- Designed to align with the objective results of real players within the English Premier League - GK not yet done, weights from Premier League 1.0 are used which are decent - Do not read too much into the specific values for each attribute, I used HarvestGreen's and my own data as a basis to start with, but it's largely just plugging in numbers until I get the output I'm looking for, which is alignment with the rankings. Individual attribute weights will be inaccurate or even superfluous, but it's what they sum up to that matters. - GS file is a bit less accurate than the FMST26 weights. Highly recommend FMST26 over GS if possible.
I could keep working on this for forever and a day, but I feel like it's good enough right now for a first version.
You can make your own adjustments, add in non-linear formulas, etc. to line up with the rankings better if you like, since the ranking data is really what's solid. Expand
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Yes, those are the most recent. It's simply my findings for the balance of attributes that achieves 5th in the Premier League at minimal cost/requirements.
But now I have a bunch of objective player rankings to work with, so I'm currently working a set of weights that lines up with this objective ranking list. And I'm close to done on the first go at this. Expand
Oh, that sounds really interesting. I’d definitely be curious to see how different the new weights end up being compared to the current ones once you’re done. Especially if they’re now being calibrated against an objective player ranking rather than purely the “5th in the PL at minimal cost” benchmark. Please share them when you’re happy with the first version!
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I haven't used either enough to form an opinion on it. I'll be using FMST26 simply because it supports FM24, but FMSuperScout doesn't. Expand
and btw, may i ask if you still refer to your ratings, or did you changed/tweaked them?
83% | Giovanni Di Lorenzo - 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 9th, 2nd, 5th, 5th = 4.143 position 66% | Kingsley Schindler - 4th, 11th, 6th, 11th = 8 position
It's worth mentioning again that all players were set to 20 ST and nothing else. This will affect a few players slightly.
* I forgot to duplicate Salah first before moving him, so there was no Salah for the opposition. Could redo, but shouldn't make much difference. Expand
mavali said: The real in-game date is findable in theory, but in practice it is a serious reverse-engineering job: to a memory scanner every contract, birthday and fixture looks like a date, and the right address shifts with every FM patch. So it would be a lot of work that breaks on every update, to fix a label that is only a few days off.
Instead the plugin lets every loaded team vote with its next-match date and takes the consensus: always close, works in every save, survives patches. If the gap is bigger than a few days, your dump is just old: press F9 again. Expand
Thanks for the explanation, that actually makes a lot of sense. I completely understand why you're using the next-match consensus instead of trying to locate the real in-game date in memory.
In my case though, the difference is sometimes more than just a few days—it's occasionally a few months behind the actual in-game date.
Also, pressing F9 behaves exactly like clicking New Data for me. It reloads the data successfully, but it doesn't bring the loaded date any closer to my current in-game date. It just reloads the same snapshot/date again.
That said, I'm really not complaining. I'm already happy that everything is working again after the recent fixes. I just thought I'd mention it in case it's useful, and maybe it's something that can become more accurate in future versions. Either way, I'm really enjoying FMSS and I'm looking forward to seeing how it continues to improve.
So far, I haven't had any issues with FMSS—fingers crossed! 🤞 I do have one question though. Why is it that when I load the data, like in this example, it always loads a date that's a little earlier than the actual in-game date I'm currently on? I've attached some screenshots to show what I mean.
First: 1.4.2 is out. It fixes the startIndex crash some of you hit, makes scans fast again (the 1.4.1 snapshot is now only an automatic retry when a live scan misses too much memory), lowers the plugin's own memory use, and adds a check-for-updates button. Problem reports now include scan telemetry automatically. @bf3metro metro this release is aimed squarely at your Win32 1450 and 17% errors: they come from Windows running low on memory with a 157k-player save loaded, which is also why a reboot helped. Update and let me know.
@Purity ty thank you, great list and clearly a lot of care went into it. I went through everything and two of your ideas are coming in the next release: a GK meta score (weights from harvestgreen22's keeper attribute retest, so measured numbers rather than invented ones) and a PA meta column with its own filter. For the other features: pull requests on GitHub are very welcome, one per feature keeps them reviewable and your credit visible.
