FMSS is excellent, and I actually prefer it over GS. However, it's still far too buggy. About one out of ten times it simply won't load my save, throws random error messages, and I end up having to mess around with files, uninstall/reinstall it, create new save locations, and try all sorts of workarounds. Sometimes it starts working again purely by chance, but most of the time it doesn't. At the moment, it's just not reliable enough.
I don't know if there are any updates planned, but unfortunately it doesn't feel stable yet. I really hope it improves in the future, because it looks like an amazing tool with a lot of potential.
Unfortunately I'm now stuck with an issue that I have been unable to solve despite spending several hours troubleshooting.
Environment - Football Manager 2026 - FM version: 26.3.2 - FMSuperScout 1.3.1 - Also tested with 1.3.0 (same result) - Plugin version loaded by BepInEx: 0.1.40 - Windows 11 - Steam default installation - No FM update between the last successful dump and the first failed one.
Timeline Everything worked perfectly yesterday. I successfully generated a dump containing approximately: - 157,712 players - 81,009 staff
Today, without changing anything (no Windows update, no FM update, no hardware change, no save modification), FMSuperScout stopped working completely.
The issue now occurs on every save.
Symptoms 1. Open FMSuperScout. 2. Load a save in FM26. 3. Click "New Data". 4. Press F9 in FM. 5. FMSuperScout displays:
"FM26 is not picking up the request. Is your save loaded? Try F9 in the game, or restart FM26."
This happens every single time.
What I have already tested
General - Restarted Windows. - Restarted Steam. - Restarted FM26. - Restarted FMSuperScout. - Tested multiple saves. - Verified there was no FM update.
Reinstallation - Completely uninstalled FMSuperScout. - Deleted: C:\Program Files\FMSuperScout - Deleted: C:\Users\test\AppData\Local\FMSuperScout - Reinstalled using the latest Setup.exe. - Reinstalled the plugin. - Also tested version 1.3.0. - Same behaviour.
Windows - Synced Windows date and time. - Default Steam installation. - FM installed in the default Steam directory.
No exceptions are thrown. No crashes occur. The plugin appears to reject the request immediately.
I also inspected the AppData folder.
After clicking "New Data":
- request.flag is recreated with a fresh timestamp. - The local server is running correctly. - However, no new dump.json is ever created. - status.json and dump.json remain from the previous successful dump.
The previous successful diagnostics confirm that the plugin was fully able to scan the game yesterday, detect all players/staff and write dump.json successfully.
This makes me think the request reaches the plugin, but the plugin immediately considers the request expired or unreadable before starting a new dump.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: For reference, these are the optimal minimum set of attributes for GK derived from testing:
The proper version has 8s instead of 1s, but this makes it clearer what attributes matter and which don't.
I've had a double check and it seems to be working as intended. The top rated GKs are the ones you'd expect to be (1st GKs from the very top clubs), and if I filter for current rep 5000< or 3000< then the top players even if low in value or have weird looking distribution of attributes nonetheless are getting high ratings and are getting picked up by higher clubs which are strong indications it's on the right track.
Some examples:
Keep in mind that a GK alone is not going to stop goals. The results depend largely on the rest of your team. HarvestGreen concluded that a GK is worth 20% of an outfield player. My impression is that it's quite a bit more than that, but a GK alone certainly won't save a bad team. What I assess by is the improvement or drop in league position.
In regards to Hidden Attributes in Genie Scout, the problem is not that I can't work out what weighting to give them - you can find those weightings here. The problem is that GS does not calculate using those weightings correctly. It uses some complex formula that makes setting them accurately difficult if not impossible. Think of it as two curves that don't match up and therefore can't be integrated together even if you work out what those curves exactly are, this is the challenge I'm facing. The band-aid solution right now is to combine the weights with a basic filter for hiddens (i.e. min 8 pro, pressure, etc.).
Now if you use FM26 you may be in luck because there is now a program that can do what we're looking for. See my post below this. Expand
Thanks for your detailed reply, I really appreciate it.
I genuinely have this feeling that a goalkeeper with poor Reflexes is basically a walking sieve, haha! But at the same time, what you said makes perfect sense, because a goalkeeper isn't supposed to save everything on his own.
I'll post a screenshot so you can tell me what you think. This was my goalkeeper: he conceded 58 goals over the season. I replaced him the following year, but according to the ratings he's still considered the best goalkeeper in my save... despite having only 9 Reflexes. That just feels strange to me.
