nkAlex

Got it, thanks.

I got a black screen during the act. Is this normal?

There are black screens pre- and post-act, if you refer to the Victim mode. If you don't have Sexout enabled then you'll also have black screens instead of sex.

LukeDuke, already modified ForcedTalk for companions, and specifically Cass and anyone else "special", you'll just have to include them in the list (in a point-n-click way).

Someone's just testing it right now, I think, among other stuff. If it all works fine, I'll be uploading an update

Yes and no depending the the TTW setup you choose personally to get him or not.  I myself have no problem with this one with my set up, as I don't have Butch with me just Amata, Clover and Sara Lyons atm in NV.  You can go grab the Butch TTW version and check for possible conflicts.

Yeah, well, I'm not really ready to replay both games just yet Also I'm still not quite sure what exactly does TTW do. Merge two storylines together so that FNV goes after FO3? Can I travel between FO3 and FNV maps?

Yet as a Standalone Mod for just NV this won't have any real conflicts.

Well, I'm all my bodyparts up for it, go ahead an use it any way you want I don't think I'll be doing something drastic like changing formIDs, so it should be safe to use. Better use the newer version from the post above, it has most of the conflict issues removed and includes some other fixes.

Nickolos1818, haven't tried TTW yet, but using this version of Butch will probably screw things up (besides adding his exact twin to the World), there are some references from FO3 unused but kept in FNV, including followers' quests, so I kept them. Making this Butch completely conflict-less is probably something that has to be done, but I'm always too lazy for that, it will probably require renaming a ton of audio files %))

Doesn't TTW add its own playable Butch you can use as a companion?

Hm, after I recruit him he doesn't seem to want to talk to me or open his inventory. It just does that weird "zoom in, zoom out" talking bug. Any ideas?

 

Not sure, this usually happens when the dialogue quest is not running, never had this problem with Butch... Anyway, I'm now using a bit modified version, try it instead. It now has some options in the MCM, so, replace the .esm and disable the "overrides" .esp, or it will cause problems.

Moved a lot of stuff inside, so better start this version from a Butch-clean save.

Butch.esm

Modified the enemy check function, now if the enemy is immobile, the PC can only submit to it if it's within a "grab reach" distance. Currently set to 250 units, may require tweaking if the dialogues fail to initiate. Requires testing. Please check it out before I update the main file.

Worked fine on Spore plants in Zion. Also, that was... new?.. %))

And some other minor fixes:

• The creatures are now filtered by skeleton (which means that if the PC submits, for example, to geckos, any hostile Bighorners nearby won't be added to the party).
• Fixed the PC health evaluation function, previous one wrongly reported > 100% of health, which led to an incorrectly working scanner. Affects both Scanner and Event modes of Auto-surrender feature.

UnethicalDeeds.esm

Yes! it does actually

Ok, I'll try to find those creatures and see what can be done about them

 

 

Okay maybe I'm just being stupid this morning, nothing new there, but where do I get the NVSE MCM extension plugin version 1? 

 

I have MCM ver 1.5,  NVSE 5.0 beta 2, NVSE extender 16, JIP NVSE plugin 58277-18-00 and Sexout NG v2.10.95 beta 7 but am getting Your NVSE configuration doesn't meet minimum requirements and UDEE load aborted.

MCM NVSE Plugin is included in the MCM installation (is inside the .fomod), at least it is in the most recent installation, I just checked.

 

 

Yes, you can configure it to your liking and I don't need SmallerTalk anymore if I enable this feature in this mod! 

 

Nice work Mr. Alex and Tomm434.

Thanks!

I've also been getting suggestions to my PM about adding companions to ForcedTalk and about Cass being a special case... As I've mentioned already, I'm a bit out of the loop and may not be aware of some of the "common issues", why may it be a required functionality and what about Cass being so special?

As of now, Forced talk aborts if it detects a companion wheel, but I think an "after wheel" dialogue can be also added as an option.