@Panneton0 noted, and thanks for the offer to test.
I saw your message on GitHub. Unfortunately, I can’t test the new version yet because I’m at work, but I’ll install and test it as soon as I get home.
First of all, thank you for taking the time to investigate the issue so thoroughly. I really appreciated reading your explanation because it makes a lot of sense, especially considering the random behaviour I was experiencing. Sometimes it would work after a reboot, sometimes only the first scan would work, then it would suddenly fail for no apparent reason. Your explanation fits that behaviour perfectly.
It’s also clear that you didn’t just patch the symptom—you took the time to identify the root cause and improve the plugin as a whole. I really like the changes you’ve made in 1.4.2. Reducing memory pressure, improving the diagnostics, and making the scanning process more robust overall is exactly the kind of work that gives users confidence in a project.
I’m really hoping this update fixes the issue and that I won’t see those errors anymore. But even if I do, I still wanted to take a moment to thank you.
I really appreciate how much time you’ve spent investigating my reports, explaining the root cause in detail, and helping users who run into problems like mine. You’re incredibly responsive and willing to help, and that’s something I don’t take for granted. To be honest, I’ve rarely seen this level of support from a developer, not even from the Football Manager developers themselves.
I’m also really looking forward to seeing what comes next. FMSS already has a lot of potential, and seeing the amount of care and effort you put into improving it makes me genuinely excited for future versions and the new features you’ll add over time. I honestly believe FMSS has a very bright future ahead of it.
I also noticed that you accept donations. Once I’ve had the chance to test 1.4.2, I’d be more than happy to make one as a small thank-you for all the work and support you’ve provided.
Thanks again, and I’ll let you know how the testing goes!
Unfortunately I'm still getting the same error after updating to 1.4.1.
The plugin is definitely updated, but scans still fail with:
Read failed: The scan could not read 17% of FM's memory.
The save was fully loaded and I waited before starting the scan.
I checked the BepInEx log and I think I found the reason. It looks like the snapshot isn't being created successfully:
No snapshot available (MemoryCaptureSnapshot failed (Win32 1450: Insufficient system resources exist to complete the requested service)). Falling back to live memory scan (as before v1.4.2).
So it looks like the plugin falls back to the old live scanner, and I end up with the exact same "17% of FM's memory" error as before.
I've attached the console output. Is there anything I can do to help diagnose why the snapshot creation fails with Win32 error 1450?
Expand
I have another update.
After rebooting my PC, the scan completed successfully without changing anything else.
This time the log says:
Scan reads from a frozen memory snapshot (VA clone).
and the scan completed successfully.
However, the behaviour is still very inconsistent and seems completely random.
Sometimes the snapshot creation fails with Win32 1450, causing the plugin to fall back to the live scanner, which then fails with the 17% memory error.
Other times the snapshot is created successfully and everything works perfectly.
I also noticed another pattern that might help:
Sometimes the scan doesn't work at all. Sometimes the very first scan after launching FM works. But after I continue playing, advance a few in-game days and try New Data again, it often fails with the memory read error. Occasionally it works again without me changing anything.
It doesn't seem to depend on the save itself, as I'm using the exact same save and settings every time. Likewise, it doesn't seem to be tied to any specific action. The success or failure appears completely random, even under what appear to be identical conditions.
Hopefully this additional information helps narrow the issue down. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to test or any additional logs that would be useful.
Unfortunately I'm still getting the same error after updating to 1.4.1.
The plugin is definitely updated, but scans still fail with:
Read failed: The scan could not read 17% of FM's memory.
The save was fully loaded and I waited before starting the scan.
I checked the BepInEx log and I think I found the reason. It looks like the snapshot isn't being created successfully:
No snapshot available (MemoryCaptureSnapshot failed (Win32 1450: Insufficient system resources exist to complete the requested service)). Falling back to live memory scan (as before v1.4.2).
