Talk:Main Page

Jump to: navigation, search

Tips and Tricks

Any possibility of having the Tips And Tricks article added to the list ? --Daedalus 02:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Might go well here: Getting Started under Helpful Articles
--Quetzilla 02:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wiki as PDF

Is there Any way to get ALL of this in PDF?

No there isn't, but Lord Gannondorf is compiling a modmaker manual you may be interested in. Here's the thread on the GECK forums.
--Qazaaq 21:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Load Doors

Is there any possibility of someone creating a page pertaining to them? They're fairly important aspects, yet are barely touched upon, and I'm not the only person having trouble with them.

Editor Warnings and Solutions

Is there a list of editor warnings and solutions anywhere? I've been looking, but I can't seem to find one. I know that many of the warnings can be ignored, but some of them are important, and some of them can be fixed. If there isn't a list already, it might be worthwhile to add one. People who have questions about these warnings should be able to look them up on the wiki instead of googling them or asking on the forums, which wastes everyone's time. It might also be useful as a bug list for non-benign errors which could be corrected in a patch. Truant 17:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have an incomplete document that lists many scripting-related warnings and what to do about them. I was planning on completing, or at least doing a bit more work on it, before uploading it anywhere, but if you'd like I suppose I could upload it to the Wiki now.
-- Cipscis 23:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
After giving the matter some thought, here are some tentative suggestions.
The wiki has a 'Solutions' category which can be used as an umbrella category for the following subcategories:
  • Editor warnings and solutions. A more or less comprehensive list of editor warnings and how to correct them. Whether or not specific warnings can be safely ignored or should be corrected before releasing a mod should also be clearly indicated. These should be copied and pasted directly from EditorWarnings.txt so that they can be easily searched for by users. (An exception should be made for warnings which refer to specific references--like warnings which include specific cell coordinates or the names of missing textures--in which case generic warnings should be used instead.) These should probably be listed alphabetically on their own page and linked to from other pages so that all of the editor warnings are listed in a single document.
  • Editor bugs and workarounds. These are glitches like rendering issues in the render window, difficulty saving input to text input fields in the region editor, problems saving heightmaps without saving the plugin first, etc. These are run-of-the-mill bugs that won't show up anywhere as warnings and should probably be listed by tool: heightmap editor bugs, region editor bugs, render window bugs, etc. It is probably best if this information is actually included on the wiki pages for each of these tools and then linked to from this list rather than duplicated.
  • Common modding errors and how to avoid them. These are 'best practices' for releasing clean mods that work as intended without errors. These should be organized by task: generating heightmaps, generating regions, generating LOD, etc. It is probably best if this information is actually included on the wiki pages for each of these tools and then linked to from this list rather than duplicated.
  • Solutions to common modding tasks. These are workflows or scripts that solve common modding tasks like the ones that are already listed on the solutions page.
  • FAQs for common questions about platform compatibility, etc. The existing FAQs page is fine as is.
The solutions category currently has the last two items, and information is available regarding some of the issues for the second and third items in various places on the wiki, but the first item is completely absent and a source of a great deal of concern and confusion for a lot of people.
Including all of this information in a single location (even if much of it consists merely of links) should go a long way toward solving a lot of these problems for a lot of people, cut down on the frequency of requests for help on the forums, and improve the overall quality of mods. (It might also be a good idea to include redirect pages for 'troubleshooting' and similar terms to lead people directly to the Solutions category.) Truant 12:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Need More Examples

Some script examples only show you some of the function, and not other options that go with the function.

For example:


Enable FadeIn:Int{Default = 1}



It does not show anything about "FadeIn" in the example.

Question - How to edit the main page

The main page appears to be locked, is it not? So how does one correct spelling errors or add missing words to the main page? In particular, in this text clip from the mainpage "releasing your mods to share you efforts with others", the word "you" is clearly wrong and needs to be "your".

