BAIN Mod Installation Projects : IV - Oblivion

» Mon Apr 25, 2011 4:36 am

Well we can't force people to cooperate. Alot of people really aren't interested in spending the time to learn anything. Especially when all they want to do is play a game, the very opposite activity to learning. Learning is not relaxing for most people.
Bash certainly isn't exactly a user friendly tool either. Even taking into account what it is capable of, it really is alot more cumbersome than it needs to be.

I miss college, but I've gone as far as I can go in my field with my budget.

I think you missed the point I was trying to make about exclusive subpackages

You are assuming that everyone is familiar with an unofficial prefix standardization. Even so, it's somewhat limited and feels a bit archaic compared to how sophisticated Bash is. Like you need a decoder ring to figure out what subpackages to install. I understand the prefix notation but it isn't exactly intuitive or friendly. BAIN actually only supports ordering subpackages by name, nothing more. The prefix standardization is an afterthought. A bandaid for this problem and not even officially supported. That is why it is hackish.
I don't see anything wrong with using prefixes to be clear, but they need to be officially supported and actually affect how a user makes choices.

Well that is one reason I wrote about sub-package logic in the posts up top. Of course people don't know, but once you get a handle on it things aren't so bad.

Yes.

Well I'm all ears ... errr eyes.

Yes, I read your OP

I think you might want to rephrase, because it sounds like you are suggesting that people create their own BAIN packages instead of using a BCF or a BAIN wizard. I'm understanding that you just mean for archives that are not already BAIN-friendly. Omods, etc.

Actually no I still advocate repackaging mods that are not BAIN friendly over using a BCF. If you want to advocate using them go ahead. You learn more by doing things yourself.

I've only used a few wizards and found them a bit buggy at times but nothing larger than junk in junk out kind of thing. For instance the better cities wizard places the wrong esp when you run through the wizard. There are only a few of these so I've yet to be wowed by them since they don't configure ini files and only choose esp.

I've been asked many times to upload my BAIN archive and have refused for several purposes

It won't teach anything.
Not my mods.
I don't want to support them.
Easier to just learn how yourself.

My first install was 100% by hand I learned a lot and never really liked the black box installing of OBMM. I've no desire to be the go-between of modders who care not to package in friendly manners and mod users who want someone to do it all for them. If that is what they want there is always OBMM. So if your ideas do not have to do with holding people's hands or doing it for them I'm totally open for new innovations.

If you implement them in Bash then I will likewise change the thread to suite the changes. a major point of the thread though is DIY.

» Mon Apr 25, 2011 1:30 am

Well I'm all ears ... errr eyes.

My ideas are rather rough. I've been focused on other things, so let's see if we can identify the weak points first of all.

00 MainA
01 OptionAA
02 OptionAB
02 OptionAC
10 MainB
11 OptionBA
12 OptionBB
12 OptionBC
20 OptionD
30 OptionE
40 MainC
41 OptionCA
41 OptionCB
42 OptionCC

How do you identify that MainA and MainB are exclusive? If you give them the same number, then you sacrifice organization and the ability to use the prefixes to associate other subpackages.
How do you designate that OptionD can be installed with either MainA or MainB, but not MainC? OptionE will only work if MainA or MainB and OptionD is installed.
Did you notice that the Options for MainC have reversed behaviour? A very easy oversight.

The only way we can do this now is with clever notations and hope that the user understands.
For more extreme cases like this example, we have to resort to creating subpackages as comments and hope the user understands that it's actually a comment and not a subpackage itself.
Actually I recall coming across some mention of being able to create a file that will be displayed in the comments section of the installers tab. I've been meaning to investigate. Still a bit detached from the subpackages themselves though. There needs to be a way of organizing the subpackages more clearly.

Actually no I still advocate repackaging mods that are not BAIN friendly over using a BCF. If you want to advocate using them go ahead. You learn more by doing things yourself.

I agree with DIY, but people don't always need to learn though either. BCF's are not hand-holding, they create a BAIN-ready archive.
If you are giving me the choice between making my own BAIN packages, or just using a BCF that somebody else already made and works just fine. I'll use the BCF. I don't need more practice making BAIN packages.