So it looks like the plugin falls back to the old live scanner, and I end up with the exact same "17% of FM's memory" error as before.
I've attached the console output. Is there anything I can do to help diagnose why the snapshot creation fails with Win32 error 1450?
The steam_appid.txt fix definitely solved the loading issue, as the plugin now loads consistently. However, I ran into a different problem afterwards. The plugin starts scanning correctly, but the scan fails because it can only read around 85–88% of FM's memory, even though the save has already finished loading. I tried again after waiting, but I still get:
"Read failed: The scan could not read 15% of FM's memory. Your existing data was kept."
Quick check: open BepInEx\LogOutput.log in your FM folder. It is rewritten every time the mod layer actually runs. If it is from an older session than the one you just played, the plugin was not in your game.
@Lapidus good thinking, but no shifting memory addresses: the plugin simply was not in the relaunched process, so a reconnect button would have had nothing to talk to. @Wigo this may well be yours too, try the same file, otherwise the "FM will not start" section in the troubleshooting guide.
QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS
@OpticFawn honest answer: unlikely. The plugin leans on Windows-specific plumbing (BepInEx injection, reading process memory), so macOS means rewriting the whole game-side half.
@Kamas1 META_W is the weight per attribute, straight from FM-Arena's attribute testing table. The meta score is the weighted average of a player's visible attributes on the familiar 1-20 scale. Attributes with no measured positive effect are not in the table, and keepers are excluded because the testing could not measure keeper attributes. Which also answers @Panneton0: a GK meta would be an invented number next to measured ones, keepers get role ratings instead.
@Forsti37 your FM24 tool sounds impressive, hope you find a way to release it. That EULA tightrope is exactly why this one is open source, reads memory locally and never touches game files.
I am collecting all feature requests from this thread: USD currency (@johnconnerson), a meta-at-PA column in the table (@kami911, nice work, pull requests welcome), position weighting (@Panneton0), alternative hidden-attribute weightings (@GeorgeFloydOverdosed, if you have data behind your numbers, open a GitHub issue). Some of these will likely make it into an upcoming release.
Thanks to everyone who filed GitHub issues with logs attached. The steam_appid fix exists because one user kept testing until it fell over, so keep the detailed reports coming. Expand
Thank you so much for taking the time to investigate this so thoroughly. I really appreciate the effort you put into tracking the issue down and explaining exactly what was happening.
For now, it actually seems to be working! I created the steam_appid.txt file exactly as you described, and after several launches FMSuperScout has loaded successfully every time so far. Hopefully this was indeed the root cause.
Your explanation also makes perfect sense and matches everything I had been experiencing. The behaviour was always completely random: sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't, without me changing anything. There were even days where it suddenly started working again after previously refusing to load, which made it almost impossible to understand what was going on. Knowing that FM26 can restart itself and that Doorstop then misses the relaunched process explains that inconsistency really well.
I'll keep testing it over the next few days with multiple launches and different saves to make sure the issue is truly gone. If it happens again, I'll make sure to grab the BepInEx\LogOutput.log from the failed session before restarting FM and I'll post it here.
Thanks again for the excellent support and for taking my report seriously. I really appreciate you sticking with this until you found a likely cause. Hopefully this fix will help anyone else who runs into the same problem.
Lapidus said: My wild guess would be the tool somehow fails to recognize when a new save loaded and adjusts itself to the new memory addresses.
Probably, the tool needs an additional features that help to combat that issue, for example, there should be a button that you must click every time you load a new save so the tool to check and correct the memory addresses. Expand
That's actually an interesting theory, and I think a manual reconnect/reinitialize button could definitely help.
The strange thing in my case is that it doesn't even seem related to switching saves.
The whole issue is completely random. Sometimes FMSS works perfectly, then I simply close FM26 normally, come back a few hours later (or the next day), launch exactly the same save, and it suddenly stops working.
When it happens, F9 does absolutely nothing, and clicking New Data always says:
"FM26 is not picking up the request. Is your save loaded?"
Then, after restarting FM26 a few times (or sometimes without doing anything different at all), it may suddenly start working again.
