Aiyen

I would still say that the default file would be the best for the basic comparisons of the enbseries.ini. It will always be the same for everyone and hence is a better platform to build on. And who knows perhaps the shots can be used later to show why it is not the optimal thing to use for most styles! Or rather the limitations of it.

Was going to suggest that you look at whatever preset modes your monitor has if one does it but another does not. In general you should always be able to just use the default mode and then tweak that until such issues go away. Most modern monitors have quite detailed settings. On older ones it can be quite a hassle.

Higher resolution means a sharper image. Even if your display resolution is lower. This will never be placebo. Just a matter of taste.

When you look at the mesh then it is kinda obvious why AA goes nuts with it. You have lots of cylinders near each other.... so pixelwise the aliasing overlaps when you move even a moderate distance away from the object, causing the effect to amplify up. It ofc. is going to get worse the lower your resolution. I personally do not like this... I am not really a fan of the tiny spiky look. Guess if I actually did not hate working with nif´s so much I would accept the challenge of the fence!

I did with the palette part.. but the effects descriptions where woefully outdated and very imprecise in their formulation. On that note then one thing that probably needs to be addressed is the fact that there is the default .fx files and modified versions. Quite a few entries in the enbseries.ini will only work with the default enbeffect.fx file... however just about all custom versions make away with the default stuff these days since there is not much point in using it and better stuff is available.

Made various changes all around... in effects I simply replaced what was there in most cases with something more concrete. I also added in a bit about the palette. I guess that will do for now!

Oh sorry missed this one it seems! :) To get it back you simply change the AGCC line to vanilla and voila... All the vanilla post processing is in that single line.

Oh you will now most likely find somewhere else where it does not fit 100% :)

The files generated by MO are based on the originals you create with the launcher the first time you run the game. Which is why it is phrased like that.

In some areas it aint solveable because of the dome square issue. Mist can only hide it so much... and the mesh can only do so much etc.

Search for horizon and we have a thread where it is all explained in great detail why it is like that and how to somewhat fix it and what the new issues this "fix" does. The general gist of it is that you will never get perfect blending... since the game engine have the sky as a dome and not a sphere, and the gameworld is square. Put a square inside a dome and you will never have a full coverage. Anyways... that thread somewhere in the depths of the forums! All the good stuff is there.

Originally when I read this first I considered making a post about balance and scope.. but I see others did most of that. The main reason I do not use any spell mods or enchantment mods is because of redundancy... stuff does things with a rather narrow set of effects and modifiers. Just because a spell has "name that really helps immersion" then it is essentially just a fireball at the end of the day.... roughly speaking. The beauty of spell and enchant mods is that as long as you do not try to force them to be used by every single NPC etc. they are essentially stability free... so people who want them can get them without much fuss about load orders and all the other jazz. So in that regard I will just give people the advice to try them out and hopefully enjoy some of it... it cant hurt. As for balance.. then again as long as NPC´s do not have them then the point is rather moot. Magic and enchatment in skyrim is overpowered by way of the rather simple design the game use. Also the creator of spells etc cannot be held accountable for which perk mod you might be using, as each of those also will make magic more or less powerful. At the end of the day I guess mods that add more magic and enchantment into the game are for people who just want to have some more fun in playing... one way or another.

While I see your argument and think it is entire valid then I still am in agreement with Z more or less. It is landscape textures.. the minute details of up close and personal should not be the main attraction since again that will require at least 2k resolution to be pulled off even remotely successfully. Most of the issues you point out with the fake AO bake I entirely agree with, but overall I think it is still an improvement when you look at it as a whole rather then at specific rocks. The main reason the warping and effects look so off when you go close is that the resolution of the normal map is simply not good enough to pull of that kind of small detail. In cases like this you would be able to see noticeable differences if you make even a loss less format normal map. But again the cost of those is really kinda prohibitive for STEP imo. One can again take a nice look at the 4k versions of the various landscape textures pfusher made... they are absolutely stunning up close and personal with almost everthing in the bake looking spot on... but again the cost.. and tileing of the texture. Since that is another issue with landscape textures... if you make the details too sharp the repetitive pattern will stand out like a bad sore really fast! Hence why it can be a good thing to have some more blurry landcape textures and keeping most of the detail in the normal map.

