TechAngel85

Woohoo! Got my copy of free XCOM: Enemy Unknown today!

Ah! There you are! Was waiting for you to pop in on this. Any specific reason for the BSA extractions?

I never assume. Since the mokeycid didn't report back it's possible he got distracted and simply forgot or a million other things. I want the report "straight from the monkey's mouth"...hahaha!

Did the water fix mod help?

I downloaded Immersive Armors just to take a peak. One ESP is needed and one is, in fact, a dummy (verified with TES5eidt). If the user deleted both ESPs, this would result in the issues here. If the file he used for the conflict resolution was out of date or wrong, it would also have caused these uses. Since the support took place in PMs there is no way to know for sure if either of those were the case or not (do your support in the threads!). I see absolutely no reason why IA wouldn't work being kept in its BSA. Obviously it is working or the author would provide it as loose files. I honestly think this is simply a combination of bad, or at the very least strange, advice and/or user error. I also noticed Neo is saying to delete the dummy ESPs when they should really be moved to Optional ESPs rather than being deleted. His "best modding practices" don't seem to be on level with what is generally now recommended. We all did a ton of research and discussion to discover some of these practices. Then again, though they should follow the common best practices, authors of other guides sort of have the privilege to tell users to do what they want. It is them that should have to deal with the support when issues pop up.

For some reason some users have issue with the DoF underwater. That is why turning it off in the INI worked. The Green Water Fix should work for you (even though your water isn't green). That mod removes the DoF underwater.

In more simple terms, extraction is mainly only required when files need to be hidden, altered, or separated from the main mod for various reasons. I'll add to that by saying BSA extraction is currently not required when only using STEP. Other Guides/Packs may have different requirements; however, BSAs in STEP can and should remain in their archived states.

Tried the mesh and it didn't seem to do anything. Here's the final result until I figure something else out. The fact that it's a vanilla issue actually makes it okay for what I've doing. Vanilla >> ENB

Forums here or on ENB Dev? I've searched on ENB Dev without much luck. EDIT: Found this but it basically only tells me what I ready knew: https://forum.step-project.com/topic/5122-skyrims-horizon-mesh-and-enbs-and-the-challenge-of-fixing-it/?hl=%2Bhorizon&do=findComment&comment=88940 and there is an updated mesh file here: https://enbseries.enbdev.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1930&p=52290&hilit=horizon+color#p52290 I think Vividian solves the majority of this issue with distance fog/mist somehow. I've at least never noticed this issue while using Vividian. I'll have to look into that more I guess. For now, I'll just not include any of the sky fixes besides the sun.

Okay, have a quick question for you ENB authors. I'm playing around with enbseries.ini. Here's the two shots: Vanilla >> ENB >> Edited Fog I need to know what controls the horizon coloring. It looks like it's just completely desaturated. EDIT: Apparently that darker area is the fog and not the horizon. The horizon sets just above it. Adjusting the fog to 1.0 fixes most of the issue however, there is still some areas that don't match up. Strange use of fog for blending... I was going to try to fix the skies for this test preset I'm doing but it's becoming a pain in butt. *how to get rid of the blending issue *

You took the ability to use the original post processing out of your enbeffect.fx file... I was going to use Vividian Vanilla performance version as a base for an idea I've had for a while, but seems like that isn't going to work. Guess I'll be doing to the hard way because all the coding in there is Greek to me to be able to try to add it back in.

This happens when Boris updates his page names to and from .htm and .html. He seems to do this unusually often for some unknown reason. I'm guessing he's using some editor that saves the page names a different way than from when he originally creates them... I'll fix the link.

I don't have that issue with a full install so it's possible that it'll be cleared up later. This is especially true if you have XP32 Skeleton installed and haven't ran FNIS yet.

DarkOne has specifically told me that without express permission from the author, it's not allowed; even if the author is MIA and the mod has been dead for some time. This is the very reason I have yet to upload my FOMOD fixed mods to Nexus. EDIT: Here's his reply to my uploading of mod fixes:

Thanks! ...and all this time I haven't been getting the full effect of Vividian...downloading now.

Is the Extended Weathers download the same thing as the "Vividian - Weather Patch Vanilla.esp"? If not, is it compatible with the Vanilla version?

Moved to Oblivion sub-forum under Packs.

Cool, that was my assumption of what it did.

What Z said above is completely true. The mod will stay in STEP and it will be a personal preference whether or not any user wants to use the mod.

That's why I try not to look too closely and simply play the game normally. I am rarely standing around thinking, "that blade of glass back there look weird...better so look at it up close"; which is the reason I never noticed any of this before. Obrother got me looking at these textures/normals up close and that was that...can't unsee the seen. In actual gameplay there's not going to be a lot of difference and is the reason I said earlier that it will most likely come down to personal preference. I think I'll add the compares to the OP just for reference sake. I might add some more to them too...or not. Idk, I'm not in the mood for compares at the moment.