That's what makes it so frustrating. There is absolutely no pattern. I never know:
when it will work, when it will stop working, why it starts working again, or whether anything I tried actually fixed it or if it was just pure luck.
I've already tried pretty much everything: reinstalling FMSS, reinstalling BepInEx, verifying the game files, deleting the FMSS AppData folder, deleting the generated files, checking Windows Defender... nothing consistently fixes it.
So I honestly don't know if it's a memory address issue, a communication issue between FMSS and the plugin, or something else entirely. Your idea could definitely be part of it though.
I'm still having the same issue with FMSuperScout 1.3.1 on the latest FM26 Steam version.
Symptoms:
FMSuperScout works normally for one or more sessions. After closing FM26 and launching it again later (sometimes the next day), FMSS randomly stops working. Pressing F9 does nothing.
Clicking New Data always shows:
"FM26 is not picking up the request. Is your save loaded?"
Sometimes it starts working again completely at random without any obvious reason.
What I've already tried:
Clean reinstall of FMSS. Clean reinstall of BepInEx 6 (IL2CPP x64). Verified FM26 files through Steam. Deleted %LOCALAPPDATA%\FMSuperScout. Deleted request.flag, dump.json, status.json. Disabled Windows Defender Controlled Folder Access. No antivirus besides Windows Defender. Latest FM26, latest FMSS. Same behavior across different saves.
BepInEx log:
BepInEx loads successfully.
The plugin is loaded:
Loading [FMSuperScout 0.1.40] No startup errors.
Sometimes I also see:
Verlopen/onleesbaar data-verzoek genegeerd
(expired/unreadable request ignored).
Since the plugin is loaded correctly but FMSS later reports "FM26 is not picking up the request", could there be a known issue where HotkeyBehaviour or the request listener stops processing requests after restarting FM26?
If there is a debug build or additional logging I can enable, I'm happy to test it.
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!
Use FMST26 (works for FM24 & FM26) and copy paste this into statistics > custom metrics (advanced):
(acceleration * 86.8 + pace * 86.2 + jumping_reach * 46.2 + pressure * 16.7 + dribbling * 14.6 + work_rate * 63.0 + agility * 17.0 + anticipation * 58.2 + composure * 25.6 + stamina * 93.9 + consistency * 14.1 + determination * 30.0 + balance * 13.5 + strength * 1.0 + concentration * 47.3 + finishing * 2.0 + important_matches * 10.2 + natural_fitness * 7.9 + professionalism * 15.0 + ambition * 2.0 + loyalty * 1.0 + aggression * 6.3 + vision * 0.5 + left_foot * 6 + right_foot * 5 - (injury_proneness * (50 / (natural_fitness * 0.85))) - (dirtiness * 32 * (aggression * 0.1))) / 118
Genie Scout file:
https://files.catbox.moe/z7hsqg.grf
Notes:
- Designed to align with the objective results of real players within the English Premier League
- GK not yet done, weights from Premier League 1.0 are used which are decent
- Do not read too much into the specific values for each attribute, I used HarvestGreen's and my own data as a basis to start with, but it's largely just plugging in numbers until I get the output I'm looking for, which is alignment with the rankings. Individual attribute weights will be inaccurate or even superfluous, but it's what they sum up to that matters.
- GS file is a bit less accurate than the FMST26 weights. Highly recommend FMST26 over GS if possible.
I could keep working on this for forever and a day, but I feel like it's good enough right now for a first version.
You can make your own adjustments, add in non-linear formulas, etc. to line up with the rankings better if you like, since the ranking data is really what's solid.
any release for FMSS?
But now I have a bunch of objective player rankings to work with, so I'm currently working a set of weights that lines up with this objective ranking list. And I'm close to done on the first go at this.
Oh, that sounds really interesting. I’d definitely be curious to see how different the new weights end up being compared to the current ones once you’re done. Especially if they’re now being calibrated against an objective player ranking rather than purely the “5th in the PL at minimal cost” benchmark. Please share them when you’re happy with the first version!
and btw, may i ask if you still refer to your ratings, or did you changed/tweaked them?