--Pyro 13:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The main page and a few other pages are locked to protect the main structure of the Wiki. If these pages need to be edited it's usually small things like this, or major overhauls, which should be discussed beforehand. In both cases the regulators can make the changes.
I fixed the spelling error. Let me know if you find any more.
--Qazaaq 21:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
it would be nice if someone would put the link for the NV version of the GECK on the mainpage Justonething 21:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the second section, 'The Garden of Eden Creation Kit' really should have a note about the FNV version and a direct link. I added information to the Bethsoft_Tutorial_GECK_Setup page, but it really should be on page one. Truant 12:56, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
--Qazaaq 11:10, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Xbox PS3 and Wii

Maybe we should Make a note some were that this is for PC only and not platforms?

Further Reading description

Suggestion for changing Main Page descriptions to reflect topics in the Further Reading section: --Omzy 19:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


The Frequently Asked Questions page has answers to common questions about the GECK and modding in general. For simple questions, this would be the place to start.


Like any miracle of modern technology, the GECK can be complicated and puzzling to use at times, and figuring out how to do something may not be obvious at first glance. The Solutions page is the place to find answers to problems others have posed before they are wiki-fied and converted into their own articles.

Advanced Modding Techniques

As you get the hang of the GECK, you'll probably want to start releasing your mods to share your efforts with others. No doubt you'll also want to use more sophisticated methods to develop, organize, and present your mod. The Advanced Modding Techniques page has articles to improve your style, efficiency, and prowess with the GECK. The GECK is a powerful tool, and is in fact capable of doing things it wasn't even designed to do! The Advanced Modding Techniques page also includes articles on how to get the GECK to do fancy tricks like rolling over or playing dead! Actually, kidding on those last two.

Mod Tools

The GECK is powerful, but not all-powerful. The Mod Tools page has information on other Tools that can help in the modding process, such as programs to manage loaded plugins, or to edit resource files like meshes and textures.

Looks good to me, but I'm not very involved with the GECK Wiki and I don't want to step on any toes; do Haama or Qazaaq still edit here? If so, I think I would rather that they do this, since Qazaaq, at least, I know was more involved than I.
DragoonWraith · talk · 21:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. If they don't respond in the next week or so, might want to alter it somehow though because its pointing to old pages.--Omzy 03:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, went ahead and did that. If none of the Regulators are active here, we should look into asking Gstaff to appoint new ones...
DragoonWraith · talk · 20:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Yah, perhaps its not the best solution, but I think it is definitely better than the way it was before.--Omzy 02:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Problems trying to make new models

I'm assembling a super-weapons pack and I've had nothing but trouble trying to set the models! I used an extractor to recover the NIF files from the base game file and left them on my desktop for easy access. Every time I try to load a model it just tells me it's an invalid directory! I'm pretty sure I've just forgotten something simple or made a stupid mistake, but can somebody please tell me what it is? No smartass comments are appreciated, thanks.

Model Ship Exterior / Basic Weapons Editing

Hello, all. I'm new to modding in general and with GECK, and this site. So if anyone has any advice or pointers on any of it, please let me know.

I have a few questions.

SHIP First, right now I'm trying to build a model ship, specifically an Oliver Hazard Perry Class Frigate. Of course the only ship existing in the game is the Rivit City Carrier and none of the premade exteriors from that are useful for this, much too big, not the right shapes at all, etc. Alternatively there's the derelict boats that litter the Wasteland's dry riverbeds, but those are far too small, and I imagine that they are prefab models that can't be picked apart, same is the case for the Rivit City exteriors, there are only large prefab'd chunks.

So I guess my best bet is to just piece this thing together using some flat material pieces, one at a time right? But so far I've been unable to find a simple flat piece of metal haha. Rivit City rooms don't seem to include a single flooring, ceiling, or wall piece without anything else attached that I could use.

So, I guess all I'm looking for is a simple, single square of metal material to use. Anyone know of anything? I tried using a vault floor, but that turned out to be concrete.

WEAPONS I don't know nearly enough yet to custom render my own weapons from scratch, so instead I've just made unique instances of existing weapons and edited their stats. I'm calling it the eXperimental Weapons Pack (XWeapsPack).

