TechAngel85

Some of that looks like specular, or alpha of the normal map. It likely needs to be reduced on some of those grasses. The brighter the alpha, the more glare it's going to have. No alpha will be interpreted as a pure white alpha.

How are you running with ENB Lights? They do the same with the shaders.

Did anyone ever contact the author about incorporating the fixes from these other mods?

I finally watched this video today and it was fairly well done. Here's my thoughts: Honorable mention & Personal favorite: Nature of the Wild Lands This mod beautifully fills out the forest! The areas completed look like real, diverse forests. It's rare that you only find a specific tree in a forest so I love that it makes them more diverse. The aspens also look amazing and on par with Aspens Ablaze. The only issue here is that it's unfinished so it remains just an honorable mention. Once completed, it will be awesome! For vanilla "enhanced" replacements: Enhanced Vanilla Trees & Myrkvior These two mods are the best vanilla-like replacements of the lot. We're currently using EVT, so I think we all know how that one fairs. It's nearly a direct vanilla replacement, as seen from the compare video, which is using the Lush version and is what I recommend for EVT users. The only significant deviations are a couple of the dead pines. Myrkvior is essentially "EVT enhanced". I think it might even use some EVT assets. Some pines look like EVT's pines, but other models are also added for diversity. I'm not an enormous fan of the green on the snowy pines, but I get that it's technically more accurate. It's just a bit too bright, imo. The aspens are lusher and taller vs vanilla/EVT, but are for some reason green by default. There are options to change that to vanilla yellow or RAT colors. If I used this mod, I would likely keep Aspens Ablaze in my mod list to overwrite it. All things considered, Myrkvior would be something I'd recommend for someone who wanted to stay remarkably close to vanilla, but desired to add a bit more "oomph" to the trees. For vanilla-like interpretation (but completely new): SFO & Ulvenwald Carpathian Forest SFO requires no introduction or review. We are all likely familiar with it. In my opinion, SFO is the most vanilla-like interpretation that still presents something new. Vurt has produced his work for years, and it shows. If you selected the vanilla trees and gave them a facelift to something more modern, it would likely land somewhere close to SFO. As such, SFO tends to fit in nicely with just about any setup, like our two vanilla "enhanced" replacements above. Ulvenwald Carpathian Forest is something that caught my attention and made me think there might be something to look into. It's very beautiful. The pines are unique but still very lovely. I love the snowy pines! Vanilla snowy pines are just painted textures, which I've never cared for because they do not replicate real snow on branches. Ulvenwald is one of them that corrects this. The aspens are are vanilla sized, but reshaped to look more like an aspen. They are just as lovely to look at vs some of the other compares. My sole concern is that all the trees seem a bit thinned out and sits just above vanilla in lushness. I'm suspicious this might make the landscape look less dense since I'm accustomed to EVT Lush pines. I couldn't tell from the video, so I would have to see more of the mod to know if that would be an issue for me or not. EDIT Ulvenwald Carpathian Forest is now Traverse the Ulvenwald. I can see from some of the shot that my thoughts about the forest looking thinner may be true. One of the reasons I like Nature of the Wild Lands is because it really feels full and "wild". The pines from this mod many have the opposite effect. Would need to look in-game to be sure. Okay, so the burning question..."Why not Happy Little Trees for this made up category of mine?" I know many users have endorsed this mod. Why don't I? Honestly?...many of the trees look unusual to me. Regardless of all the mesh correction that may come with the mod, many of the trees look...weird...in one way or another and it's all design choice. First is the choice of barks. Lets face facts, when you're running through the forests you're predominantly seeing bark in your field of focus. The pine bark just looks off. There's at least two types and one of them (the more predominate one) lacks depth and detail, making it bland and stick out in many of the lighting situations I've seen. The trunks of these trees also feel a bit too large to me; however, that could be the bark making it stand out too much. The branches are excellent on all the pines, though. Snowy pines have the same bark issue. As for the aspens, they simply look unusual to me. Nothing about the trunk/branch structure says "aspen" to me. The base of the trunks is too large, which creates an odd and quick narrowing to the tops. Aspen trunks should be narrower for those size of trees. Next the branches coming off the trunks are bendy and wavy with flowering branches of leaves at the ends. Aspens branches tend to be more straight with smaller branches shooting off along the entire length of the primary branch, thus filling out the entire length of the larger branch with leaves. This design is simply odd to me for an aspen tree. Finally, their pastel colored leaves aren't to my personal tastes. The same tree design is repeated in the Reach trees and just looks odd. The other mods in the compare are all good in their own right, but are all larger deviations than I would care to play with.

I've split out this support from the other topic.

