I'm trying to add custom interactions to my mod, but one thing I noticed is that in order to add them to the object, you have to replace the XML for the object.This would mean you could only ever have one mod installed per object. So, for example, if two mods both added new interactions to the computer, you would be restricted to just one of them.The mod I'm making adds interactions to a lot of objects, and hence would create a lot of conflicts.Is there any way to add interactions that doesn't require a replacement?

I would like to know this too. See this thread -- essentially the same problem.

I had accidentally replied to the wrong thread with this:You could consider using the GLOBAL_AFFORDANCES list. That is module tuning located in BaseInteractionTuning.

But wouldn't that mean that everyone who adds interactions to any object would need to override that same list, and then we're back at square one? Highlander rule and all that?Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by "using the GLOBAL_AFFORDANCES list"? (I'm thinking "overriding it with a custom one", but maybe I'm thinking wrong? Several people are apparently stuck at the same point atm, where we just don't know how to append/change that kind of thing and still be compatible with each other =/ )

"pbox;12867444" wrote:But wouldn't that mean that everyone who adds interactions to any object would need to override that same list, and then we're back at square one? Highlander rule and all that?Yes, that is a limitation unfortunately.However, using this list would allow you to have one mod that adds an interaction to all objects in the game without trumping mods that might overwrite individual objects.It's not perfect, but it's a possibility.

Well, it's at least kind of reassuring to hear that this is an *actual* limitation =). (Was a bit worried that we might all be stuck in TS3 thinking patterns and overlooking the obvious).Anything that allows just one mod is .. not a solution, really (except maybe for people who only mod their own game for themselves) -- but can you perhaps recommend a way to append to that list, or to the affordance lists within objects, by scripting? To me that seemed like the most promising approach, see here. ?That would also mean those mods have a much better chance at surviving the next patch .. wouldn't they?Edit, in case this helps (to see why everybody thinks this is a problem), here's a list with threads that all discuss that same issue:Zerbu at EA (i.e. this thread): http://forums.thesims.com/en_US/discussion/795011/simgurumodsquad-is-a-default-replacement-for-an-object-xml-required-for-custom-interactions#latestCustom Interactions and Python (SpidersWeb) at mts: http://modthesims.info/showthread.php?t=538474Custom Interactions and Python (SpidersWeb) at EA: http://forums.thesims.com/en_US/discussion/794783/custom-interactions-to-python#latestCustom interactions (morgade) at mts: http://www.modthesims.info/showthread.php?t=536464Kindergardening (pbox) at mts: http://modthesims.info/showthread.php?t=537637Kindergardening (pbox) at EA: http://forums.thesims.com/en_US/discussion/793152/xml-custom-super-interaction-and-super-affordances-in-overridesKindergardening WIP in Feedback: http://www.modthesims.info/showthread.php?t=537749

@SimGuruModSquad: Is a default replacement for an object XML required for custom interactions?

22 Replies

tastytourist
11 years ago
I would like to know this too. See this thread -- essentially the same problem.
SimGuruEugi
EA Staff (Retired)
11 years ago
I had accidentally replied to the wrong thread with this:

You could consider using the GLOBAL_AFFORDANCES list. That is module tuning located in BaseInteractionTuning.
tastytourist
11 years ago
But wouldn't that mean that everyone who adds interactions to any object would need to override that same list, and then we're back at square one? Highlander rule and all that?

Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by "using the GLOBAL_AFFORDANCES list"? (I'm thinking "overriding it with a custom one", but maybe I'm thinking wrong? Several people are apparently stuck at the same point atm, where we just don't know how to append/change that kind of thing and still be compatible with each other =/ )
SimGuruEugi
EA Staff (Retired)
11 years ago
"pbox;12867444" wrote:
But wouldn't that mean that everyone who adds interactions to any object would need to override that same list, and then we're back at square one? Highlander rule and all that?

Yes, that is a limitation unfortunately.

However, using this list would allow you to have one mod that adds an interaction to all objects in the game without trumping mods that might overwrite individual objects.

It's not perfect, but it's a possibility.
tastytourist
11 years ago
Well, it's at least kind of reassuring to hear that this is an *actual* limitation =). (Was a bit worried that we might all be stuck in TS3 thinking patterns and overlooking the obvious).

