DoctaSax

4 minutes ago, asdasd123123 said:

Nope. Confirmed by multiple sources. https://www.reddit.com/r/fo4/comments/3rvx8b/data_file_archive_format_is_ba2_a_new_version_of/

 

Sorry, the only confirmation I see there is that someone saw the .ba2 files.

It's possible this is some sort of encryption that'll be unlocked on release day & converted into .bsa again.

It's not case sensitive.

I don't really know other languages to compare it with - it's said to be a mix of a few.

31 minutes ago, bjornk said:

Then this one probably gives you cancer, I'm pretty sure.

Please don't waste Ashal's time with this type of 'feedback'.

I think between the positive-only, the negative-only, and Bruce's neutral thread, people aren't in any way forced to read anything they can't handle. You'd think they could find a way of getting along then. To that end, I'll start hiding new posts that are bait considering where they're posted, tell others they aren't allowed to say what they are allowed to say, call out fellow members (including telling them they're put on ignore) and anything else I consider bickering. What I don't hide... is allowed.

Come, come, this is the negativity thread after all. The premise of Bethesda ruining Fallout is par for the course in here.

Yes, yes. Love moderators. They sure deserve it.

55 minutes ago, aqqh said:

Just pinting out a bug(?)

My Topics window is showing topics which are not exactly mine 

 

Oops! Thought that was just for me.
 

Ah, Moira, she was... S.P.E.C.I.A.L.

I think I'm gonna like the music a bit better - just a hunch.

1 minute ago, ToJKa said:

 

Hasn't that been the case with every game they've ever released? I've understood that BGS has always had the copyright to everything done with their tools.

 

I'm not sure they always claimed an exclusive copyright. I think in the past it was non-exclusive.

Yeah, I like that the sky is blue too

Just now, Aurel said:

Is the tag "fanboy" meant as a passive-aggressive jab?

 

 

Not at all! I consider myself a fanboy.

I voted "my option wasn't in it".

I'd like to see some good story mods.

There's a section in the US eula about modding that I find perverse, potentially giving Bethesda exclusive copyright over anything you make, denying you your own. It's difficult to stomach.

3 minutes ago, AphroditeEtHathor said:

 

What do you like DoctaSax?

I just love that there's more Fallout. In particular, I think the weapon modding and settlement building are going to be cool, and I like  the overall visual feel.

Are there things you hate about FO4? Feel free to hate it here.

Feel free to  FO4 in here. Don't be hatin'.

Enough bickering and sniping.

Rule 7, 2.

If you want to discuss the FO4 plot lines, please do it in this thread.

The only exclusive copyright is for "Customized Game Materials" not mods you make from your own meshes that you created or texture you created. in other words you can't customized there assets and claim them as your own. You can however create your own. the wording is somewhat misleading but we have to understanding what "Game Materials" means. any developer does the same thing, but they all have there own legal wording.

Wish we had someone from Beth's legal team explaining what they mean by that phrase, really. The introduction to that section doesn't seem to restrict it to customizations of in-game assets, but also mentions newly constructed stuff as falling under 'customized game materials'. Since pretty much the entire game is their asset they can stretch that to include pretty much everything made with and for the game. Not saying that they will do this for just about anything, but it's a level of vagueness I don't like.

The odd thing is - it seems to claim exclusive copyright on mods made by US modders only.

Exclusive ownership under a)? Wow.

But considering that in a little more than a week the game will be out, is it worth it?

I can turn that around and say "it's not even out yet, and I'm already seriously considering this."

It's always fanboy this and troll that, being positive is naive or being negative is premature... it just doesn't end. Splitting up the debate might just be a relief for people on both sides.

How about I just make 2 threads. One called "Things I like about FO4", the other "Things I dislike about FO4". People can post in both, either or neither, but only the kind of posts that they're meant for. Never the twain shall meet, each to their own corner.

 

Ok, redownloaded & attached another log. It looks like the redownload did affect things, since threesomes were working better - specifically, two of the three actors were experiencing normal arousal gain, but the third (first time was me, second time was Willow) was still sticking at 35. I tested several oral acts again, though, & those still stuck arousal at 35 for the giver. Super mutant acts, which previously always stuck me at 35, were arousing normally except for oral.

 

It looks like the previous download I had was different somehow (.esp is 2kb smaller). Weird.

 

This:

SpunkFuActDetailsDetect: group: no target data for Cto, anim 5302

shouldn't have happened. I'll investigate.

 

ok, I can't really find what the problem is. I attached an alternate version where some more information should be dumped in the logs; try to do that scene again using it

SexoutSpunk.esp