I've only used a few wizards and found them a bit buggy at times but nothing larger than junk in junk out kind of thing. For instance the better cities wizard places the wrong esp when you run through the wizard. There are only a few of these so I've yet to be wowed by them since they don't configure ini files and only choose esp.

I haven't played with wizards much but the feature seems a bit rudimentary. In theory the wizards should allow a more immersive install experience, tailored to the mod.
If they aren't performing, then they should be addressed, not dismissed. I can think of at least a few things that would make wizards very handy.

» Mon Apr 25, 2011 9:41 am

I agree with the complexity of options and have always wanted something you could include in the package that would display in the comments area - have not seen anything that tells me how to do this.

My way of addressing the options issue is, as you suggested, using separators within the package as illustrated in my Better Cities package

Spoiler

Better Cities v4.8.0
000 Core
001 =================== Separate Cities
001 ANVIL
002 BRAVIL
002 BRAVIL - Blood and Mud
003 BRUMA
004 CHEYDINHAL
005 CHORROL
006 LEYAWIIN
007 SKINGRAD
030 =================== Separate Imperial Cities
030 Arboretum
031 Arcane University
032 Arena
033 Elven Gardens
034 Green Emperor Way
035 Market
036 Prison
037 Talos Plaza
038 Temple
039 Waterfront
050 =================== Unified
050 Better Cities Full - Blood and Mud Edition
050 Better Cities Full
052 Better Imperial City
100 =================== Options
100 Leyawiin Flood Removal
101 View When Distant IC
102 Vaults Of Cyrodiil
200 =================== Replacers
200 Against the Zealots of the Nine
201 Clocks of Cyrodiil
202 Mystery of the Dulan Cult
203 Scribe Supplies - Intensive
203 Scribe Supplies - Read summary
204 Slofs Goth Shop
300 =================== Patches
300 Brew House
301 Cobl
302 Dwemer Subway
303 Halcyon Island
304 Knightly Armory
305 Oblivion Collectible Cards
306 Old Crow Inn
307 Origin of the Mages Guild
308 Ruined Tails Tale
309 sixlivion
310 Skingrad Outer District Better Cities Full
310 Skingrad Outer District Better Cities Full Blood and Mud
310 Skingrad Outer District Better Cities Skingrad
311 Skyrim Nords
312 Tears of the Fiend
313 The Lost Spires (Only use for Open Better Cities)
314 Thievery in the Imperial City
315 TIE
316 Trails Of Cyrodiil
317 Valley View Estate
318 Verona House Bloodlines
319 Vvardenfell Imports
320 Werewolf Legends
330 =================== Patches - Unique Landscapes
330 Bravil Barrowfields
330 Bravil Barrowfields - Blood and Mud
330 Bravil Barrowfields - Full Blood and Mud
330 Bravil Barrowfields - Full [ON]
331 Cheydinhal Falls
331 Cheydinhal Falls - Full Blood and Mud
331 Cheydinhal Falls - Full
332 Chorrol Hinterlands
333 Skingrad Outskirts
350 =================== Patches - CUO
350 Bravil
350 Bravil - Blood and Mud
350 Bravil - Full
350 Bravil - Full Blood and Mud
351 Bruma
351 Bruma - Full
351 Bruma - Full Blood and Mud
352 Chorrol
352 Chorrol - Full
352 Chorrol - Full Blood and Mud
353 Leyawiin -
353 Leyawiin - Full
353 Leyawiin - Full Blood and Mud
400 =================== FPS Patches - Separate
400 Anvil
401 Bravil
402 Bravil - Blood and Mud
403 Bruma
404 Cheydinhal
405 Chorrol
406 Leyawiin
407 Skingrad
420 =================== FPS Patches - Separate Imperial Districts
420 Arboretum
421 Arcane University
422 Elven Gardens
423 Green Emperor Way
424 Market
425 Prison
426 Talos Plaza
427 Temple
428 Tunnel
429 Waterfront
450 =================== FPS Patches - Unified
450 Better Cities Full
450 Better Cities Full - Blood and Mud Edition
451 Better Imperial City
800 =================== Mods for Better Cities
800 The Imperial Waters v1.1.0

I think the Wizard is a good idea, but needs to be more on a par with OBMM scripting before BAIN installations via Wizards can really offer something valuable.