Anything that allows just one mod is .. not a solution, really (except maybe for people who only mod their own game for themselves) -- but can you perhaps recommend a way to append to that list, or to the affordance lists within objects, by scripting? To me that seemed like the most promising approach, see here.

?

That would also mean those mods have a much better chance at surviving the next patch .. wouldn't they?

Edit, in case this helps (to see why everybody thinks this is a problem), here's a list with threads that all discuss that same issue:

Zerbu at EA (i.e. this thread): http://forums.thesims.com/en_US/discussion/795011/simgurumodsquad-is-a-default-replacement-for-an-object-xml-required-for-custom-interactions#latest

Custom Interactions and Python (SpidersWeb) at mts: http://modthesims.info/showthread.php?t=538474
Custom Interactions and Python (SpidersWeb) at EA: http://forums.thesims.com/en_US/discussion/794783/custom-interactions-to-python#latest

Custom interactions (morgade) at mts: http://www.modthesims.info/showthread.php?t=536464

Kindergardening (pbox) at mts: http://modthesims.info/showthread.php?t=537637
Kindergardening (pbox) at EA: http://forums.thesims.com/en_US/discussion/793152/xml-custom-super-interaction-and-super-affordances-in-overrides
Kindergardening WIP in Feedback: http://www.modthesims.info/showthread.php?t=537749
SimGuruEugi
EA Staff (Retired)
11 years ago
The idea of appending to the list might be the way to go. It's (probably) doable, but it will require work on your part.

What you'd basically need to do is create new Python code that reads your mod's tunable. Then you'd have to find the original GLOBAL_AFFORDANCES list and append to that. Every mod would have its own module tuning, ensuring it wouldn't conflict.

You could even do that on an object-by-object basis, but you'd probably need a mapping of object -> interaction list and then modify the original object by appending your new interactions.

I can't really guarantee that this is going to work, since the tuning system is fairly complex, and I don't have the code in front of me right now.

This is just off the top of my head -- I might be overlooking something.
tastytourist
11 years ago
I wasn't expecting you to basically do the work for us =) -- I believe what you describe is more or less what SpidersWeb also meant. Good to hear that seems like the right track then.

Thank you!
SimGuruEugi
EA Staff (Retired)
11 years ago
"pbox;12867767" wrote:
I wasn't expecting you to basically do the work for us =) -- I believe what you describe is more or less what SpidersWeb also meant. Good to hear that seems like the right track then.

Thank you!

No problem!
Shimrod101
11 years ago
"pbox;12867444" wrote:
But wouldn't that mean that everyone who adds interactions to any object would need to override that same list, and then we're back at square one? Highlander rule and all that?

You are overly concerned with this issue here, as is for example velocitygrass at MTS (it appears to me anyway). This rule has always applied in Sims3 XML and ITUN modding, you can only use any given XML or ITUN once. Why this gigantic concern on your part because this happens to be a new game? It is expected in advance that it would be this way. There was never any gigantic concern from the MTS site staff during Sims3 modding about this issue; what was supposed to occur is that the modder informs which resources are used, so the end user can see for themselves that one mod conflicts with another, and they must choose between one of them. This is no big deal, not as big a deal as you make it out to be.
velocitygrass
11 years ago
It's not because it is a new game, but because of the impact it would have depending on the xml. A single tuning that turns off autonomous playing in the sprinkler is not very likely to conflict with something else. Sims 4 also has some tunings that are extremely specific, where I wouldn't be concerned with potential conflicts.

But something as central as e.g. the list of interactions for a sim is not something I'd feel comfortable changing for a random little mod. For me this is a big deal. It would have been quite an annoyance in Sims 3 if I would have had to choose between DebugEnabler and MasterController and Woohooer. It's not just a matter of forcing users to choose, but it could also have the effect that as soon as there is a widely used "must-have" mod out there that changes the sim interaction list and/or the general object list, modders will be discouraged from publishing/creating smaller interaction mods, because they know it's unlikely that someone will give up a "must-have" mod for a nice-to-have one.

An alternative to the scripting approach could be a mod-merger that collects the new interactions from various mods and merges them into a single instance of the sim_object resource or the objects.base_interactions resource with the global_affordances list.