Pace: 6, Acceleration: 6, JumpingReach: 5.2, Dribbling: 5.2, Balance: 4.8, Concentration: 5.2, Anticipation: 5.2, Determination: 5.6, Agility: 4, Stamina: 5.2, Composure: 4.4, WorkRate: 4.4, Aggression: 4.4, ImportantMatches: 5.2, NaturalFitness: 4.8, Consistency: 5.2, Pressure: 5.2, Professionalism: 5.2,
ST
90% | Erling Haaland - 1st, 1st, 4th, 1st, 2nd, 1st = 1.666 position
87% | Kylian Mbappe - 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 5th, 2nd, 1st, 1st = 2.5 position
87% | Mohamed Salah* - 1st, 3rd, 5th, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 1st = 2.571 position
84% | Heung-Min Son - 3rd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 6th, 4th = 3 position
82% | Daizen Maeda - 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd = 3 position
81% | Kyogo Furuhashi - 4th, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd = 3 position
82% | Vinicius Junior - 5th, 4th, 1st, 3rd = 3.25 position
83% | Harry Kane - 5th, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 1st, 7th = 3.5 position
84% | Robert Lewandowski - 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 2nd, 8th, 5th, 3rd = 3.555 position
79% | Dusan Vlahovic - 1st, 4th, 4th, 5th, 1st, 6th, 4th, 4th = 3.625
83% | Lautaro Martinez - 7th, 3rd, 1st, 5th, 2nd, 5th, 2nd, 5th = 3.75 position
81% | Victor Osimhen - 3rd, 3rd, 7th, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 3rd, 4th = 3.833 position
78% | Lionel Messi - 4th, 2nd, 1st, 5th, 9th, 3rd = 4 position
81% | Viktor Gyokeres - 6th, 4th, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5th, 2nd, 5th, 2nd = 4 position
74% | Donyell Malen - 2nd, 2nd, 7th, 5th, 5th, 7th = 4.666 position
73% | Robert Glatzel - 5th, 7th, 6th, 3rd, 12th, 6th, 2nd, 6th, 8th = 6.111 position
69% | Paulo Dybala - 5th, 5th, 6th, 10th, 3rd, 12th, 6th, 5th, 6th, 6th = 6.4 position
64% | Adam Le Fondre - 8th, 11th (sacked), 5th, 7th (sacked), 6th (sacked), 8th (sacked) = 7.5 position
63% | Luis Suarez - 7th, 9th, 10th, 8th, 8th = 8.4 position
DR
83% | Giovanni Di Lorenzo - 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 9th, 2nd, 5th, 5th = 4.143 position
66% | Kingsley Schindler - 4th, 11th, 6th, 11th = 8 position
It's worth mentioning again that all players were set to 20 ST and nothing else. This will affect a few players slightly.
* I forgot to duplicate Salah first before moving him, so there was no Salah for the opposition. Could redo, but shouldn't make much difference.
what's better in your opinion? FMST26 or FMSS?
Instead the plugin lets every loaded team vote with its next-match date and takes the consensus: always close, works in every save, survives patches. If the gap is bigger than a few days, your dump is just old: press F9 again.
Thanks for the explanation, that actually makes a lot of sense. I completely understand why you're using the next-match consensus instead of trying to locate the real in-game date in memory.
In my case though, the difference is sometimes more than just a few days—it's occasionally a few months behind the actual in-game date.
Also, pressing F9 behaves exactly like clicking New Data for me. It reloads the data successfully, but it doesn't bring the loaded date any closer to my current in-game date. It just reloads the same snapshot/date again.
That said, I'm really not complaining. I'm already happy that everything is working again after the recent fixes. I just thought I'd mention it in case it's useful, and maybe it's something that can become more accurate in future versions. Either way, I'm really enjoying FMSS and I'm looking forward to seeing how it continues to improve.