» Mon Apr 25, 2011 1:34 am

My ideas are rather rough. I've been focused on other things, so let's see if we can identify the weak points first of all.

00 MainA
01 OptionAA
02 OptionAB
02 OptionAC
10 MainB
11 OptionBA
12 OptionBB
12 OptionBC
20 OptionD
30 OptionE
40 MainC
41 OptionCA
41 OptionCB
42 OptionCC

How do you identify that MainA and MainB are exclusive? If you give them the same number, then you sacrifice organization and the ability to use the prefixes to associate other subpackages.
How do you designate that OptionD can be installed with either MainA or MainB, but not MainC? OptionE will only work if MainA or MainB and OptionD is installed.
Did you notice that the Options for MainC have reversed behaviour? A very easy oversight.

The only way we can do this now is with clever notations and hope that the user understands.
For more extreme cases like this example, we have to resort to creating subpackages as comments and hope the user understands that it's actually a comment and not a subpackage itself.
Actually I recall coming across some mention of being able to create a file that will be displayed in the comments section of the installers tab. I've been meaning to investigate. Still a bit detached from the subpackages themselves though. There needs to be a way of organizing the subpackages more clearly.

I wouldn't package this obtusely. If Mod B is not designed to overwrite Mod A (and hence its higher number) and it is exclusive then yeah naming protocol beyond alphanumeric. There is a limit to what can be included and be understandable. Plus a readme does not get discounted just because it is BAIN ready.

I think of my old BAIN thread and a lot of it was showing off and not really being realistic. But here is a package: http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/957424-custom-bain-projects/page__view__findpost__p__13834280 where naming conventions are in effect as they were with body mods above. Making the package yourself - you will know what should overwrite what. But I don't think it needs be that complex and if we look at the most complex BAIN archives that are put out by the authors themselves they are not that complex either. Take RAEVWD or Better Cities or AWLS those are about as complex as I've seen that I've not made myself. Now I've seen some report that they go far more apelike than I do with number strategies in three digits where they have separate sub-packages for cleaned versus unclean esp, optimized versus unoptimized meshes, always separating the data files from the plugins and other odd behavior. A little too OCD for me. Many of those packages have since been broken apart and the world texture one is about as OCD as I've ever got.

Overall though I've seen that these mods that are BAIN friendly have a lot less questions on how to install. So even the available complex ones are not over most peoples heads.

I agree with DIY, but people don't always need to learn though either. BCF's are not hand-holding, they create a BAIN-ready archive.
If you are giving me the choice between making my own BAIN packages, or just using a BCF that somebody else already made and works just fine. I'll use the BCF. I don't need more practice making BAIN packages.

Then use the BCF and feel free to post here any that you find are noteworthy and I will link to them. To a point though after 20-30 then go find your own will be my position. Again the point of this thread is to learn to do it. I'd be more apt to copy and paste a tutorial on how to make a BCF than collect a catalog on them. Also a BCF is not going to clean an esp or do other house cleaning that may be required.

I haven't played with wizards much but the feature seems a bit rudimentary. In theory the wizards should allow a more immersive install experience, tailored to the mod.
If they aren't performing, then they should be addressed, not dismissed. I can think of at least a few things that would make wizards very handy.

Well I report what I can but again if all a wizard does is choose sub-packages then what is there to promote? To me the Wizard is a movement away from DIY and away from thinking in terms of manual installing. If they start showing the bling I will promote.

» Mon Apr 25, 2011 7:53 am

I wouldn't package this obtusely. If Mod B is not designed to overwrite Mod A (and hence its higher number) and it is exclusive then yeah naming protocol beyond alphanumeric. There is a limit to what can be included and be understandable. Plus a readme does not get discounted just because it is BAIN ready.

Yes, there is a limit. Hence the current system is incomplete.
Yes, there is documentation. I shouldn't have to spend an hour to figure out how to install a mod. I want to use it, not spend my time installing it. This is precisely why people use omods.
For a modder, it's a big enough chore to write the documentation for the mod itself, nevermind special documentation to try and explain how to install the thing in 3 different ways.