Anyway, thanks again. I also noticed you mentioned FMSuperScout. I've never used it before. Is it as accurate as Genie Scout when it comes to calculations and visible attributes? I see that FMSuperScout also takes hidden attributes into account, so it's definitely worth testing. I'll have a closer look at it. If you've already done some testing with it, I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts, especially regarding the reliability of its ratings and percentages.
One last thing: would it be possible to talk to you via DM instead of posting publicly here? Do you accept private messages? If not, no worries at all!
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I recommend the Premier League 1.0 file, while using filtering for hiddens. It is designed to 'save' you in your first season, but I think this is the right balance and does not impair min-maxxing.
It would be less accurate for FM26 most likely, but I suspect the difference would be small.
This question gets asked a lot, so I'll briefly explain why. Take long shots - it's ~3x importance in FM26 supposedly, ok that's 3x0 = 0 for me.. maybe that ends up being a 10 minimum for the attribute, which is a minor difference since most players will have ~6-8+ by default anyway. Going by HarvestGreen's data, there don't seem to be any paradigm-shifting changes, and the thing is, if you suppose balance now has say a '16' requirement, that's highly unlikely to be the case because very few players would have 16 balance in the game. If I had to make a rough guess, the differences between FM24 and FM26 might be a player going from rank 57th > 68th say. Not nothing, but nothing huge either.
The ratings file will continue to be improved, but there is no set timetable.
The main goals I would like to achieve are:
1) Re-integrate hidden stats again. Either with a program that comes along that can do so, or by essentially backporting the rankings FM26 scoring system gives and fiddling with the numbers until it largely fits the mold. 2) Create a FM26 version. Waiting until FM26 is free on Epic, or otherwise settle for working with HarvestGreen's FM26 data. It's not unfeasible, it's just a lot of effort for little reward whichever way I do it. 3) Further improve attribute value accuracy and weightings accuracy. Ideally I want to be able to say this is player is 5th, that player is 6th, etc. with high confidence.
If I had to put my impression of the accuracy of my GS rating files as a % based purely on intuition, I would put it like this:
88% - Premier League 1.0 (in FM24) 83% - Premier League 1.0 (in FM26) 82% - FM24 Pure Performance 80% - FM26 Pure Performance 75% - If you just plugged in pace/acc at 100 weight and added a few others as keithb suggests (basically every simple interpretation of HarvestGreen's data) 70% - File based on Orion's data 56% - Default Genie Scout
I can't say I even trust my own intuition on this though. I know the attribute figures are very close to accurate, translation to GS weights is another matter. Here is what the first control testing showed (number is average finishing position in Premier League):
6.5 - FM24 Pure Performance 7.333 - Premier League 1.0 13.166 - Orion's weights
So I think there's pretty clear evidence it works well, but my intuition about Premier League 1.0 being an improvement over the previous version may be wrong. I still think Premier League 1.0 is better, because it's based on solid data (my extensive attribute testing). It could just be that beyond a certain point, further precision is superfluous (i.e. if one file gives 73.54% and the other 72.88%, you're going to end up picking the same player anyway). I anticipated this and measured overlap of players. From memory the overlap was only around 50% for all three, so there is still substantial variation going on, which was actually quite surprising to me.
I assessed alternative training focuses and found it to be a bad idea. But if a player is particularly deficient in a certain key attribute, it is probably worthwhile training them up to ~8 in that attribute.
With jumping reach, would it be worth say training up further to 12 instead of pace 16 > 18? It's hard to say. Personally I would just get the high jump reach player to begin with, because it will take time anyway, and jumping reach is particularly unforgiving if you lack it. You can get away with 14 pace; you can't get away with DCs that have 14 jump.
This set of guidelines for Italian FM volunteer researchers for FM20 is something of a goldmine when you plug it into Google Translate. Most of the FM info dished out by SI staff is pure BS, but here we have some tidbits of proper info about how it works under the hood.
There are two interesting things in it on height specifically:
1) There are conversation tables for height to jumping reach (one for GK, one for outfield). 2) Pace - 'Very short players cannot have a very high Speed value (at most they will have a high acceleration value)'
This means you can use minimum height to help filter players in the starting database, as the researchers have to follow these strict guidelines in the player data they're putting in.