So far, I haven't had any issues with FMSS—fingers crossed! 🤞
I do have one question though. Why is it that when I load the data, like in this example, it always loads a date that's a little earlier than the actual in-game date I'm currently on? I've attached some screenshots to show what I mean.
First: 1.4.2 is out. It fixes the startIndex crash some of you hit, makes scans fast again (the 1.4.1 snapshot is now only an automatic retry when a live scan misses too much memory), lowers the plugin's own memory use, and adds a check-for-updates button. Problem reports now include scan telemetry automatically. @bf3metro metro this release is aimed squarely at your Win32 1450 and 17% errors: they come from Windows running low on memory with a 157k-player save loaded, which is also why a reboot helped. Update and let me know.
@Purity ty thank you, great list and clearly a lot of care went into it. I went through everything and two of your ideas are coming in the next release: a GK meta score (weights from harvestgreen22's keeper attribute retest, so measured numbers rather than invented ones) and a PA meta column with its own filter. For the other features: pull requests on GitHub are very welcome, one per feature keeps them reviewable and your credit visible.
@Panneton0 noted, and thanks for the offer to test.
DOWNLOAD!
Hi, @mavali!
I saw your message on GitHub. Unfortunately, I can’t test the new version yet because I’m at work, but I’ll install and test it as soon as I get home.
First of all, thank you for taking the time to investigate the issue so thoroughly. I really appreciated reading your explanation because it makes a lot of sense, especially considering the random behaviour I was experiencing. Sometimes it would work after a reboot, sometimes only the first scan would work, then it would suddenly fail for no apparent reason. Your explanation fits that behaviour perfectly.
It’s also clear that you didn’t just patch the symptom—you took the time to identify the root cause and improve the plugin as a whole. I really like the changes you’ve made in 1.4.2. Reducing memory pressure, improving the diagnostics, and making the scanning process more robust overall is exactly the kind of work that gives users confidence in a project.
I’m really hoping this update fixes the issue and that I won’t see those errors anymore. But even if I do, I still wanted to take a moment to thank you.
I really appreciate how much time you’ve spent investigating my reports, explaining the root cause in detail, and helping users who run into problems like mine. You’re incredibly responsive and willing to help, and that’s something I don’t take for granted. To be honest, I’ve rarely seen this level of support from a developer, not even from the Football Manager developers themselves.
I’m also really looking forward to seeing what comes next. FMSS already has a lot of potential, and seeing the amount of care and effort you put into improving it makes me genuinely excited for future versions and the new features you’ll add over time. I honestly believe FMSS has a very bright future ahead of it.
I also noticed that you accept donations. Once I’ve had the chance to test 1.4.2, I’d be more than happy to make one as a small thank-you for all the work and support you’ve provided.
Thanks again, and I’ll let you know how the testing goes!
Unfortunately I'm still getting the same error after updating to 1.4.1.
The plugin is definitely updated, but scans still fail with:
Read failed: The scan could not read 17% of FM's memory.
The save was fully loaded and I waited before starting the scan.
I checked the BepInEx log and I think I found the reason. It looks like the snapshot isn't being created successfully:
No snapshot available (MemoryCaptureSnapshot failed (Win32 1450: Insufficient system resources exist to complete the requested service)).
Falling back to live memory scan (as before v1.4.2).
So it looks like the plugin falls back to the old live scanner, and I end up with the exact same "17% of FM's memory" error as before.
I've attached the console output. Is there anything I can do to help diagnose why the snapshot creation fails with Win32 error 1450?
I have another update.
After rebooting my PC, the scan completed successfully without changing anything else.
This time the log says:
Scan reads from a frozen memory snapshot (VA clone).
and the scan completed successfully.
However, the behaviour is still very inconsistent and seems completely random.
Sometimes the snapshot creation fails with Win32 1450, causing the plugin to fall back to the live scanner, which then fails with the 17% memory error.
Other times the snapshot is created successfully and everything works perfectly.
I also noticed another pattern that might help:
Sometimes the scan doesn't work at all.
Sometimes the very first scan after launching FM works.