Overall though I've seen that these mods that are BAIN friendly have a lot less questions on how to install. So even the available complex ones are not over most peoples heads.

There are less questions because the difficulty of using Bash and BAIN filters out the timid already. Alot of people don't even get far enough to be confused by subpackaging.

Then use the BCF and feel free to post here any that you find are noteworthy and I will link to them. To a point though after 20-30 then go find your own will be my position. Again the point of this thread is to learn to do it. I'd be more apt to copy and paste a tutorial on how to make a BCF than collect a catalog on them. Also a BCF is not going to clean an esp or do other house cleaning that may be required.

I don't clean anything. If I've got a mod that is not cleaned well or grossly unoptimized, it gets tossed. I'm not gonna spend my time to try to fix something that is already demonstrating inferior quality. This approach saves me alot of headaches and instability, instead of trying to shoehorn something into my game that is already questionable.
I don't even use PyFFi. I just can't be bothered. My game still runs fine. Mind you, I don't have 300 plugins installed

Well I report what I can but again if all a wizard does is choose sub-packages then what is there to promote? To me the Wizard is a movement away from DIY and away from thinking in terms of manual installing. If they start showing the bling I will promote.

BAIN still promotes the user to understand low level mod installation even if you use wizards. You still need to check for conflicts and sort your install order, anneal, etc. How is checkmarking a subpackage any less distant than a wizard? It's the same thing, but less intuitive.

» Mon Apr 25, 2011 1:00 am

Well I do have 300 mods over 3 games = 900. Two Oblivion installs (thanks to you) and one Fallout3 install.

I clean all mods - it takes less than a minute with tes4edit per plugin. That to is automated.

The main meshes to optimize is vanilla BSA - once done you get the most benefit ... but there are a few others I do as well.

I respectfully disagree that wizards are intuitive - so far. If I see more improvement I will jump on that bandwagon. If something works well then I will halla 'bout it - as you should know by now.

What I'm not going to do is change the tone of the thread or the focus. If you want to add to it with BCF tutorial or make better Wizard implementation or write a new thread then by all means do so and I will link and so on. I tried to present more than just my side in the opening posts - I don't feel I'm fixated on only doing things one way. Since this is not a development thread like the Wrye Bash thread it is likely that mostly users will read the comments and not bash developers. Certainly anyone who has managed to wade through this probably will not revisit the thread too often. Once you get the hang of things then off a person goes any direction they want. In this regard you have made your point for all to read. I'd like to see BCF that are noteworthy more than debating further on whether I should headline them. Proof being in the pudding and all.

Really I doubt I will re-up this thread unless there is a call to do so or new innovations make it something worth doing. The future is with projects like Tomlong's site and I think she is gonna return next month. This was always meant to be a focused 'how to' thread. Tomlong's sites are much more about rudimentary use and again she has a much different take on BAIN best use practices. Variety being the spice of life and all. If BCF become more plentiful and Wizards more functional then it will certainly even reduce the need or demand for a thread like this.

They do not feel intuitive to me, but I'm open to hearing more about it - with examples and innovations.

» Sun Apr 24, 2011 7:00 pm

Sorry, I wasn't implying that you should change the focus of this thread or your perspective.
I used this thread, as well as Tomlongs site when I learned about BAIN packaging.
Like it or not, your thread is an authority on the subject and you have good advice. I think it's unfortunate though that you basically condemn BCF's and Wizards. As an authority on the subject, your opinion influences the community and how others perceive those features as well. The door is being shut on them before they are even given a chance to mature. If nobody uses them, nobody is going to discover the flaws.

» Sun Apr 24, 2011 7:36 pm

Write me a blurb countering my position and I will add it to the bottom of post 4 even giving last argument to the blurb.

So while this lukewarm debate has been going on I searched for more BCF - in addition to the link on post 4 I found http://www.tesnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=34414 which include BFC for Dark UI Darn and DCURP. Both could be of value.

The http://www.tesnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=31062 - half are out of date.