Well since you took the time to do that additional piece then the least I can do is come with my 5cents this time. In all cases I would say that the more bumpy ones always win. 8: Snow.. not much that can be done in the normal maps for this so... very minor differences all around. The actual snow texture would always matter 100% more then its normal map in that case. 9: On the path down to the water on the left side the difference is quite clear, and the added bumpyness helps the entire thing blend better and look more natural since it removes the flatness. 10: Like on the previous one of the same type then the A one is just weirdly flat which makes it look like the rocks are going into the ground rather then out of it. The B have the extra dimension that helps break it up a bit. One can argue that it might be a bit too strong in those textures cases however. 11: B just looks more natural imo. There just is more depth in that shot where the A one again is just unaturally flat. 12: Now here we have the infamous tiny rocks of meh... However in the B shots they actually blend in better with the terrain then in A. 13: The A one since it is more bumpy. I guess in general when you slide between the two you can really see the bumpy nature of them here and in most cases they make the whole terrain a bit darker overall with the fake shadow effect. I can appreciate that some folks might think it is a bit too much, and I would tend to agree that it mostly is perhaps a little bit over the top.. but overall I still think it is better then just having a flat featureless set.

The main issue with mesh "fixes" is that they are often quite minute and most tend to not notice them.. also they would have to have the meshes installed and use those as a base when doing edits to them. With that comes the issues of "Am I allowed to use these meshes that way?". When I did my rocks for the blackreach type areas then I first did them using just the default.. then a user told me that SMIM had those meshes as well... I was all "dammit" and did it all again using those meshes as a base and then reuploaded... giving brumbek the credit for the UV fixes he had done etc... but it still felt like a bit of a "permission grey area" since I had made rather massive changes to the mesh but so had brumbek.... oh well all this semi legal stuff is just annoying. As for the particle patch.. then yeah SMIM have included them these days. However many ENB installation instructions still have not been updated to include this fact. And again ingame you only really notice the difference of the shader flags, you do not notice a small change to an UV unless you know what to look for. But yeah in general mesh edits are always going to be problematic... in part because of the amount of time it takes to do them! God knows that nif is just a HORRIBLE HORRIBLE format to convert too! Especially from blender! And even from 3dmax and maya... since it does not always set the correct flags at the correct values! Hence you end up with cases of normal maps not working etc... and the solution is non trivial and should be something the converter should do from the start but does not! One really have to wonder how the hell the bethesda crew managed to do it, since they obviously had to have some more specialized tools for the job.. cant imagine them doing the entire game using the 3dsmax converter and a tool similar to nifskope... that would just be inefficient to say the least. ANYWAYS! about the mod. The general premise of the mod I feel just trades one problem for another. Yes you get a bit better blending in some locations, but again you get worse in others. Also the using mainly one texture gets really repetitive after a while I think. In general what mountains and rocks need is the opposite.. but ofc. that would be a MASSIVE undertaking... since... well I just outlined why above! When you then add on the installation issues that are there due to being a mesh replacement on a rather large scale then I just feel it becomes a bit too much. The main scenario I see this mod being used in is for low performance mod lists.. since it does reduce the load a little bit.. so for people where every bit counts then there is always that.