But after I continue playing, advance a few in-game days and try New Data again, it often fails with the memory read error.
Occasionally it works again without me changing anything.
It doesn't seem to depend on the save itself, as I'm using the exact same save and settings every time. Likewise, it doesn't seem to be tied to any specific action. The success or failure appears completely random, even under what appear to be identical conditions.
Hopefully this additional information helps narrow the issue down. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to test or any additional logs that would be useful.
Unfortunately I'm still getting the same error after updating to 1.4.1.
The plugin is definitely updated, but scans still fail with:
Read failed: The scan could not read 17% of FM's memory.
The save was fully loaded and I waited before starting the scan.
I checked the BepInEx log and I think I found the reason. It looks like the snapshot isn't being created successfully:
No snapshot available (MemoryCaptureSnapshot failed (Win32 1450: Insufficient system resources exist to complete the requested service)).
Falling back to live memory scan (as before v1.4.2).
So it looks like the plugin falls back to the old live scanner, and I end up with the exact same "17% of FM's memory" error as before.
I've attached the console output. Is there anything I can do to help diagnose why the snapshot creation fails with Win32 error 1450?
new bug.
The steam_appid.txt fix definitely solved the loading issue, as the plugin now loads consistently. However, I ran into a different problem afterwards. The plugin starts scanning correctly, but the scan fails because it can only read around 85–88% of FM's memory, even though the save has already finished loading. I tried again after waiting, but I still get:
"Read failed: The scan could not read 15% of FM's memory. Your existing data was kept."
new bug.
THE "FM26 IS NOT PICKING UP THE REQUEST" PROBLEM (@bf3metro and others)
Found the cause, and it is not random after all. FM26 sometimes closes and relaunches itself during startup (known FM bug, it is on SI's own tracker: https://community.sports-interactive.com/bugtracker/1644_football-manager-26-bugs-tracker/1873_crash-technical-issues/2180_advanced-access-betas-crash-technical-issues/game-crashes-during-initial-launch-via-epic-games-store-and-restarts-automatically-r26602/). When that happens, the mod loader thinks it already ran and skips the new process (known Doorstop bug: https://github.com/NeighTools/UnityDoorstop/issues/34). The FM you end up playing then has no plugin in it at all. F9 dead, New data dead, empty logs. Whether FM restarts itself varies per launch, which is why the tool can work for days and then die without you changing anything.
The fix: create a plain text file called steam_appid.txt in your FM26 folder (next to fm.exe) with exactly this in it:
3551340
That stops the self-relaunch at the source. Credit to frankintheocean, who found it after a lot of patient testing in https://github.com/mavarobli/FMSuperScout/issues/7. The current reports (https://github.com/mavarobli/FMSuperScout/issues/13) match it exactly, and it is now in the troubleshooting guide: https://github.com/mavarobli/FMSuperScout/blob/main/TROUBLESHOOTING.md
Quick check: open BepInEx\LogOutput.log in your FM folder. It is rewritten every time the mod layer actually runs. If it is from an older session than the one you just played, the plugin was not in your game.
@Lapidus good thinking, but no shifting memory addresses: the plugin simply was not in the relaunched process, so a reconnect button would have had nothing to talk to. @Wigo this may well be yours too, try the same file, otherwise the "FM will not start" section in the troubleshooting guide.
QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS
@OpticFawn honest answer: unlikely. The plugin leans on Windows-specific plumbing (BepInEx injection, reading process memory), so macOS means rewriting the whole game-side half.
@Kamas1 META_W is the weight per attribute, straight from FM-Arena's attribute testing table. The meta score is the weighted average of a player's visible attributes on the familiar 1-20 scale. Attributes with no measured positive effect are not in the table, and keepers are excluded because the testing could not measure keeper attributes. Which also answers @Panneton0: a GK meta would be an invented number next to measured ones, keepers get role ratings instead.
@Forsti37 your FM24 tool sounds impressive, hope you find a way to release it. That EULA tightrope is exactly why this one is open source, reads memory locally and never touches game files.