My point being that it is not me that is the cause of a trend in their disuse. Since it requires a 3rd person to update them then any updates to the core mods package structure voids the BCF - I think even the name being off does this too. So Lojack tackled All Natural - I wouldn't have because Arthmoor was on to BAIN pretty quickly. Likewise with the UOP & UOMP the supplemental updates have new names that the BCF does not account for.

And that is all I've found.

Compare to NiceOne's OMOD conversion files which are well maintained. Or heck even http://www.tesnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=12801. Many of those are out of date but still there is a good portion that are still good.

The kind of BCF that would be helpful are things like Roberts male body, but then I don't think a BCF can rename meshes and textures like a OMOD script can. again all the trouble to make a script when a repackage is easier to do. Better yet inspire the mod author to BAINify. I've had a few ask me how and they thanked me. None of this is rocket surgery and no where near as difficult as making a real mod.

OMOD scripts are often made available with the mod they don't often come separate from it (TNO is an exception not a rule). Since the backbone of BAIN packages is the structuring of packages then the equivalent of having an OMOD script is to just have the right sub-packaging.

Conversely the door is not shut - all you have to do is open it. I document - create and I will document. Make a new standard for BCF or Wizards or better sub-packaging and I will write it up in here.

» Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:13 am

I agree with the complexity of options and have always wanted something you could include in the package that would display in the comments area - have not seen anything that tells me how to do this.

I think the Wizard is a good idea, but needs to be more on a par with OBMM scripting before BAIN installations via Wizards can really offer something valuable.

I think that has been http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1109736-relz-wrye-bash-thread-49/page__view__findpost__p__16333593 before in now locked Wrye Bash thread about viewing let say the readme in the comments area.
I'm also one of those people who wanted to know how to do this.

Maybe a scripted BAIN wizard command can do such things possible but who knows. :shrug:

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1105224-relz-wrye-bash-thread-47/page__view__findpost__p__16183281 is one thing that could be improved in BAIN during a mod installation, but also other things that really needs to be developed first before BAIN wizards is comparable to OBMM's omod scripts. I agree with you Surazal.

» Sun Apr 24, 2011 9:54 pm

I think that has been http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1109736-relz-wrye-bash-thread-49/page__view__findpost__p__16333593 before in now locked Wrye Bash thread about viewing let say the readme in the comments area.
I'm also one of those people who wanted to know how to do this.

Yes, that was the reference I was thinking of. Sadly it seems that it only applies to BCF's.

» Mon Apr 25, 2011 2:42 am

Yes, that was the reference I was thinking of. Sadly it seems that it only applies to BCF's.

That gives you a hint of how that could be achieved.

» Mon Apr 25, 2011 3:42 am

Hi,

is there a specific reason why BAIN skips/ignores folders with ini files?

I'd like to provide two alternative ini files with my mod. So I thought that I'd just have to create two separate BAIN-ready folders, containing the files, such as

00 Core    ... (all core files)01 Default Configuration     |_ MyIniFile.ini (this is version 1)02 Alternative Configuration     |_ MyIniFile.ini (this is version 2)

But BAIN just ignores folders 01 and 02, as long as they don't contain any esps or other recognized resources (but even if they do, the ini files are still skipped).

Does anyone know how to handle this?
And are there plans to add support for ini files in a future version of Wrye Bash?

» Sun Apr 24, 2011 10:17 pm

Hi,

is there a specific reason why BAIN skips/ignores folders with ini files?

I'd like to provide two alternative ini files with my mod. So I thought that I'd just have to create two separate BAIN-ready folders, containing the files, such as

00 Core    ... (all core files)01 Default Configuration     |_ MyIniFile.ini (this is version 1)02 Alternative Configuration     |_ MyIniFile.ini (this is version 2)

But BAIN just ignores folders 01 and 02, as long as they don't contain any esps or other recognized resources (but even if they do, the ini files are still skipped).

Does anyone know how to handle this?
And are there plans to add support for ini files in a future version of Wrye Bash?

You should rename folder 02 as 01 as well, so it's clear for users that folders'content is alternative and not complementary to each other.