It's immobile since, well, it's a plant, and uhm... A mutated Venus Flytrap? It does kinda have an extending mouth and, well.. Tentacles?

Does it even have Sexout animations? ))

Lifariz, all right, I've been away from actually playing Fallout for too long, what are those and where do I find them?

For now, I can't make up any logical sense of submitting to an immobile enemy when you can just walk away? %))) Probably trigger the submit functionality for such things only in case the PC is in "grab-reach" (= dialogue initiate) range? %))

Also, animals are tested so-so, I wasn't even sure if it's an actually demanded feature

Contessa, I can't really know, theoretically, they do pretty much the same thing, so you can try and see what happens? Also, you can just disable SmallerTalk in the MCM, no need to uninstall it

AstorReinhardt, should work for any gender and/or orientation combinations. Unless you have "respect orientation" options turned on, and the characters actually have straight orientations assigned in their NX variables, which is very unlikely

Please report if you stumble upon any errors (like males having an option for vaginal sex or something. I think I've sorted all of this stuff, but might have missed something).

Opening a new download page + topic:

http://www.loverslab.com/files/file/2253-unethical-deeds-ee-wip/

Copy-pasting this here, just in case:

My initial intention was to also expand and bring more variety to dialogues, but considering that, A, I'm not a native English speaker, and B, the dialogue lines I can come up with tend to sound way beyond ridiculous even by bad porn grade, I'm wondering if someone with a more creative writing skill could probably throw in some nice lines? There are some particular ideas I wish to implement, but too lazy now to write a tl;dr description in case no one is actually interested

NepoznatiNN, the fail is in the function which checks whether the actors have any compatible Sexout animations. From the "Could not extract function script in Call statement." error I can only suppose that the fnSexoutGetAnimsForActors function call fails due to uninitialized Sexout, which theoretically shouldn't even be possible since Sexout gets disabled in case of an error... Haven't tried it with beta 7 yet, but that shouldn't matter, I think. Can you turn on debug options on all tabs in the MCM, save and then reload the save? It should report if Sexout initialized correctly.
I could also try your troubled save file if you're ok with that, you can PM it to me.
Don't know what PlayerSlave is, but SexAssault works without any conflicts.
I will also post a bit updated version soon.

EDIT:
Just checked Sexout '95 beta 7, no issues for me.

 

EDIT 2:

Fixed.

So... an alpha or pre-beta or something.

Majorly reworked most of the internals of the original mod. The functionality is pretty much the same, but mostly expanded (i.e. more interaction combinations, no need to assign companions - you can use them all, more options, etc.). Added some variety to companions sex, some of the options should be unlocked after having had sex with a companion several times (well, theoretically). Everything still needs a lot of work and may be bugged.

A clean save is highly recommended (free all slaves -> save -> remove old mod -> save -> install new mod). The new version uses the same arrays to store slaves, has most of the FormIDs unchanged (except for scripts) and seems to load previous saves fine, keeping all the slaves, but I've moved or rewrote a lot of stuff, so who knows what consequences it may have later. Also, all other variables (except for slave arrays) will be reset.

Requires Sexout '95 beta 4 or later. There is no check yet, so the sex will just probably fail to run on earlier versions.

Too sleepy to write any more details, so, you may as well just try it out an see if and how it works, if at all?

Please report the bugs you stumble upon, this will speed up the debugging. You can turn on the debug logs for every mode (don't forget to switch on the global debug in options as well), the mod will tell you pretty much everything it does. You can also export the log via options.

Anyhow, good luck to anyone who's going to try it, /me going to sleep for a good time

UnethicalDeeds-2015-08-27-001.7z

Well... when I was testing, those were a couple of false positives I remember. I for sure remember that faction and disposition didn't help with them, but what I don't remember is if GetShouldAttack solved them all. I think so, I think GetShouldAttack was the answer to every problem, however a small in game test will confirm you

Well, works fine for now, but mostly tested on humans

By the way, I've just seen this:

- Aggression goes from 0 to 3. 0 is the only pacifist, 1 is someone who can fight, 2-3 are almost the same, they both are frenzy and attack whatever they see, it has not to be used on rational actors

Yeah, that was a suggested working solution for TES which is not applicable to Fallout, it's not included in the final UDF.