I am collecting all feature requests from this thread: USD currency (@johnconnerson), a meta-at-PA column in the table (@kami911, nice work, pull requests welcome), position weighting (@Panneton0), alternative hidden-attribute weightings (@GeorgeFloydOverdosed, if you have data behind your numbers, open a GitHub issue). Some of these will likely make it into an upcoming release.
Thanks to everyone who filed GitHub issues with logs attached. The steam_appid fix exists because one user kept testing until it fell over, so keep the detailed reports coming.
Thank you so much for taking the time to investigate this so thoroughly. I really appreciate the effort you put into tracking the issue down and explaining exactly what was happening.
For now, it actually seems to be working! I created the steam_appid.txt file exactly as you described, and after several launches FMSuperScout has loaded successfully every time so far. Hopefully this was indeed the root cause.
Your explanation also makes perfect sense and matches everything I had been experiencing. The behaviour was always completely random: sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't, without me changing anything. There were even days where it suddenly started working again after previously refusing to load, which made it almost impossible to understand what was going on. Knowing that FM26 can restart itself and that Doorstop then misses the relaunched process explains that inconsistency really well.
I'll keep testing it over the next few days with multiple launches and different saves to make sure the issue is truly gone. If it happens again, I'll make sure to grab the BepInEx\LogOutput.log from the failed session before restarting FM and I'll post it here.
Thanks again for the excellent support and for taking my report seriously. I really appreciate you sticking with this until you found a likely cause. Hopefully this fix will help anyone else who runs into the same problem.
Probably, the tool needs an additional features that help to combat that issue, for example, there should be a button that you must click every time you load a new save so the tool to check and correct the memory addresses.
That's actually an interesting theory, and I think a manual reconnect/reinitialize button could definitely help.
The strange thing in my case is that it doesn't even seem related to switching saves.
The whole issue is completely random. Sometimes FMSS works perfectly, then I simply close FM26 normally, come back a few hours later (or the next day), launch exactly the same save, and it suddenly stops working.
When it happens, F9 does absolutely nothing, and clicking New Data always says:
"FM26 is not picking up the request. Is your save loaded?"
Then, after restarting FM26 a few times (or sometimes without doing anything different at all), it may suddenly start working again.
That's what makes it so frustrating. There is absolutely no pattern. I never know:
when it will work,
when it will stop working,
why it starts working again,
or whether anything I tried actually fixed it or if it was just pure luck.
I've already tried pretty much everything: reinstalling FMSS, reinstalling BepInEx, verifying the game files, deleting the FMSS AppData folder, deleting the generated files, checking Windows Defender... nothing consistently fixes it.
So I honestly don't know if it's a memory address issue, a communication issue between FMSS and the plugin, or something else entirely. Your idea could definitely be part of it though.
Symptoms:
FMSuperScout works normally for one or more sessions.
After closing FM26 and launching it again later (sometimes the next day), FMSS randomly stops working.
Pressing F9 does nothing.
Clicking New Data always shows:
"FM26 is not picking up the request. Is your save loaded?"
Sometimes it starts working again completely at random without any obvious reason.
What I've already tried:
Clean reinstall of FMSS.
Clean reinstall of BepInEx 6 (IL2CPP x64).
Verified FM26 files through Steam.
Deleted %LOCALAPPDATA%\FMSuperScout.
Deleted request.flag, dump.json, status.json.
Disabled Windows Defender Controlled Folder Access.
No antivirus besides Windows Defender.
Latest FM26, latest FMSS.
Same behavior across different saves.
BepInEx log:
BepInEx loads successfully.
The plugin is loaded:
Loading [FMSuperScout 0.1.40]
No startup errors.
Sometimes I also see:
Verlopen/onleesbaar data-verzoek genegeerd
(expired/unreadable request ignored).
Since the plugin is loaded correctly but FMSS later reports "FM26 is not picking up the request", could there be a known issue where HotkeyBehaviour or the request listener stops processing requests after restarting FM26?
If there is a debug build or additional logging I can enable, I'm happy to test it.
Thanks!
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!