Also, for WB to properly recognize/install INIs, right clicking on the archive when in tha installers tab and checking "has extra directories" should help

Just my 2c, cheers

» Mon Apr 25, 2011 8:52 am

Hi,

is there a specific reason why BAIN skips/ignores folders with ini files?

I'd like to provide two alternative ini files with my mod. So I thought that I'd just have to create two separate BAIN-ready folders, containing the files, such as

00 Core    ... (all core files)01 Default Configuration     |_ MyIniFile.ini (this is version 1)02 Alternative Configuration     |_ MyIniFile.ini (this is version 2)

But BAIN just ignores folders 01 and 02, as long as they don't contain any esps or other recognized resources (but even if they do, the ini files are still skipped).

Does anyone know how to handle this?
And are there plans to add support for ini files in a future version of Wrye Bash?

Psymon has more knowledge about that than I do.

If you need more information you can always read http://tesivpositive.animolious.com/?page=bain_installation. :read:

Do you ticked these folders "01" and "02" in Wrye Bash (found in the Installers tab) when you select a BAIN package?
I don't know if there is gonna be a future support of this in http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1136734-relz-wrye-bash-thread-54/ so you should ask there.

» Sun Apr 24, 2011 11:28 pm

Hi,

is there a specific reason why BAIN skips/ignores folders with ini files?

I'd like to provide two alternative ini files with my mod. So I thought that I'd just have to create two separate BAIN-ready folders, containing the files, such as

00 Core    ... (all core files)01 Default Configuration     |_ MyIniFile.ini (this is version 1)02 Alternative Configuration     |_ MyIniFile.ini (this is version 2)

But BAIN just ignores folders 01 and 02, as long as they don't contain any esps or other recognized resources (but even if they do, the ini files are still skipped).

Does anyone know how to handle this?
And are there plans to add support for ini files in a future version of Wrye Bash?

This has been fixed for the next version (291).
You will be able to create a subpackage that contains only an ini file.
You might still need to use hasixtraDirs, if you are not putting the ini into one of the standard places.

In the meantime, you can force the subpackage to show up by having it install a tiny, unique texture that will never be used.

» Mon Apr 25, 2011 9:12 am

Thanks Jedi21ita, leonardo2, Gaticus!

Nice to hear that this functionality will be added soon!

Right now, just ticking hasixtraDirs doesn't seem to do it (folders still missing, ini files still listed under the "skipped" tab).
But it's absolutely fine for me to wait for the next version of WB (no need to hurry with making my mod BAIN friendly).
BTW, does anyone know when 291 will be out?

@Jedi21ita: Thanks for pointing out the folder numbering! I already fixed that!

» Mon Apr 25, 2011 2:05 am

Right now, just ticking hasixtraDirs doesn't seem to do it (folders still missing, ini files still listed under the "skipped" tab).
But it's absolutely fine for me to wait for the next version of WB (no need to hurry with making my mod BAIN friendly).

hasixtraDirs won't work because the subpackage is being seen as invalid, because it only contains an ini file. Bash thinks there is nothing to do.
If you want to wait for 291, it won't be long so this is really just to explain to you how to create a subpackage as a comment, or otherwise force a folder to be seen as a subpackage. (Psymon has documented this in his opening posts)

Change your subpackage like this:

01 Default Configuration\        .\MyIniFile.ini        .\Textures\_DeleteMe\_DeleteMe.dds

You can just create a blank text file and rename it to _DeleteMe.dds, or any name.dds you want. Same with the _DeleteMe subfolder, name it whatever you want. Just make sure you aren't going to conflict with any valid files or folders.

Because the subpackage installs a texture file, Bash will recognize it as valid, it will show up in the subpackages list and you will be able to install the ini file.

BTW, does anyone know when 291 will be out?

Likely within a few days.

» Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:33 am

Thanks, Gaticus!

This solution works fine!

» Mon Apr 25, 2011 1:58 am

Psymon :talk:

Since this http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1084204-bain-mod-installation-projects/page__view__findpost__p__16604967 I've thinking a lot about BAIN http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1084204-bain-mod-installation-projects/page__view__findpost__p__16627634. Yes, even include BCF and other aspect in that discussion.
I'm now convinced that BAIN feature in Wrye Bash need more constructive suggestions and opinions of how the basics in BAIN is constructed / handle / used.