I think my problem is, now that I've seen the compares (much more than what I've posted here) it's hard to unsee the inconsistency. Where I once only noticed some odd shadowing on texture here and there (didn't know it was TB at the time but do now), I now see issues everywhere with TB enabled because I know that "shadow" on that texture is suppose to be a rock...not a shadow. So I'll be playing with TB disabled so I can actually play and not be distracted by this and that texture as I'm running by it.

Okay, time for my detailed review while my pizza cooks... Basically I'm choosing the original normals for all sets, but let me explain why that is and what the issue(s) is/are with each set. Some of it will simply be personal preference while the rest will be for my OCD to be subsided. Set 1 & 8 B, the original normal. This is for /roads/road01snow01_n.dds. If you look around the base of the stones, you can notice blurriness and stretching of the snow texture. This is because the texture is provided by HQ Snow which covers more of the path with snow and shows less of the stones. Since the TB normal is for HRDLC which has more of the stones showing, you are left with stretching around the base of every stone on the path. Set 2 & 3 2) B=original, 3) A=original. These, as I mention above, are for glacierslab_n.dds. I personally like TB up close but the original (which is from Real Ice) from a distance. As Aiyen pointed out, pop-in is an issue with the TB normal and makes it very noticeable; much less so with Real Ice. I think a balance between the two would be the best option here but for now we're left at choosing one or the other. For myself, I find the pop-in far more distracting so I'm going for the original here as well. Besides, I'm level 21 with my current character and have seen very little of this texture while playing. Set 4 & 9 Original is B and it's fieldgrass02_n.dds from Skyrim Flora Overhaul. This is one where my OCD kicks in. The TB normal isn't just a little bit off, SFO is completely different making it way off. If you look at the details in the texture from SFO vs TB, you'll notice that everything is warped and some of the details become completely unrecognizable. The color change with the "fake shadow effect" also bothers me because for me, I can see "dark shadow lines" running across the texture up close. Set 5 Original is A and it's riverbededge_n.dds from SRO. To be honest here, there isn't much difference in the shots besides the "fake shadow effect". There is some very slight, barely noticeable stretching around the base of some of the rocks as well. Set 6 Original is A and it's pineforest02_n.dds from SRO. This one is completely different like Set 4; however, it's not as noticeable. The main issue here is the "fake shadow effect" because it is not well placed on the texture (of course because they don't match). The shadowing should be appearing below the green leaves in order to give them the appearance of height and depth, however, the shadowing is just planted (no pun intended) on top of the texture which means it's on top of the leaves. Not anywhere close to where it should be. Some leaves are half covered in shadowing while others either are covered completely or not at all. Very inconsistent and incorrect. Set 7 & 10 7) A=original, 10) A=original. This is tundrarocks01_n.dds from SRO. I will agree that in certain situations TB can look better; however, just knowing what it's doing to the texture bugs me. The original shape of the rocks are completely warped out of shape. There is also that "fake shadow effect" in-between the rocks everywhere. It shouldn't be there at all because that is actually the placement of the rocks in the HRDLC texture; therefore, those "shadows" you're seeing between the rocks are complete foobars since that "shadow" is actually where the normal is placing a rock where no rock exists. Set 11 Original is B and it's fieldgrass01_n.dds from SRO. I think we're all in agreement that the original looks better here. Set 12 Original is A and it's fallforestdirt01_n.dds from SRO. Same issue here is mainly with that "fake shadow effect" you guys talked about. If you look closely, some of those shadows are actually round spots. That is because the TB normal is putting a rock there where none exists so you end up with a round, shadow dot on the ground. (Yeah...that's better. Not!) The TB normal also completely flattens out other rocks that are obviously not suppose to be flat. Set 13 Original is B and it's....I'm not postive..this was a stumble find but the texture is SRO. Same as above, fake shadow effect is bogus because those are suppose to be rocks, not shadows. I also think the original blends better because the color matches the edges of objects better, like the large boulder; whereas, the TB color change doesn't match at all. Basically those are the issues with using the TB normals with the SRO textures. It would be nice if there was a SRO version of TB, but there's not. I will not being using TB in my personal setup anymore; however, from the tallies it looks like it'll be staying in STEP (unless my arguments against it here has swayed the crowd) and in my STEP profiles (just not in my personal one).

I don't have the readme. I usually delete them so if it was included with the original mod, I don't have it anymore.

I'm not positive. I tried to research it, but came up with nothing from Boris. Maybe Aiyen will pop in here to shine some light on it.

I'd like to thank everyone here that contributed for you contributions. For now, I'm considering the Guide complete and will attempt to revisit it once a month to keep it up-to-date. I will keep this thread open for the next couple of weeks for Keith and any others to report any oddities or corrections. Once closed, I'll post a link to the ENB Guide thread for any future posts and replies. Again, thank you all! You've been a great help in getting this Guide to where it needs to be!