stoppingby4now

That's 256 dummy ESM's right?

Also, double check the file size of your Update.bsa file. Version 1.5.26 is ~13MB. Version 1.6 is ~16MB.

I'll know what process does it once it actually happens to me again. Still waiting.

Didn't realize that the save game was included in the count against loaded resources. Good to know. Though it does make sense to ensure all resources are loaded before actually loading the save game, and I'm guessing their treating is any other loaded resource was the easiest way to ensure that happens. So that then begs the question, what happens when you have 255 resources loaded before the save game? Does the game bump the last one off automatically to make room?

Ah, ok, good to know. I haven't played in a couple months now, since I went inactive for school. I'm pretty sure it's not a STEP mod, but I'm doing some checks anyways. My next step (ha! get it?... boy that's gonna get old around here...) is to extract everything from the BSAs and run the texture optimizer/compressor tools over them. Then I actually get to start a new game! I'm thinking of being an evil battlemage dude this time. Slow down on the chocolate!

Whish is awesome as I am a sandy guy :D And it does handle Skyrim quite nicely ... I thought you had an i7 core? Or did you upgrade?

No real flaw in that logic. Especially since you have two video cards, you have far more choices in MB's to support the full PCI-e x16 bandwidth on more than one lane.

Their only resource usage will be memory though. When they aren't doing anything, they are completely idle (at least WB is, I don't have NMM installed currently). My process is using less than 100MB. I don't see any situation where launching from these would cause any problem at all.

To specifically answer this, the reason some folks don't like FXAA is that it causes a lot of texture shimmer. I personally can't stand it. When a setup can handle the extra processing requirements, MXAA + SSAA + SGSSAA produces a far superior scene than FXAA can.

Skyrim.esm is always loaded, regardless of whether or not it is checked in any mod manager. As for CTD's, sorry can't help there. Haven't played the game in weeks now. :(

The last report I received was over a week ago, or so. I have no additional information on exact files, but in my case I was missing TESV.exe, Update.esm, and Update.bsa.

I would recommend doing a search for Ivy Bridge and try and find recent reviews. I haven't kept up with it, but reviews from just over 2 months ago were reporting not that much of an increase in performance over SandyBridge, and general inconsistencies with overclocking and heat issues.Most of the deal with Ivy Bridge is smaller chip sizes and reduced power consumption is it not? Â That said, I've seen a decent jump in performance from Bloomfield to Sandy Bridge, so making the jump to a 2500k/3570k should help there. For RAM, I'd recommend Kingston or Corsair, but anything with a heatsink, decent reviews, and "gaming" in the description should be fine. Good read here on Ivy Bridge that talk about some of the likely causes of hotter temperatures.

I would recommend doing a search for Ivy Bridge and try and find recent reviews. I haven't kept up with it, but reviews from just over 2 months ago were reporting not that much of an increase in performance over SandyBridge, and general inconsistencies with overclocking and heat issues.

I've used Comodo in the past and was very pleased with it. Haven't used ZoneAlarm, but I've heard nothing but good things from friends that do.

I have the 2500k also and I was thinking about giving it a good OC (currently running at 3.6 I believe), but I'm afraid to push it on the stock cooler. Could you recommend a good one for less than 50 or so? I've had my eye on the Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus, but if I can do better for not that much more, that'd rock. The Hyper 212 is one of the best coolers you can buy for price/performance. But i would recommend the Evo version for overclocking as it has more contact between the heat pipes and the radiator. Even then it really depends on how far you want to push it. In a lot of tests with moderate overclocking, the Evo reduces average load temperature by about 3C compared to the Plus.

You only need higher speed RAM if you are going to overclock the ram as well. I'm currently running a SandyBridge i5 2500K which easily overclocked to 4.5GHz, and using 1600 RAM. No need to overclock the RAM at all.

Wow, I need to start watching that author. Very nice detail on the katana.

I do one click installs all the time with WB, so you aren't alone in choosing to do so.