We can deduce that a player under 1.95m won't ever reach 20 jump even with training. 1.87m would be the minimum to eventually reach 17 jump (ideal minimum for DC). 1.82m is the bare minimum for a DC. Under 1.72m would be too deficient in jumping reach in any position, and should probably be avoided.
We are told that short players are pace-constrained to boot as well.
Now that is the starting database, but if you think about it, they've probably programmed the game to generate new players according to the same guidelines. Expand
Hi, first of all, thank you so much for your incredibly detailed reply. I hope I'm not bothering you, but I have a couple more questions that could really help improve my experience with the game.
Regarding the Premier League 1.0 ratings, I feel like the goalkeeper ratings are a bit off. Quite often, average or even poor goalkeepers end up with very high percentages. In fact, the highest-rated player in my save is a goalkeeper with only 9 Reflexes who conceded 58 goals during the season. Do you think there's any way to improve the goalkeeper ratings in the file?
You also mentioned the Genie Scout bug regarding hidden attributes. In your original FM26 ratings file, hidden attributes are taken into account. I'm completely willing to modify the Premier League 1.0 ratings file to include only the hidden attributes, but do you know what weights or values they should be given? Would it simply make sense to import the hidden attribute weights from the original FM26 ratings file into the Premier League 1.0 file?
Thanks again in advance for your reply. What you're doing is genuinely impressive, and I really appreciate the amount of work you've put into it. I'll definitely continue supporting your work in the future.
I noticed that some people have been criticizing your ratings file. I've been using your FM26 Genie Scout Ratings file since almost the beginning of FM26. Then I stopped playing around February and only came back in June. Since then, I've still been using the FM26 Genie Scout Ratings file, but I recently saw that you now recommend using the Premier League 1.0 Genie Scout Ratings file instead.
First of all, congratulations on all the work you've put into this. It's rare to see this level of dedication and effort.
I have three questions:
Are you still actively improving and refining your ratings file? If you had to estimate it, how reliable and accurate do you think the Premier League 1.0 ratings are, as a percentage? Finally, which file should we actually be using: the FM26 Genie Scout Ratings file or the Premier League 1.0 Genie Scout Ratings file?
That's all! I hope you'll have the time to reply. Thanks again for all your hard work, and have a great day!
I don't know if there are any updates planned, but unfortunately it doesn't feel stable yet. I really hope it improves in the future, because it looks like an amazing tool with a lot of potential.
tried everything...
Unfortunately I'm now stuck with an issue that I have been unable to solve despite spending several hours troubleshooting.
Environment
- Football Manager 2026
- FM version: 26.3.2
- FMSuperScout 1.3.1
- Also tested with 1.3.0 (same result)
- Plugin version loaded by BepInEx: 0.1.40
- Windows 11
- Steam default installation
- No FM update between the last successful dump and the first failed one.
Timeline
Everything worked perfectly yesterday.
I successfully generated a dump containing approximately:
- 157,712 players
- 81,009 staff
Today, without changing anything (no Windows update, no FM update, no hardware change, no save modification), FMSuperScout stopped working completely.
The issue now occurs on every save.
Symptoms
1. Open FMSuperScout.
2. Load a save in FM26.
3. Click "New Data".
4. Press F9 in FM.
5. FMSuperScout displays:
"FM26 is not picking up the request. Is your save loaded? Try F9 in the game, or restart FM26."
This happens every single time.
What I have already tested
General
- Restarted Windows.
- Restarted Steam.
- Restarted FM26.
- Restarted FMSuperScout.
- Tested multiple saves.
- Verified there was no FM update.
Reinstallation
- Completely uninstalled FMSuperScout.
- Deleted:
C:\Program Files\FMSuperScout
- Deleted:
C:\Users\test\AppData\Local\FMSuperScout
- Reinstalled using the latest Setup.exe.
- Reinstalled the plugin.
- Also tested version 1.3.0.
- Same behaviour.
Windows
- Synced Windows date and time.
- Default Steam installation.
- FM installed in the default Steam directory.
Technical observations
The local web server starts correctly.
Opening:
http://localhost:8765
works normally.
The server reports:
"FMSuperScout draait op http://localhost:8765"
The plugin also loads correctly according to BepInEx.
LogOutput.log shows:
Loading [FMSuperScout 0.1.40]
followed by
FMSuperScout 0.1.40 geladen. Druk in de game op F9 om te dumpen.
Immediately afterwards it logs:
[Warning:FMSuperScout]
Verlopen/onleesbaar data-verzoek genegeerd vlag: '1785345022129'.