The biggest problem I'm facing with it right now is my attempt at an automatic combat shotgun. I don't know how the damage formula works and its DAM is insanely unreasonably high! I've turned the damage setting all the way down to zero, at it's current fire rate (less than six rounds per second) the DPS calculator in the geck registers it as 0/14 or something like that, but in game its still reading over 200! I assume this is due to the combination of an automatic firemode and multiple projectiles per shot, but mathematically it still doesn't make any sense given a base damage of 0. So what's going on here? Anyone successfully make an auto shotgun?

The other problem I have is that I don't like game programmers' apparent obsession with an imaginary concept of balance which tends to lead them to turn down the damage per shot of automatic weapons vs semi-automatic weapons despite their being similar or identical weapons firing the same ammunition.

So I've successfully made an automatic 10mm Machine Pistol! Only problem is that when I set the base damage in the geck equal to that of the semi-automatic version (actually that's another XWeapon I made to mimic the M9 9mm with a 15 round magazine capacity, and slightly higher damage than the unique instances of the 10mm pistol) the in game damage reading in the pip-boy goes off the charts! It's over 100. I don't know if that's a DPS rating based on the ROF assuming no missed shots, or what other multipliers the game is applying but the bottom line is that with the settings like this every time I spray a short burst at an enemy (even power armored ones) and ONE bullet hits them, their limb explodes and they're done for in one shot. So one way or another it seems the game is turning the damage of each shot WAY up just because the ROF increases.

ALL I want is to have to pistols one, automatic, one semi-automatic, and to have each bullet fired by each one to be exactly as powerful regardless of the different rate of fire and any multipliers the game might be applying behind the scenes. So I don't know how the formula works, or how to do this exactly, so any advice would be appreciated!

That's all for now really.

If anyone's interested I've written a detailed explanation below of exactly why I want each shot from the auto vs semi-auto to be exactly as powerful, but that's not required reading to help with my problem, just if you're curios!

The problem I find much more often with damage in games (especially in multi-players) is that the game makers turn the damage of autos down arbitrarily, to "make up" for the fact that they're autos.

The "power" of a weapon actually has almost nothing to do with the characteristics of the weapon its self. The weapon is powered by the gunpowder in the rounds that it fires. That's what provides all the power. So any and all weapons firing the same ammunition actually have similar if not identical "power". Of course there are minor differences due to factors like barrel length and action type, but these are so minor as to be nearly negligible. The single biggest factor in a weapons' power is the ammunition it fires.

So I've always wanted to see games where it doesn't magically take more bullets to kill something when fired from an automatic vs. a semi-automatic even though both fire the same rounds.

So really, the damage rating should be attached to the rounds. Then weapons should only have modifiers of that rating attached to them. For example 10mm round = 20DAM >10mm pistol = x0.90DAM (due to short barrel length) >>10mm round fired from 10mm pistol = 18DAM >10mm sub-machine gun = no DAM modifier (due to "average" barrel length) >>10mm round fired from 10mm sub-machine gun = 20DAM >Lever action rifle = x1.5DAM (due to long barrel) >>10mm round fired from lever action rifle = 30DAM

Damage should have nothing to do with rate of fire, ammo capacity, and it should have relatively little to do with things like barrel length even. That way, assuming all other factors equal, a round fired from an automatic weapon will do exactly as much damage as the same round fired from a semi-automatic. Such that if it takes five rounds to kill a certain enemy, either weapon will do it in as many shots, but with the automatic it will be massively easier and faster to! Which is really the whole point of automatic fire modes, so it's kind of self defeating if game makers are gonna fudge all the numbers in pursuit of some nonsensical "balance".

The fact of the matter is that there already is something of a balance about such things in real life. The balance is that while the automatic shoots really fast AND does just as much damage per shot, the drawback is a lot of shots missing, and running out of ammo way, way faster! That's the balance, so when game makers start messing around with the damage to boot they're not actually maintaining any balance, all they're doing is throwing off the actual balance that's already there, that would exist perfectly analogously in game as in real life if they would just represent things accurately.