Jump to content


Photo

ESP Error for an ESM


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#16 KeltecRFB

KeltecRFB

    Citizen

  • Citizen
  • 25 posts

Posted 02 February 2015 - 08:22 PM

Jarl, there are 3,6776 form records in ONAM!  Is there a better way to get a screenshot and do you want all of the records?

 

The records are part of a combined Fo3 and FNV mod called Destruction on the Nexus.  This is not the first time that FO3/FNV mods have been converged and are working.  However, this is the first time I have seen MO balk at them.  In addition, Destruction is part of Panzer which is a hard core mod for TTW.


  • 0

#17 GrantSP

GrantSP

    The antipodean

  • VIP-Supporter
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,302 posts

Posted 02 February 2015 - 09:55 PM

No, don't worry about the screenshots. I had no idea there were that many in that mod. I'm only chasing wild leads here, nothing concrete that I'm working to at the moment.

 

Okay, I've found the mod(s) on Nexus. I'm assuming this is the FO3 version. Is the error from the esm in the hotfix or the main download?

I can't load it into xEdit but I may be able to examine the structure by other means and see if there is anything fishy about this mod.

 

EDIT:

Okay can you give me just one screenshot? Have it show the last of the masters and the first of the ONAMs please.


Edited by GrantSP, 02 February 2015 - 11:01 PM.

  • 0

#18 KeltecRFB

KeltecRFB

    Citizen

  • Citizen
  • 25 posts

Posted 03 February 2015 - 12:42 AM

Here you go, do you want me to post Panzer's too although I am going to guess that if we can fix Destruction, we probably can fix Panzer too since Destruction is in Panzer.  In addition, is this enough information or do you need more ONAMs?

 

Attachment


Edited by KeltecRFB, 03 February 2015 - 12:42 AM.

  • 0

#19 GrantSP

GrantSP

    The antipodean

  • VIP-Supporter
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,302 posts

Posted 03 February 2015 - 01:11 AM

hmm... I was hoping to see something odd in the first line or two. Examining it with a hex-editor shows it to be a little different to other esm's just after the masters are listed.

 

I really can't offer much more. My best idea would be MO's file checks for what constitutes an esp/esm are more stringent than those in xEdit and it baulks at this 'sub-record', whatever that may be.

 

I don't think you've posted this as an official bug report just yet have you, probably a good time to do so know. Provide links to as much of this thread as needed and Tannin can add it to the other tasks he has laid out before him.

 

Sorry I couldn't offer anything more than this.


  • 0

#20 zilav

zilav

    Knight

  • Mod Author
  • Pip
  • 374 posts

Posted 03 February 2015 - 09:16 AM

MO incorrectly parses TES4 plugin header record. Nothing there to be more or less "stringent".


  • 0

#21 KeltecRFB

KeltecRFB

    Citizen

  • Citizen
  • 25 posts

Posted 03 February 2015 - 11:11 AM

MO incorrectly parses TES4 plugin header record. Nothing there to be more or less "stringent".

Is this what is effecting Panzer and Destruction ESM to be recognize as such?

 

@GrantSP, thank you ... https://issue.tannin...izer/issues/997


Edited by KeltecRFB, 03 February 2015 - 11:25 AM.

  • 0

#22 GrantSP

GrantSP

    The antipodean

  • VIP-Supporter
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,302 posts

Posted 03 February 2015 - 06:31 PM

MO incorrectly parses TES4 plugin header record. Nothing there to be more or less "stringent".

The sub-record in question shows in a hex editor, the only tool I had that would open it since I lacked all the masters, as XXXX. I've not seen this in any of the other esms on my machine. I have no idea what that flag means, but I'm assuming MO either doesn't know what it is or is saying that it shouldn't be there, both options might be termed 'stringent' or 'inadequate' depending on which side of the fence you come from. My terminology isn't meant to imply fault in either tool, but I can see that it may in fact look like I'm saying xEdit is missing something. My bad!

 

Checking @Tannin's comment on the Bug Genie report, he says this, the sub-record: XXXX, is to convey "oversized". I guess it means there will need to be a tweak in the code for MO's next iteration.


  • 0

#23 KeltecRFB

KeltecRFB

    Citizen

  • Citizen
  • 25 posts

Posted 03 February 2015 - 10:56 PM

No worries GrantSP, you did your best and like always appreciate your support.  Besides, that is how you learn.


  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users