Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -
Skyrim

Safety Load (by: kapaer)

mod

  • Please log in to reply
237 replies to this topic

#211 TechAngel85

TechAngel85

    Akatosh

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,977 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 10:25 AM

I'm inclined to agree with Roots. This wasn't tested as it should have been and about 40% of the posts here talk about issues with this mod so I'm not sure how it's been approved. :psyduck:

#212 torminater

torminater

    Dragon Prince

  • Contributors
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,222 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 02:14 PM

Mostly that's because it's pretty much impossible to test such a mod, and the source files have just yet been released. So maybe we wait until sb picks up the banner and optimizes the features whilst eliminating bugs, before considering it for core. As for my experiences: I haven't noticed any increase in savegame corruption, even though I'm not the most cautious guy when it comes to saving ;-)
  • 0

#213 z929669

z929669

    Ixian Inventor

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,327 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 03:07 PM

I am fine with moving it back into testing then; although, I have been running it without issue for several hours using new and pre-saved characters. it is really tough to pinpoint if this script actually causes new issues where none would otherwise exist ... ?

#214 TechAngel85

TechAngel85

    Akatosh

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,977 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 04:30 PM

I never tested this because I never had the issues that it claims to fix, ILSs. In that regard it was impossible for me to test. However, the menu and save game issues many are claiming could be tested by anyone. This really need to be put into a load order and just left for a week or two to see if any of these issues arise.

#215 rootsrat

rootsrat

    Dragon Prince

  • Contributors
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,908 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 07:54 PM

I am fine with moving it back into testing then; although, I have been running it without issue for several hours using new and pre-saved characters.

it is really tough to pinpoint if this script actually causes new issues where none would otherwise exist ... ?


In my experience it's flaws were revealed only after good few days of heavy game play. But I agree that it's not realistic to test it throughout, as the issues seem to be hardware, system and mod set up dependant.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
  • 0

#216 IrishBandit

IrishBandit

    Prisoner

  • Members
  • 18 posts

Posted 14 January 2014 - 01:05 AM

Having used Safety Load for a couple of weeks, it seems to have fixed some crashing and not adversely affected anything.
  • 0

#217 mothergoose729

mothergoose729

    Thane

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 462 posts

Posted 14 January 2014 - 05:09 AM

I will weight in. I have been trying fruitlessly to get good stability with my game for a while. I think I have pin pointed the problem with my game to memory errors in the skyrim engine. Its a simple problem really, the more I add to the game, the more likely the game will crash, regardless of what kind of content it is. Without ENB boost or safety load I would experience missing textures in scenes when the texture for the object did exist (including occasional black faces), frequent crashes particurily when moving between cells and most particular when moving between interior cells and exterior cells, and just random crashes that make little sense at all as well. They came about every 15-30 minutes. I installed ENB boost and it improved my stability pretty significantly, so that I would could reliably go about half an hour between crashes. I installed safety load on top of ENB boost and my crashes have nearly completly ended when moving between cells. I have playing for a few hours I had a couple random crashes and one CTD when I loaded a new save. I could travel about on foot long distances inbetween cells without the ctds that constatly plagued my game, and without any missing texture issues. I did notice some menu crashes that seemed to be more frequent with the mod installed. In particular, I crashes in the smithing crafting menu, then loaded that save again, and crashed in the same menu. Curiously enough, I did some other things in the game on my second reload, and then came back to the smithing menus and didn't crash. In my experience you get a trade off. If you can play for hours without issues than I don't think you need safety load. For me, I found that playing without it is nearly impossible. The flaws in it are more than worth it for me.
  • 0

#218 rootsrat

rootsrat

    Dragon Prince

  • Contributors
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,908 posts

Posted 14 January 2014 - 05:32 AM

All that you guys say is not questionable. The tool certainly DOES help. All I'm saying though is that there is a lot of people (myself included) that have problems with this tool. The problems seem to be too severe and also dependant on too many factors to recommend this tool to be used as part of STEP. At the very least it should not be required as part of STEP:Core (frankly, it's not NEEDED with STEP:Core, as there won't be ILS's or CTD's with STEP:Core), and a visible warning should be put up advising that Safety Load can cause problems that are able to damage your save beyond repair and use it at your own risk. We should cover our backs I think as it's not really possible to fully test this tool, reasons stated in my previous posts.
  • 0

