TechAngel85

@Hishy Relativity. You're right, you can't compare the CPU and GPU apples to apples. They are completely different technologies. So as a technician, you have to use relativity when comparing. If the CPU is at 25% and the GPU is at 30%, which is working harder when comparing their individual work forces? The GPU is. This means the GPU is relatively working harder than the CPU is. This is tech basics 101 when you take classes. @Teabag86 Thanks for the feedback!

After you said that, I went back to look at the graphs closer and I would say it's pretty even between the CPU and GPU, but the GPU is working a bit harder. When you have dips, they both have a raise that is fairly even in most cases, however, the GPU generally stays higher than the CPU output.

Yep, this is how we instruct users to clean the game files in the STEP Guide. This way, even if you have to verify your Steam cache, you won't loose your cleaned files from Steam replacing them.

Then you'll need to move the cleaned version (should be in your Data directory) into a mod and activate it in MO.

Have you cleaned the Update.esm file? If so, and if you stored it in a mod, ensure you have it ticked and activated.

Just out of curiosity I ran JK Lite around Markarth as well. Here are the results: It was mainly a smooth 60FPS besides those couple dips. Around the 30 mark is where I coc into Markarth. The 3 dips, I believe, are from looking towards or at the smithing area. This is with: VanillaHRDLCUSLEEPSTEP Optimized Textures Having optimized textures (which I consider a basic need when modding much like USLEEP) looks as though it's making a difference since your graph is more up and down in the FPS. That or I just have a more optimized system.

What is around the 48 mark during your walk in Markarth? This dip is consistent across the board.

Over time I've found Skyrim to be more GPU intensive than CPU. My i5 (stock) handles the game just fine. I've never once had the need to overclock it. When my FPS drops it's typically the GPU's fault. My GTX 760 still runs the game great, imo. I have ELEP installed with a few select effects enabled and Vivid Weathers as my weather mod. The game stays mostly around 60 FPS with some drops into the 40s in specific areas. If I remove those two mods, it's mainly mid 50s to 60 FPS at all times. With that said, I am looking into upgrading my video card in the Spring since it's a few generations old now but am still not completely decided on that yet.

That's what I was trying to say. It's not a lot of work to get it working in mostly its current state. That's what I meant by it just needs a little love. @hishutup I agree that most of the town overhauls can be made compatible. All they have to do is start with ICAIO as a base. Unfortunately, this means a lot of re-work for the authors which is why I think it hasn't been done. It doesn't help that Shurah isn't the easiest person to work with. Nazenn did most of the work for JK Cities with JK Lite and Superlite, but ETAC still needs a lot of re-work to make it 100% compatible. I personally prefer Dawn of Skyrim because it seems to be the lighter choice of the three (or used to be...haven't looked in on it in quite a while).

It's true the Pack needs some attention, however, it should be a continuation of what CJ and Nearox set up. Most of that above can be handled in a custom patch which is what the authors were providing. Once the Pack infrastructure is officially released, we'll be labeling all packs that aren't compatible anyway (which most aren't even finished or are out of date like this one). It just needs some love as long as it isn't butchered. :: Btw, I have some inside info on ICAIO and it's also getting more and more compatible with other mods as it's being developed.

The authors created the pack to be expansive and easy to install. Removing all the mods that are in another pack doesn't make sense. This pack as never made to be an addon to another pack, but a pack of its own built off of STEP:Core or Extended as its base. This one was actually one of the few true (and completed) "packs" from a STEP standpoint. Taking away the patches also takes away from the simplicity of installing the pack. All in all, I would say no one that has Pack Author rights to edit the pack should depart from the original intent of the pack. If a more simple pack is desired, make it a new or alternative pack to REGS.

And all that would pull away from the original intent of the pack which is why I'm not really liking the idea.

That would really alter the completeness of this pack. I wouldn't recommend doing that. I've been wanting to fix it up myself with patches and all, but haven't found the time to do so.

Red ones are not necessarily bad, but you're right. Doing a custom patch does take time and knowledge of what you're doing. You have to know which record from which mod should be winning the conflicts. This can only be done by understanding what the conflicting mods are trying to do and what the end result is suppose to be. Like I said, this is an advanced modding topic. No one can really walk you through it. The best we can do is provide you the general information and from that you'll have to learn and figure things out. I don't know about the "Delinquent Master Error" is until you're missing some masters that is required for the STEP Core Patch plugin. Hover over the plugin in MO (right pane) and see if it says it has missing masters. Here are some help videos I looked up: Those authors/modders in the videos above are top notch. Hopefully they'll get you started.

Fixed. Thanks!

I'm about exactly the same as soupdragon on Endorsements. Downloads != People enjoying the mod and then would endorse. If anything, the endorsements would be a more accurate depiction of the amount of users enjoying your mod. For my mods I don't pay attention to the stats. I have no idea as to what their current values are. I mod because I enjoy it. If only one other person would enjoy it too, then uploading it was worth it, imo, because I've provided enjoyment for at least one individual in this crazy world.

Sounds like an issue that needs to be reported to Boris.

That guy was telling it like it is. Nice.

I have no idea why it happens. I know how to fix it with Nvidia, but not with AMD. Hopefully an AMD user will come along that knows. It only happens with fire and spells for some reason that I've seen. I'm guessing it has something to do with their constant animation.

Let me know if that fixes it. I just assumed you was running an ENB preset.

Oh... Well, then set this: UsePatchSpeedhackWithoutGraphics=false UseDefferedRendering=falseto this: UsePatchSpeedhackWithoutGraphics=true UseDefferedRendering=falseWhen you decide to install a preset change it to this: UsePatchSpeedhackWithoutGraphics=false UseDefferedRendering=true

Try looking for a setting in your drivers for "Adaptive Anti-Aliasing" and ensure it's off/disabled. Also, turn off/disable SSAA. You should only be running Multisample AA (MSAA).

Turn off super sampling in the driver to see if that fixes it.

In your SkyrimPrefs.ini under the display heading, you'll find a value for transparency multisampling. Set the value to 0.

I'm not sure what the AMD values are that you need to adjust. I'm running Nvidia. I just know that is the cause of the issue. AA on transparent textures (fires, spells, etc) cause a small black outline. You may have to play with it until you find what gets rid of it for you.