Thanks! That'll go in the next update.

Which would you put it under? Do you have any sort of rules on how you do it?

Thanks for this ... I was trying to sort out my load order/ installed mods over the weekend, and this utility was a great help. I like the fact it doesn't simply give you a suggested load order, but also checks for updates, patches, versions you might be missing etc, in relation to your installed mods ....... anyway, this will now be a permanent in my MW folder, so thanks for this! :foodndrink:

I put it into this rule in the Landscape Overhaul section:

[Order]Bloodmoon.esmBloodmoon Landscape Overhaul 1.0.esmBT_Whitewolf_2_0.esm

When a rule describes a relationship between 2 mods, I don't have any particular preference for which mod the rule goes under, I just choose one that seems appropriate. In this case, there was already an order rule, so adding one more plugin to it seemed appropriate.

@triffidfood - thanks. When I was first thinking about mlox, it seemed to me that in Morrowind, the conflict/pre-requisite relationships were fairly significant to getting one's load order correct. So I wanted to make mlox not only a load order tool, but more of a tool that could give advice about relationships other than ordering. Now, I just hope that the data in mlox does not get too out of date

not sure if id mentioined this one or not before. but i found another important load order. korana's meadow fae race needs to load after Vality's Ascadian Isles Mod and bitter coast mod
or the the little hill that the shop is placed in disapears. leaving the door and rocks hanging in mid air.

Hi mystery05, I'm looking into this now. Is it really both of Vality's mods, or just one? I can see there is a building that the Meadow Fae puts in cell -4, -4, "Lillianth Facia's House". And that cell looks like it's in the Ascadian Isles mod, but not the Bitter Coast one. Is that the house/cell you refer to? Thanks.

yes it very well could be the ascadian isles mod. i just happned to stick it after both of them just to be sure though. since its pretty close to balmora yes its just a little house like shop in a tiny hill there just on the other side of the rope bridge down south from balmora. had forgotten to check then when i first put in vality's tree mods and went there and was surprised to see its door floating in mid air. but it is fixed just fine by loading it after it doesnt even need any extra trees removed
sorry for not checking it against both guess its shear lazyness on my part should have been more dilagent with all the hard work your putting in with such a wonderfull tool.

No problemo, no problemo. I just like to check to make sure. I'll have your update in the next release, which will be in about 8 hours or so. Thanks!

Bump for New Release: mlox-data_2009-01-31.7z
http://code.google.com/p/mlox/downloads/list

This is just a release for the latest rule-base. There's only a few changes covering the contributions for the past couple weeks from Psyringe, Dragon32 and mystery05. Thanks!

This neat little program has been very helpful. Thanks

Got a quick question on this:

Currently I run two seperate Morrowind directories on my PC (a playable one with all tested mods in it and seemingly no conflicts, and a testing copy where I chuck in new mods and run some testing to look for conflicts in the game). I installed mlox into each of these directories in an mlox folder, but I am wondering if it has a built in path to the Morrowind directory to gain access to the ini, and if so what I would need to do to my testing copy version to make it access the testing area ini file.

The other option, if it does use a set path to Morrowind, is I could just scrap it on my testing copy, and use it only on the production to sort our load orders and such before playing.

Thoughts and comments?

mlox does not use a fixed path to the .ini, so it should work fine for multiple installations.

The way that mlox finds your "Morrowind.ini" is that it looks for the file "Morrowind.exe" in the current directory, then the parent and so on until it finds it. Then it looks for a "Morrowind.ini" file in the same directory. So, as long as you have separate Morrowind.exe/Morrowind.ini for your separate games, mlox should distinguish between them. It should be easy to verify by just running the separate mloxes and seeing if they report the correct set of plugins for the separate installations. Let me know if that's not the case, and I'll see if I can figure out what's going on.

Well, big thanks for the quick response. Did some fiddling around and it does seem to work as such, and I have not encountered anything so far that would lead me to think differently.

And may I just take this time to say, amazing work good sir!

John, I posted this under another thread, but it's most pertinent here. I was informed by another member:




Yet mlox apparently disagrees. This is from the readout with the NPC Enhanced MWSE patch in use:



Opinions on matters that cannot be objectively measured are one thing, but this should be quantifiable. Which view is correct? Is the MWE-only version faster, as mlox states? Or the MWSE+MWE patched version, which is promoted in a number of other places as faster? If the latter, mlox's comments should be changed. If the former, it would be useful to players if other sites suggesting the patch for its speed were updated accordingly.

Thanks for the report. The information for that entry comes from Dragon32:
http://www.gamesas.com/bgsforums/index.php?s=&showtopic=938026&view=findpost&p=13690492
Perhaps he will see this and comment?