The issue with shadows is that RLwC "adjusts" them to keep them uniform even when you make changes lighting, particularly targetlum values. On the one hand it's nice, because you are able to tweak the lighting without adversely affecting the shadows. The problem is that, due to this "adjusting", it negatively affects ambient light. Not a great example, but it's akin to using a negative light source in 3D rendering to take away light. This is why it is unrealistic. The only way to simulate ambient light leakage into shadows is to increase the brightness. This also then requires adjusting at a minimum targetlum to maintain the lighting that you want. There are two specific things that you can look for that reveal this problem (or at least can confirm if it still is a problem). This will require adjusting values in the ini. Go to Bleak Falls Barrow and enter the main entrance. You will have to keep a very keen eye on the monitor for when the loading screen is done. You will see a very quick clamping of the shadows from Vanilla->RLwC just as your enter (~1 sec). At this point, take a screenshot for comparison later. Keeping all other values the same, decrease targetlum2 in dungeons to increase the brightness of the light sources. Re-enter the dungeon and watch the clamping again. Take a screenshot. Repeat this process as many times as you like decreasing targetlum2 all the while. In my original testing/evaluation, I decreased targetLum2MultiplyerDungeon all they way to 0.2 in 0.1 decrements. When comparing screenshots, you will see the shadows remain consistent throughout the majority of the change. I can't remember the exact figure, but it wasn't till I was somewhere around 0.4 or 0.3 that the shadows finally started to brighten as RLwC was having a much harder time keeping the shadows uniform.This also translates to another problem, and that is the depth of shadows. While looking at a tree with shadows enabled in daytime (with no direct sunlight), compare screenshots of RLwC with either Vanilla or an ENB preset. It becomes very clear at this point that the shadow problem leads to loss of shadow depth, i.e. ambient light is extremely suppressed leaving you with much darker areas within the tree limbs everywhere. Compare with Vanilla or an ENB preset, and even real life. As you look into a tree with dense branches and no direct sunlight, at the outermost portions of the branches, the shadows are lighter. As you examine shadows moving towards the trunk, the shadows deepen as there are more obsticals to block ambient light sources.This is also why a lot of thiefs tend to love RLwC. But the way they are handling the shadows is nowhere near realistic.

For major texture packs (Skyrim HD, SRO) install the low res version (1k). That should easily get you in the ballpark.

You can do it, but i see at least two problems FPS loss which can be an issue for some with uber rig (me included :))PP does not effect game engine calculations. So if you like dark nights and/or doungeons, enemies will see you just as easly as vanilla while with HDR sneaking and related stuff is also modified Fortunately, I have enough horse power to handle that. True that a pure PP solution would not affecting sneaking without providing an ESP to help with that. RCRN for example must be doing something in their ESP to help in this regard, because I never had any problems with sneaking with V2, despite others claims to the contrary. The biggest difference is that it wasn't as drastic as RLwC, which isn't realistic at all due to the shadows problem I already mentioned.

Wow, the video showing Vurt's flora actually looks pretty good, considering the game is a decade old.

Then this probably comes down to their implementation since they modify the HDR. All the more reason for me to go with a pure post processing implementation. Very valid points. But it's important to note that I'm in no way requesting that RLwC remove extra content, just that I would prefer it to be optional. :P

That's exactly what I don't want. What if I don't want increased torch radius, or I want more, or I want differnent looking torches with a different light source. What if I like the fog, or want it modified in a different way that another mod provides? This is where conflicts start to happen, and it proves difficult to find a right balance between what YOU want as options. If all of these additional changes were made completely optional (which they weren't when I evaluated it), that would be another thing. I don't understand what you're saying here. RLwC has been the lightning mod with more customization that i know of. The BAIN installer let you choose between different presets and the patcher let you customize many aspects of the lighting. And now with new weathers and now with the weather / lighting / shadow mods included we'll get less bugs and maybe more customization ( from RLwC 4.0 changelog: New patcher released with much more power and flexibility. (BETA) ). So presets + patcher + Imaginator + FXAA/ENB will give a decent range of customization IMO. Of course we can't customize everything and some changes will remain like the mod authors want (like the 10000 light sources/flames changes :) ) but that's the same for every other lighting mod. I can understand when Sidney says one should test the mod fully before making any changes. To clarify further...I know that a lot of what sparked all of these extra additions was to try and improve the look of their lighting specificaly, but it's being done at the cost of incompatibilities with other mods. I would much rather see all the non-lighting related changes as completely optional. I shouldn't be forced to take in non-lighting changes when all I want is lighting and have to deal with incompatibilities and modifying load order to accomodate, all while hoping that nothing collides in such a way to break one or the other. Unfortunately, there are other lighting mods going this route as well, it's not unique to RLwC. I would prefer to see more collaboration in all of the "extras" into stand-alone mods. Again, I'm about choice. I use STEP as a baseline, but I don't take everything. Some mods I replace with ones that I like better, some I don't install at all, and in several cases I add mods. This one size fits all mentality doesn't sit well with me personally, but that doesn't mean it won't be the perfect solution for others. But to truely cater to more people, you need options, plain and simple. I need to evaluate the current release again, but unfortunately I'm trying to track down a problem with SU, so I haven't been able to play the game.

There are known compatibility issues with mods that modify torches, spells, and fog. I'll be honest and say I haven't kept up with the latest development to know if they have been resolved or if any new issues have surfaced. But the with the incompatibilities that have surfaced with the small changes to date, one can't but think there will be many more with the massive inclusion of weather effects. I'm of the camp that users should be able to choose what they want to use. As Fri stated, PP is subjective, and one size does not fit all, which is what they are trying to do. It will surely fit a lot of users tastes, just not mine. I had brought up the shadow problem awhile ago, so either my voice wasn't heard, or they just don't plan on working on it at all. It may not be a simple thing to change either, I don't know. I'm just more discriminative when it comes to lighting mods, but that doesn't mean it's not a good solution.