No exceptions are thrown.
No crashes occur.
The plugin appears to reject the request immediately.
I also inspected the AppData folder.
After clicking "New Data":
- request.flag is recreated with a fresh timestamp.
- The local server is running correctly.
- However, no new dump.json is ever created.
- status.json and dump.json remain from the previous successful dump.
The previous successful diagnostics confirm that the plugin was fully able to scan the game yesterday, detect all players/staff and write dump.json successfully.
This makes me think the request reaches the plugin, but the plugin immediately considers the request expired or unreadable before starting a new dump.
tried everything...
The proper version has 8s instead of 1s, but this makes it clearer what attributes matter and which don't.
I've had a double check and it seems to be working as intended. The top rated GKs are the ones you'd expect to be (1st GKs from the very top clubs), and if I filter for current rep 5000< or 3000< then the top players even if low in value or have weird looking distribution of attributes nonetheless are getting high ratings and are getting picked up by higher clubs which are strong indications it's on the right track.
Some examples:
Keep in mind that a GK alone is not going to stop goals. The results depend largely on the rest of your team. HarvestGreen concluded that a GK is worth 20% of an outfield player. My impression is that it's quite a bit more than that, but a GK alone certainly won't save a bad team. What I assess by is the improvement or drop in league position.
In regards to Hidden Attributes in Genie Scout, the problem is not that I can't work out what weighting to give them - you can find those weightings here. The problem is that GS does not calculate using those weightings correctly. It uses some complex formula that makes setting them accurately difficult if not impossible. Think of it as two curves that don't match up and therefore can't be integrated together even if you work out what those curves exactly are, this is the challenge I'm facing. The band-aid solution right now is to combine the weights with a basic filter for hiddens (i.e. min 8 pro, pressure, etc.).
Now if you use FM26 you may be in luck because there is now a program that can do what we're looking for. See my post below this.
Thanks for your detailed reply, I really appreciate it.
I genuinely have this feeling that a goalkeeper with poor Reflexes is basically a walking sieve, haha! But at the same time, what you said makes perfect sense, because a goalkeeper isn't supposed to save everything on his own.
I'll post a screenshot so you can tell me what you think. This was my goalkeeper: he conceded 58 goals over the season. I replaced him the following year, but according to the ratings he's still considered the best goalkeeper in my save... despite having only 9 Reflexes. That just feels strange to me.
Anyway, thanks again. I also noticed you mentioned FMSuperScout. I've never used it before. Is it as accurate as Genie Scout when it comes to calculations and visible attributes? I see that FMSuperScout also takes hidden attributes into account, so it's definitely worth testing. I'll have a closer look at it. If you've already done some testing with it, I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts, especially regarding the reliability of its ratings and percentages.
One last thing: would it be possible to talk to you via DM instead of posting publicly here? Do you accept private messages? If not, no worries at all!
Thanks again, and speak soon!
It would be less accurate for FM26 most likely, but I suspect the difference would be small.
This question gets asked a lot, so I'll briefly explain why. Take long shots - it's ~3x importance in FM26 supposedly, ok that's 3x0 = 0 for me.. maybe that ends up being a 10 minimum for the attribute, which is a minor difference since most players will have ~6-8+ by default anyway. Going by HarvestGreen's data, there don't seem to be any paradigm-shifting changes, and the thing is, if you suppose balance now has say a '16' requirement, that's highly unlikely to be the case because very few players would have 16 balance in the game. If I had to make a rough guess, the differences between FM24 and FM26 might be a player going from rank 57th > 68th say. Not nothing, but nothing huge either.
The ratings file will continue to be improved, but there is no set timetable.
The main goals I would like to achieve are:
1) Re-integrate hidden stats again. Either with a program that comes along that can do so, or by essentially backporting the rankings FM26 scoring system gives and fiddling with the numbers until it largely fits the mold.
2) Create a FM26 version. Waiting until FM26 is free on Epic, or otherwise settle for working with HarvestGreen's FM26 data. It's not unfeasible, it's just a lot of effort for little reward whichever way I do it.
3) Further improve attribute value accuracy and weightings accuracy. Ideally I want to be able to say this is player is 5th, that player is 6th, etc. with high confidence.