- you don't need to eval everything, that usually is used for new NVSE 4+ things like arrays

Yeah, I know, I just like it this way Also, eval is more likely to produce an error report into console upon failure. Unless it crashes and eats up the error, which unfortunately happens regularly. There are some conditions that always crash it without any report...

A.J., thanks! I may look into it, but since those characters are marked red on the radar and the "GetShouldAttack" function basically checks for that it may not be an error actually? Taking aggro radiuses into consideration probably means walking through NPC's packages, getting their aggro radiuses and comparing them to distance to Player... doable, I guess, but sounds a bit of an overkill right now %)

All of those checks are probably slow. Maybe aggression and other stats are somehow taken into consideration either... Gah, why couldn't they just make a function like rActor.IsEnemy? ))

123qwet12, v5.0b2 should work fine. But due to the formula used to check NVSE version it will return an error for v5.0.0 non-beta, although the most recent one is still v5.0b2 as far as I'm aware. And I don't think you can have more than one version installed simultaneously, the files are named the same.

123qwet12, it should be v5.0 beta 1 or higher, you may have an earlier version.

GetShouldAttack! Right! Disposition, as factions, causes false positives

Yeah, just went to the Mojave to punch some random people  and confirm that it looks like the most reliable way to filter enemies. And "Aggression" happens to be a completely different thing compared to TES version. So, ended up with this UDF:

scn alxUDActorFnGetHasEnemy;;; Returns true if rActor is an enemy of GetSelf.; Argsref rActor; Local varsref rMyselfbegin Function {rActor}  SetFunctionValue 0  let rMyself := GetSelf  if eval !(GetType rMyself) || !(IsFormValid rMyself) || !(GetType rActor) || !(IsFormValid rActor)    return  endif  if eval !(rMyself.IsActor) || !(rActor.IsActor)    return  endif  if eval rActor.GetFactionRelation rMyself == 1    SetFunctionValue 1    return  elseif eval rActor.GetShouldAttack rMyself    SetFunctionValue 1    return  elseif eval rActor.GetCombatTarget == rMyself    ; May return false-positives?    SetFunctionValue 1    return  endifend

Pretty sure the GetCombatTarget check is redundant, will leave it for now to monitor debug output.

Personally I wouldn't be much preoccupied. If they're not marked as Quest Item, then probably they are common clutter, and if they are not, then I would have another modder to blame *just kidding*

I think some of the quest mods I have do that... so it's just better to be safe

 

mmmh I don't think it would be very useful, probably I explained bad what I was meaning. Your main concern is that they don't finish inside a rock or in places like that, I guess. But I just thought to a solution right now that I'm writing:

- If it's on exteriors, you don't care too much, you just track down their distance, you only need that they go far away enough. To achieve a destination, you can move your marker in some random spot. If you are afraid to put it behind the edges, you could use a gamemode scanner that looks for a random reference of a certain type which is surely inside the edges of the map, i.e. a marker (there's a marker type), but it could be even an actor, better if not enemy, and use that reference as temporary destination for your followers' package; while you will have to not use a static, as destination, since it's full outside the edges. not sure about activators, but for example I placed some activators outside the edges in a mod of mine, shame on me...

The scanner could cause stutter due to its depth, based by how much depth you will use, in these cases I use a gamemode scanner which walks <some references> per frame, but well it depends by the kind of reference you're tracking down. A marker would be a good idea in my opinion, since there are not so many to check with GetDistance (>>> it is considered a slow function, I tend to use it less than I can)

- If it's interiors, you can track down the door marker (you know, the yellow prism), hlp ported some door functions from OBSE recently and they work very fine, I already used them. So they can simply go to the yellow prism and then you teleport them on a temporary cell, just to teleport them back to the yellow prism when they come back.