Especially a wizard with the same potential equally compared to scripting of an omod.
I think that every modder or player would be grateful if something could be done to make that happen.

» Sun Apr 24, 2011 7:25 pm

Just wanted to post a big thank you for this post, I started the tedious (but addictive!) work of BAINifying all my downloaded mods today following the advice from the original posts about cleaning mods prior to packaging and so on. I've been holding out on doing this since I thought it'd be much more complicated than it truly is - but without this post and TESPositive I most likely would never have gotten around to it. Will go through the replies in this thread aswell and look at your tips for combined packages next, but I definitely feel I have the hang on it. Again, thanks!

» Sun Apr 24, 2011 6:57 pm

I'm so silly because you have it explained in the OP. :blush2: :facepalm:

Perhaps we should head over there and give them a lesson of how to use Wrye Bash.

You're wrong because I now use that wonderful feature of BAIN in Wrye Mash and I've even started a new project called tompi.

Spoiler

tompi - template of mod pakcage installer

Yes I was using it in my last Morrowind build. I used installers in Morrowind before using them in Oblivion.

» Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:18 am

Hi Is there anything special I need to do when installing Obse plugins. I have been adding them to my installers folder as they seem really straight forward, but I have just been reading the read me for ConScribe ,& he makes such a point about OMOD installation, that I thought I'd better check. Bain can handle a structure like this can't it? Beebee

» Mon Apr 25, 2011 10:12 am

Not sure - Haven't tested with the latest version of 291 BAIN.

An earlier 291 beta did not handle them well at all with warnings for all OBSE plugins in my archive (even if not installed) and not uninstalling them when doing so with BAIN.

If there is success report in Wrye Bash thread. I'm certain they would want to know.

The standard is to use OBMM for them and if BAIN can now handle them that is news as in within the last two weeks news. So the readme is not unusual in that regard.

» Sun Apr 24, 2011 7:42 pm

Not sure - Haven't tested with the latest version of 291 BAIN.

An earlier 291 beta did not handle them well at all with warnings for all OBSE plugins in my archive (even if not installed) and not uninstalling them when doing so with BAIN.

If there is success report in Wrye Bash thread. I'm certain they would want to know.

The standard is to use OBMM for them and if BAIN can now handle them that is news as in within the last two weeks news. So the readme is not unusual in that regard.

It's odd their file structure is so straightforward but I will install all the OBSE tools with OBMM I was just doing the new convert thing, & was going to do everything with BAIN :whistling: Beebee

» Mon Apr 25, 2011 10:13 am

I love Wrye Bash since it has made many things possible that before weren't. (Common example is FCOM) But personally, I like OBMM better (I am a mod-user in the sense that I rarely mess with mods' files and configuration) plus I love scripted omods (only with big complex mods i.e. OOO, Enhanced Economy, etc.) It is true that BAIN handles mods better since you can uninstall any type of mod (base or patch) without loosing base files. This is the only thing that annoys me about OBMM, the fact that if I install OOO 1.33, and then OOO 1.34 beta and I want to unistall OOO 1.34, I would loose the .esp and .esm and any file that was overwritten by OOO 1.34, therefore I would have to reinstall the base mod which isn't that much of a problem but still it is a little annoying.

Anyways that's just my opinion, and I firmly believe that mod-users that do not mess with mod's configuration/files shouldn't (or don't have to) essentially learn how to use BAIN. If you are a mod maker or you like to manually mess with the mod's files for whatever reason, BAIN is much better. And this is proven by simply looking how many mods come out in OMOD-ready format or .omod, or how many people use them (and it's funny since it is harder for mod makers to create a scripted .omod than a BAIN-friendly format) but since more than 80% of the people that use mods are merely mod-users, OBMM is more popular for being more simple.

I, however, do not doubt that If BAIN had a scripting feature, it would rapidly become more popular than OBMM (and well, OBSE but that has been discussed previously). That's all it needs to be the perfect all-around both mod-user/mod-maker utility. I look forward to it

.