If I had to put my impression of the accuracy of my GS rating files as a % based purely on intuition, I would put it like this:
88% - Premier League 1.0 (in FM24)
83% - Premier League 1.0 (in FM26)
82% - FM24 Pure Performance
80% - FM26 Pure Performance
75% - If you just plugged in pace/acc at 100 weight and added a few others as keithb suggests (basically every simple interpretation of HarvestGreen's data)
70% - File based on Orion's data
56% - Default Genie Scout
I can't say I even trust my own intuition on this though. I know the attribute figures are very close to accurate, translation to GS weights is another matter. Here is what the first control testing showed (number is average finishing position in Premier League):
6.5 - FM24 Pure Performance
7.333 - Premier League 1.0
13.166 - Orion's weights
So I think there's pretty clear evidence it works well, but my intuition about Premier League 1.0 being an improvement over the previous version may be wrong. I still think Premier League 1.0 is better, because it's based on solid data (my extensive attribute testing). It could just be that beyond a certain point, further precision is superfluous (i.e. if one file gives 73.54% and the other 72.88%, you're going to end up picking the same player anyway). I anticipated this and measured overlap of players. From memory the overlap was only around 50% for all three, so there is still substantial variation going on, which was actually quite surprising to me.
I assessed alternative training focuses and found it to be a bad idea. But if a player is particularly deficient in a certain key attribute, it is probably worthwhile training them up to ~8 in that attribute.
With jumping reach, would it be worth say training up further to 12 instead of pace 16 > 18? It's hard to say. Personally I would just get the high jump reach player to begin with, because it will take time anyway, and jumping reach is particularly unforgiving if you lack it. You can get away with 14 pace; you can't get away with DCs that have 14 jump.
This set of guidelines for Italian FM volunteer researchers for FM20 is something of a goldmine when you plug it into Google Translate. Most of the FM info dished out by SI staff is pure BS, but here we have some tidbits of proper info about how it works under the hood.
There are two interesting things in it on height specifically:
1) There are conversation tables for height to jumping reach (one for GK, one for outfield).
2) Pace - 'Very short players cannot have a very high Speed value (at most they will have a high acceleration value)'
This means you can use minimum height to help filter players in the starting database, as the researchers have to follow these strict guidelines in the player data they're putting in.
We can deduce that a player under 1.95m won't ever reach 20 jump even with training. 1.87m would be the minimum to eventually reach 17 jump (ideal minimum for DC). 1.82m is the bare minimum for a DC. Under 1.72m would be too deficient in jumping reach in any position, and should probably be avoided.
We are told that short players are pace-constrained to boot as well.
Now that is the starting database, but if you think about it, they've probably programmed the game to generate new players according to the same guidelines.
Hi, first of all, thank you so much for your incredibly detailed reply. I hope I'm not bothering you, but I have a couple more questions that could really help improve my experience with the game.
Regarding the Premier League 1.0 ratings, I feel like the goalkeeper ratings are a bit off. Quite often, average or even poor goalkeepers end up with very high percentages. In fact, the highest-rated player in my save is a goalkeeper with only 9 Reflexes who conceded 58 goals during the season. Do you think there's any way to improve the goalkeeper ratings in the file?
You also mentioned the Genie Scout bug regarding hidden attributes. In your original FM26 ratings file, hidden attributes are taken into account. I'm completely willing to modify the Premier League 1.0 ratings file to include only the hidden attributes, but do you know what weights or values they should be given? Would it simply make sense to import the hidden attribute weights from the original FM26 ratings file into the Premier League 1.0 file?
Thanks again in advance for your reply. What you're doing is genuinely impressive, and I really appreciate the amount of work you've put into it. I'll definitely continue supporting your work in the future.
I noticed that some people have been criticizing your ratings file. I've been using your FM26 Genie Scout Ratings file since almost the beginning of FM26. Then I stopped playing around February and only came back in June. Since then, I've still been using the FM26 Genie Scout Ratings file, but I recently saw that you now recommend using the Premier League 1.0 Genie Scout Ratings file instead.
First of all, congratulations on all the work you've put into this. It's rare to see this level of dedication and effort.
I have three questions:
Are you still actively improving and refining your ratings file?
If you had to estimate it, how reliable and accurate do you think the Premier League 1.0 ratings are, as a percentage?
Finally, which file should we actually be using: the FM26 Genie Scout Ratings file or the Premier League 1.0 Genie Scout Ratings file?
That's all! I hope you'll have the time to reply. Thanks again for all your hard work, and have a great day!