If your folder structure is correct, it shouldn't say that. Incorrect structure is the only reason I can think of that MO would say that. I don't now the process so I don't know the structure used. Can you post an image of your folder?

I seen this and it's using Base Object Swapper to achieve it. I'm more curious as to how it will play with our lantern setup. We have lanterns with and without ENB lights. Some vanilla references, some unique references. Like our Post-processing Patch swaps these out already via plugin. Add this would seem like there is a lot going on around lanterns.

I should have them done sometime tomorrow.

I updated the mod page for clarification. It added a new version without FISS support.

I've been using this and it works as advertised. Not much else to say.

It's a bit of a deviation from vanilla, however, I personally prefer this one. All the others are a hot mess, which may be more an issue with vertex colors on the mesh than the textures themselves. I'm actually quite fond of it after running around a bit and seeing it in action. I tried the vanilla size option and got to say I'm keeping this one in my load order regardless of the outcome of the voting for Step. I went right up to one as if harvest to grab a compare: Step > The Mod It's not as thick, and that is my only complaint! Beside that, I quite like it. It's just enough pop to grab your attention and looks absolutely beautiful! I understand the author wanted to keep the polys as low as possible while still making it 3D. However, I wouldn't hesitate to install a higher poly version that was fuller, if the author ever made one! The trade-off of the 3D it's a bit less full when looking at it from the side vs Step/vanilla. However it's only any issue if it's placed on bare ground. When combined with any grass it blends very naturally, imo. I vote, yes, for this one despite the bit of deviation.

After looking in-game, I don't think this one quite stands up to the task as proper replacer for vanilla for Step. I look for things beyond just the visual these days. For a plant of this size, it's not just for looks and harvesting, but to also fill in some spaces. At first glace, it's doesn't look so bad: Step > This Mod However, when looking at if it fulfills it's job at filling spaces, it falls a bit short. It also looks more out of place in this shot: Step > This Mod I would have to give this one a "No" vote for the time being, but I'm definitely tracking it.

It's most likely not needed. I've been running without it. It's not been updated for all the newest textures and was meant to be retired. I guess SP left it up when he updated. We've never fully tested the ENB Rain option. I know it works with ENB and shouldn't be installed when ENB isn't present, but that's about it.

Discussion topic: Cathedral - 3D Lavender by DrJacopo Wiki Link We tested some lavender a while back and nothing looked particularly good. This might be worth a look. The 2D to 3D is probably worth it, but haven't tried in-game.

Mod has updated on AFK, for anyone not tracking it.

Not that I'm aware it. It could possibly be the mesh. I think I remember seeing this before and determined it was just another Skyrim oddity. I never really messed with the mesh much, though.

I think those are actually decals on that object.

You should be able to simply add an exception or two to your antivirus. Disabling it completely is overkill and shouldn't be required. As for removing BCS from the patches, there are a couple threads around describing how to remove plugins from the patches. You should find them when searching. I don't think the patches alters any locations so most of the changes should be restricted to the Book tree in xEdit for object bounds, text and model/texture records. You may find a script or two forwarded.

We've tested all of Mari's stuff individually and none of them were accepted due to simply not fitting in well with the lighting and coloring not fitting into the landscape very well. Many were far darker than they should have been. Mari's stuff seem to be geared toward a specific style, which doesn't match well with the SE Guide. As for the deviation, there are too many types of RL thistle to completely narrow it down (vanilla looks most like the Cali thistle, imo). It's probably just going to be another case of deviation along with the other things we have that deviate. Usually these are things that are terrible enough in vanilla that some deviation is acceptable, assuming the votes are there to override such deviation.

Oh, those are neither here nor there to me, don't really matter. Just the way the user worded things, it seems they're saying it is a master.

WACCF shouldn't be a master of the CR Patch. That's why we have a separate WACCF Patch, now. We'll have to check.

You left the Landscape for LOD from Cathedral Landscapes enabled. That mod should be disabled after running xLODGen.

Yes, I just seen two admin jumping on board with the feature so I wanted to be sure mention the Mandate, personal games aside.

If he doesn't want someone updating mods he's released under licenses that allow them to do so, then maybe he should get it together and stop procrastinating. I understand being busy in real-life, but you can't tell me you couldn't find the time in the past 5 months. At that point it's become a choice to not update due to whatever reason. I'm speaking from personal experience. People are only going to wait so long before they take matters into their own hands, and we're already past that point.

Turning off the disarming feature doesn't fit Mandate. Just putting that out there. It's meant to be a part of the game and we shouldn't make it null just because we don't like it and it causes us to lose weapons. Of course, the losing weapon through structures is an issue, but not the fault of the disarming shout. It's more likely an issue with poor collision.