Can anyone else confirm one or the other viewpoint? (I'm unable to myself as I haven't gotten MWE/MWSE to run on Linux). Perhaps a test could be done where only the smallest set of plugins necessary for testing are loaded, and then response times are measured. It would also be good to know the versions of MWE/MWSE used.

Hi ho. I read Fliggerty's post, before that I didn't realise that the NPCE MWSE Patch was unnecessary if MWE was active. So, I thought it was worthwhile to include it in mlox and wrote a rule. I wasn't aware of this performance issue at the time of writing. I'll try and get round to testing various combinations but my time's limited for the next month or so...

Might be worth re-releasing mlox base without the rule until this is cleared up?

I can do that. No problemo.

Edit: New Release: mlox-data_2009-02-03b
http://code.google.com/p/mlox/downloads/list
This just reverts the rule for NPC Enhanced MWSE add-on by Charles Cooley.

Mlox reports:
blacklight_1.34
BlackRose.esp
dependent on silgrad_tower_release_1-4_3_full

but there is Silgrad Tower 1-4_6 that are what is recommended now.
(you delete 1-4_3 and use only 1-4_6)

here is what I get in mlox:
!!![ANY 'blacklightv1.34.esp', 'BlackRose.esp'] Requires:
> 'MISSING(Silgrad_Tower_internal_build_1-4_3.esp)'
| (Ref: blacklightreadme.txt)
| [Note that you may see this message if you have an older version of one
| of the pre-requisites. In that case, it is suggested that you upgrade
| to the newer version].

No problem for me,but thought it may be useful to know?

I could be wrong, but 1-4_6 actually includes blacklight, at least doing a very cursory examination with "tes3cmd common" indicates so, and also the readme that comes with 1.46 appears to be saying this too, although it's a little vague. So it seems the message should say that if you are running 1.34, then it's okay to load blacklight, but if you run 1.46, then it's included.

Checked it, the 1-4_6 builds on and are dependent on 1-4_3 but includes blacklight
the old 1-4_3 didn?t, and there it was separate *.esp for them.
Well good to get that sorted out, kind of stumped that mlox reported it such when I changed dependecies otherwise.
Apologies of course, otherwise it is spot on,even reported some gmst?s I got after messing with stuff in cs :tops:

Me again with another rule I messed up

weapon fix v1.77 [Varg 'Euthanasiologist' Axenov]

currently:

[Note] The Weapon Fix plugin does not include body parts for Leia's Double Wield Mod. This means the defensive weapons will not be visible in game. To fix this you will need to run TESTool's Merge Objects function and enable the Merged Objects.esp. (Ref: Dragon32, examined the plugins)[ALL Leias_Dual_Wield_03.esp	 [NOT Merged_Objects.esp]]

should be:

[Note] The Weapon Fix plugin does not include body parts for Leia's Double Wield Mod. This means the defensive weapons will not be visible in game. To fix this you will need to run TESTool's Merge Objects function and enable the Merged Objects.esp. (Ref: Dragon32, examined the plugins)[ALL Leias_Dual_Wield_03.esp	 weaponFix177.esp	 [NOT Merged_Objects.esp]]

Good morning!

While I understand that this program in still in beta, I have already found it to be very useful. It's helped me clear up several potentially serious problems with my load list. In addition, it's helped me get RID of a number of redundant patch ESPs, which can only be a good thing. Sure, redundant patches probably don't hurt much, but why waste the time and space to process the same change twice?

Thus far I haven't seen any problems with mlox, but if I do so I'll be sure to post them here.

Rochndil, who can't code, but CAN generate bug reports...

Thanks for the update! I've added it to a new release: mlox-data_2009-02-17a.7z
http://code.google.com/p/mlox/downloads/list

@Rochndil: Thanks for trying out mlox. I'm glad it helps a little. mlox will probably always be in a state of "useful, but not perfect", just due to the nature of what it is trying to do. Maybe I'll just call it 1.0 one of these days, just so that sounds more "fully cooked"

I have a tip for the next list: I have a mod on PES, that "fixes" MCA to not have Brigands etc, and it should be loaded last after Mashed Lists if present (last in most cases) or after MCA if there is no Mashed Lists.

Is this the one you are referring to?
http://planetelderscrolls.gamespy.com/View.php?view=Mods.Detail&id=327560&id=6804

One of the comments on that page indicates that there may be an incompatibility with the version of MCA 5.2 that is "http://www.elricm.com/nuke/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=Downloads&file=index&req=viewdownloaddetails&lid=4354". Is that also something that mlox should report on?