#219 TechAngel85

TechAngel85

    Akatosh

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,977 posts

Posted 15 January 2014 - 08:20 PM

It sounds like we'd be trading a fix for yet other possible issues that are introduced. We've turned down many mods that have traded one issue for another and this mod should not be an exception to that philosophy. If it introduces other issues it's a no-brainer for me that it should not be accepted. That's just my two cents on the matter. Sent from my MotoX using Tapatalk

#220 DoYouEvenModBro

DoYouEvenModBro

    Dragon Prince

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,298 posts

Posted 15 January 2014 - 08:42 PM

I think it should be included in S.T.E.P. maybe at the end and marked as optional. It should also clearly state that this might stabilize your game OR cause CTDs. I don't think it should be ignored though. Obviously that whole cleanmem fad was bullsh** but this clearly has potential for a lot of people. I mean, you guys put notes about potential conflicts and problems (i.e., notes for wet and cold and enhanced blood textures ruining save games) so why not do the same for this?
  • 0

#221 Aiyen

Aiyen

    Dragon King

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,536 posts

Posted 15 January 2014 - 10:30 PM

I think this mod is so popular by now that most people are going to use it, or at least know about it. The problem for STEP becomes that we say that the STEP list will provide a mod list that people can install and then it will work 100% If we recommend this and they start getting issues, then this is no longer the case. On that ground alone I do not vouch for inclusion or even mention. It is a tool for people with more complex lists, and when they have that sort of list, then they most likely also have the experience to know that there is a down side to using it in its current state. Edit: When I say STEP here, I mean the STEP guide... not any STEP based packs etc!

#222 DoYouEvenModBro

DoYouEvenModBro

    Dragon Prince

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,298 posts

Posted 15 January 2014 - 11:01 PM

Ok you make a good point. If people are still getting issues from this mod then yea, don't include it in the S.T.E.P. guide. I'd definitely put it in a pack. It's already in Skyrim Revisited so that's probably good enough. I usually use the SR:L guide to find mods that S.T.E.P. doesn't include/hasn't included yet.
  • 0

#223 Bundy714

Bundy714

    Prisoner

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 16 January 2014 - 12:14 AM

From what I can tell about this plugin, it seems to be working fine, so long as you don't overload your game with heavy scripting mods. My experience was that it caused more crashes and freezes when running an ENB with heavy scripting mods. Without the plugin, I managed to get some game loads that wouldn't load before. Basically, it wasn't an infinite loading screen, it was a loading until the memory reaches 3.2 GB then crash, which seemed like an infinite loading screen.

Of course, doing that anyway is a really bad idea.

This may explain why I had to give up this mod.....the heavy script load.  I set up my game originally using Safety Load not because I was having problems with ILS, but as an ounce of prevention for any future problems.  I probably have too many mods using scripts, but what the heck, I wanted to see if I could make them work.  Once I started playing, I immediately noticed that going through doors took a really long time, longer than I've ever noticed on any of my other game setups.   As I put more hours into the game, I started getting more and more ILS when changing cells.....going into the Bannered Mare was especially difficult and prone to ILS.

So, I unchecked Safety Load and tried the game again, and lo and behold changing cells is a LOT faster now, and while I still get the occasional ILS, I don't get nearly as many without Safety Load as I did with Safety Load.  I wondered why a mod designed to reduce ILS would cause me more ILS, and I guess it's the scripts if swiftfoxmark2 is correct (although I'm not using an ENB, I use SweetFX instead).  Regardless, I have faster transitions thru doors and gates without it, and less ILS without it.  Your mileage may vary.  I don't understand why, but my game is more responsive and less prone to crash without it.
  • 0

#224 TechAngel85

TechAngel85

    Akatosh

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,977 posts

Posted 16 January 2014 - 01:59 AM

+1 to aiyen's post above. I can't do moderation duties from my phone but I think this needs to be unapproved and reconsidered. Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk.

#225 Sakedo

Sakedo

    Prisoner

  • Members
  • 48 posts

Posted 16 January 2014 - 08:35 AM

I'd recommend its inclusion, but with the caveat that we recommend toggling the .ini to only be active on the load screen. I'd get the somewhat frequent ILS even with just my initial step build (perhaps step extended).  Now, I've not seen one with a much more complex mod list in ages and with the INI tweak it's simply dormant during cell transitions. 
  • 0



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: skyrim, mod

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users