOT check would be the Unofficial Patches, as they are the only mods whose BSAs are in a load order position where they are designed to be overwritten by some content in the official DLCs. Checking everything else should be okay. That said, it is generally unnecessary to check the BSAs, unless you decided to get rid of the corresponding esp.

[Kuldebar]

Exactly, DoubleYou...the whole supposed "problem" with MO and BSA extraction is easily relegated to a non-issue by using a little common sense and knowledge:

 

Just a simple matter of having the files where they belong...which is the whole point of mod management in the first place.

[Halde]

Sorry for necroing this, but I kinda need to be sure, before I dive in, and possibly waste hours.

 

1st: Should I extract all .bsa to Loose Files with Mod Organizer, except for the Unofficial Patches?

 

2nd: Should I optimize textures from the unofficial patches? I don't recall this being a part of the STEP guide for important mod textures.

 

3rd: I read that Loose Files "is much easier to handle/gives more control". How is this? Since both load and hard drive space seems to be affected by Loose Files, yet I fail to see what is gained? I have never needed to go balls deep into the files of my mods. It's a bit vague to me what I gain my extracting the .bsa's. The actual only thing I know Loose Files to do, is that they will be loaded over the .bsa.

 

~Sincerely

 

Halde

[rootsrat]

Please refer to this thread instead. There are TONS of useful info there and, frankly, the debate is still ongoing. The reason I'm asking to move over to the other thread is to keep all the info in one place. 

 

I'll lock this thread for that very reason. 

 

Thanks for your understanding.