 

These are the first 2 solutions I could think about

Thanks! I'm storing all of the suggestions for future reference, but I think I should really finish stuff I know how to do, otherwise I'm just risking starting everything at once and not finishing anything

 

I have an old mod on my computer which uses that, but I'm away from GECK these days.

Or if you don't mind digging, probably Gribbleshnibit's "Radar mod" uses a similar check to achieve the enemy targets in the radar.

Looked into that (nice mod, by the way!), it uses these conditions to sort friends, enemies and neutrals:

...if eval (rActor.HasFriendDisposition) && !(rActor.GetShouldAttack Player) ;; Friendelseif eval (rActor.GetShouldAttack Player) ;; Enemyelse ;; Neutral...

GECK Wiki is completely blank on the "GetShouldAttack" function, while TES Wiki says that this function has its own logic and is generally unreliable and suggests this check instead:

if eval (rActor.GetAV Aggression > 5)  if eval (rActor.GetDisposition Player < rActor.GetAV Aggression)    ;; Enemy  endifendif

So, I think I could just use all of the methods above, plus GetCombatTarget on Player and companions, instead of factions checks?

1) if you are concerned about keys, GetType 46 should exclude them all.

Hmm, good tip, there even may be other types I'd like to exclude. Still, will fail for some mods where the keys might be just misc items.

 

But if you have a list of excluded keywords... what about adding "wig" and "hair", too?

There are wearable wigs and hair? O_o Wasn't even aware of that ))

I suppose I should also include "[", "]" and ":", since various mod configurators often have their names enclosed in those.

 

2) If you place your marker, being unreachable is a good risk, as you said. Not only it could be in a rock, but think for example if you are on the edge of a canyon, or hooverdam, or in the water, etc. there's plenty of cases to test. But I believe a combination of timers and getdistance should make the trick - you mainly want that the companion goes away from you, so you only care about its distance, so if after some time it is still too near then let's try again and see what happens. Or point as destination an existing vanilla header, picked by location, i.e. 1 header for edge of the map, if you are S then it will pick the N marker, etc. This implies playing in Mojave, not sure what could happen in other worldspaces but I believe the npc will still move away and this is what you want basically - you need to make them go away on their feet, or it will be a pain when it's time to regroup them.

 

By the way, there's a GetLOS function which maybe could help you, for npcs.

I guess I'll have to dig up some info on all this. Aren't there any functions that just return current map limits as coordinates? This is just getting more and more complicated by the minute %))

 

3) You create a lot of false positives if you use the faction relations.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say... I think? Still, better than no filtering at all

 

The most reliable method I know is picking all the "red ones", but I forgot right now how I did it

That one sounds really promising (and pretty much exactly what I'm trying to do), maybe you know any mods that use this method? Because I have no idea right now how it can be done, Google is not much help either.

Just thought about using the OnStartCombat event to pick NPCs' targets, but it's still not fail-proof in case an enemy chooses to attack an ally who's not directly affiliated to the PC...

ActRunFull now supports Anim_Defs as an alternative to number for "anim" key, if you pass an Anim_Def it fills in plugin/idx number for you. This may be convenient combined with GetAnimsForActors. (Untested).

Is it supposed to be used something like that?

let arrAnims := GetAnimsForActors (...)let animDef := arrAnims[0]call fnSexoutActRunFull (... "Anim"::animDef)

Does it check for an exact animDef match, or work like flags, returning everything suitable for filled in parameters?

 

@nkAlex: I haven't forgotten your controls issue, but no fix yet.

Not pushing or anything, just sharing more details in case it may be helpful

There are a couple of working workarounds for that — either unrestrain the PC pre-act and then re-restrain him via a post-act spell, or execute a PlayerRef.RemoveScriptPackage a couple of seconds after an act has finished.

And it doesn't happen all the time, I guess certain timing conditions between function/spell calls should be met.