Okay been looking at these a bit longer... and overall then it is really hard to tell from those images since only really the ice stands out in any great amount. 1: A or B really the difference here is so minute that it is almost not worth talking about... going to need more angles of the terrain to determine from imo. 2: A since I just in general like that type of ice more in games... it is not possible to get a realistic looking ice type with the shaders available to the engine. In general the reflection part is always going to be really low res and it will show. the B is just too weirdly smooth with too many small details that just does not fit. If it was me having those I would end up making a mix of the two since then I think it would be better then either of them since they are just a tad too extreme imo. 3: This one is funny because A looks better on the screenshot, but B would probably produce less noticeable "popin" when you transition out of LOD into detail... not 100% sure but just a hunch I got. In general I think both are again too extreme and a middle thing would be the most optimal. It would be the "popin" that would decide which for me... not any shot of it since it is again just too hard to tell. 4: B: is a tiny fraction bit crisper looking to my eyes... but overall they are so identical that it is only because you go pixel hunting that you really find differences. The ground cover texture. In those cases I tend to look which texture has the least repetiveness when you zoom out a bit further.. but that is again mainly something I notice since I prefer to play with low grass densities. 5: Now here I just feel both look equally bad hehe. I am so used to having a parallaxed version for that particular texture and not having it makes to look so artificially flat that it just is... bad. It is really one of those textures that just need a parallax texture imo. It almost always blend well with everything else as long as it has it and on its own just stand out much much better. Also for some reason when I look at it then the pattern it has makes me thing that you are looking in fish eye perspective but this is mostly just due to the way the texture is tiled. 6: Just like B slightly more.. the main thing I notice is the rather low resolution of the dried grass and the dirt. It could be quite a bit better with one step up in resolution. But again since it is a landscape texture then I think it is wrong to look at it closeup like that since it does not show how it tile into the distance etc. 7: B: Since it just has more depth. A looks like it has all the rocks uniformly going into the ground rather then out of it.. and in general it is just too repetitive. B´s added bumping really makes it less uniform and hence nicer to look at imo. In general I think it is worth it to again bring up the point that since it is landscape textures then it is not really the best idea to decide based on closeup compares.. since what really matter is how it blends in with the surroundings at a distance.... one does not spend the longest of time starting down at the ground when playing after all. A good example here are the 4k textures that pfusher has made.. they are absolutely stunning closeup obviously.. but they just tile so badly and stand out when you do not have a high enough grass density to really break the pattern. Anyways that is my 25 cents worth of analysis for now!

Going to say all A´s or all B´s... the differences are in general so minute that it really is above and beyond nitpicking... at least based on those shots. The most noticeable difference is the ice.. but both can look good depending if one likes the coarse style or the more smooth one.

Assuming you want parallax to work then the vivid one.

Now I do not know anything about this game but is it not like skyrim where you can simply open the record for that specific sound and adjust the sound intensity value? And fix it using an .esp rather then a direct file edit ?

It looks nice I think!

My main issue with this would be that the UV map was not really made for wooden textures to be applied... The lines stand out quite noticeably due to it. I would not have much of an issue with reusing the normal map since well.... the carved detail is only in that file. And yeah... well like any high res texture it will stand out badly if placed on top of a low res one! All that said then I do like that it manage to look like a wood material even though the engine is kinda limited in that regard.

I do not really see this as relevant to the textures any more... so perhaps it is best to get back on track! (Man one sounds like an ego bastard when you moderate a thread about stuff you made yourself! )

If you want ELE to reach a wider audience then features like that will most certainly make sure it will happen!

Got to admit that the only reason I am not using these is that they are just too detailed. It is not so much noise... as it is shear amount of tiny details that just distract the eyes when you look at them. In short.. there is no where for the eyes to simply rest and admire the texture. One thing I considered suggesting to you was to keep the normal map but tone down the diffuse to make sure that all the details are not that ... harsh I guess would be the term! But I guess I can see where you want to go with this and doing that would require quite a rework so that is why I have not done so before now! I guess the fact that you have gone to 8k is resolution is also part of the "issue"... you just have had access to way WAY too much detail for a model that is nowhere near a scale that would require it! But ofc. doing overkill is the best way! :D Keep up the good work, and I hope you can see this as a bit of hopefully constructive criticism!

... damn you! :p