z929669

I fixed by adding an 'n/a' fallback where there is no Baseline stated. thanks for letting us know

np, man ;)

Can't really beat that in terms of bang for buck. Seconded.

OK, so several of the preceding posts have been updated, so suggest anyone that was here about an hour before this post re-reads the last few posts :P Start here and read on ... feedback/confirmation would be appreciated! Could we have confirmation that what we have actually does preserve the setting as one would expect? I don't trust either source 100% at this point! EDIT: oh, and I don't trust the ini value (65) at all and never did. Until I have your confirmation (after testing however you see fit), the only sure way to check/set the fov is via the console ... some have reported that the game adds either 65 or 75 as the INI value, depending on hardware detection, but I am not sure.

arrgh. I just discovered my own dyslexia at work ... it is confusing, and I got it wrong again. 16:10 FOV should be lower FOV than 16:9, duh. I had it backwards so updating the post to reflect (read it again if you have not seen this post!) EDIT: ... turns out that my original advice on the wiki was correct, just confusing and left out needed context. I will update once we have more feedback from a few others on this thread.

I wrote it and provided the links ... 'default' FOV depends on your monitor aspect ratio. Purportedly, it's 65 for 16:10 and it's 75 for 16:9 ... but I am not sure it that is absolute fact (can't remember my findings). 16:10 and 75 look best (so after conversion, 16:9 and 81 are analogous). 'Proper' conversion is 81 (if changing to 16:10 from 16:9 where the original is 75) and 60 (if changing from 16:9 to 16:10 where the original is 65) .... but those conversions ONLY matter if you want to keep the Skyrim default FOV when switching to a new monitor with a new aspect ratio in either direction stated, AND you want to preserve the analogous FOV to either of the Skyrim default aspect ratios. (many people agree that the defaults are not 'ideal', because they are more related to the console version of the game and not the LCD of most PCs)). I tested various FOV exhaustively using various scenes and motion in game and measured the relative differences in object sizes as those objects got closer to the edge of the screen (higher FOV results in a larger view field at the expense of linearly-proportional inflation of relative size as objects approach the edge of the screen from center i.e., fish eye). After much testing, I found that one could get slightly more 'immersed' into the content by slightly increasing the view field (seeing more) from the default. For 16:10, increasing from "whatever the default was" (probably 65) to 75 was a good result without obviously deforming the scene (fish-eye look). This corresponds to 81 for 16:9. What is wrong in that description is that I recommended an increase for 16:9 (from 65 to 75) when it actually should be a decrease relative to my assessed 'ideal' for 16:10 (75 to 81). So I recommend using 81 in that calculator for 16:10 and using that value for 16:9, which should actually be 75.1. It is all subjective, but I think that increasing the view is something that everyone wants (reality is 360 ... well, it's really 180 I suppose for those that don't have eyes in the back of their head ), so why not increase it in a way that does not cause any obvious deformation? Makes sense, and I did the work, so may as well share the (corrected) result of that labor. Naysayers, please test default FOV by entering the console and typing ' fov ' then see what it looks like when changing by entering console and typing either ' fov 65 ' (16:10) or ' fov 75 ' (16:9). If there is no change, then you have just confirmed the default for your Skyrim/monitor. Now change using ' fov 81 ' (16:9) or ' fov 75 ' (16:10). If everyone agrees that the difference is an improvement, then this is good advice ;) Also of interest: Preserving FOV in Skyrim

It's probably because the file is not yet available ... will fix the OP

its actually Fallout3, and I think that works OK. Hope you agree ;)

If anyone wants to better understand the '4' GB Limit (even under 64-bit architecture running 32-bit software), then skim this thread, which was where we really began digging into the issue and possibly helping to spur the dev of Boris' and sheson's great contributions (ENBoost and Skyrim memory patch via SKSE)

I hear that. ENB potentially resolves 'stuttering' issues relating to 'low' FPS as well, especially when there is some blurring implemented (sharpness and contrast/brightness differentials between frames can cause these issues ... for the especially astute observer). I appreciate the idea of not using ENB visual enhancements, but there is certainly nothing 'wrong' with it. And ENB memory optimizations are revolutionary, so not using any ENB at all makes little sense.

Thanks for the testing results and advice! I am all for this if nobody pokes any serious holes ;)

still waiting for Yukaza to expound upon revelations of subsequent posters. If there is a magical or scientifically valid 'fix' for Skyrim shadows that is universally applicable, we are all willing to implement ;)

Thanks for setting this up, Tech. Mator, you now have mod permissions under your new forum. you won't be able to move any topics/posts from other forums, but you will be able to do so under your new forum. If you need topics/posts moved into your new forum, just let us know.

Although, I have not experienced what you guys are talking about (not really sure what the issue is either .. you mean clicking "Reply to this topic" or quick reply window at bottom --> 'Post' or both?), I do know that s4n was updating our Tapatalk forum plugin to resolve the redirect problem, so this update process may have resulted in some odd behavior. My guess is that all is well now?? No issues for me, past or present.

I looked at it, and it was a link from previous forum software, so the only way I could dig it up would be to load up the last site into a VM ... prolly overkill for this kind of thing.

Waiting to hear more on this ....

Who are "you guys" and who is "they"?

OK, if you guys can propose the top-level forum name and subforum names (alternatively, main topics can be used/pinned instead of nesting subforum structures) with proposed (brief) forum descriptions, then I will see what works best. Remember that forums are composed of linear topics, so if each of Mator's tools can be easily described in a corresponding Topic OP and supported within this single topic, then subs are not necessary; however, if each tool requires > 1 independent topic thread AND there is reason to expect > 1 topics under the main forum (in addition to subforums), then I think forum + subforum structure makes sense. It is always simplest to limit use of subforums to only forum/topic structures that really require them in order to keep disparate info organized ... otherwise, we create nesting and drill-downs that 'complexify' navigation/searches.

This seems like the best place for such a subforum (

Confirmed. This seems to be an issue with TapaTalk forum integration and Google. S4n may have some ideas.

After a day of settling in, I think this issue has been resolved nicely ;)

Yep, I already figured that out, because there were nonsensical search results for "fallout+4" versus "fallout" ... the latter contained fewer results than the former and the former's results did not make much sense to me. Thus, I eliminated the space and tags are updated. The result was that the fallout tags ceased to display any search results, so I rebuilt the tag cache, but search results for the follout tags are still displaying no results. This tells me that we just need to give it time for the URLs/browsers themselves to recache (not sure what exactly, but it must be a caching issue that should be resolved through time).

Please post your disputes on these INI settings over in teh INI tweaking forum or at the relevant Skyrim/SkyrimPrefs ini forums. Thanks for the input!

Zactly (afterimage). This is what I have always maintained. Anyone that says they can percieve the diff between 30 FPS and 60 FPS are victims of placebo or are noticing some other issue aside from FPS (or they are referencing highly contrasting environments or using extremely sharp and aliased GFX). Neither the human eye nor brain can distinguish any individual frame at speeds of ~20 FPS or higher (but it depends on frame-frame differential ... you would notice a single 1/30 black frame amongst 29/30 white frames, fe.). Another way frames could be distinguished is if objects/scenes are moving very fast (this can happen occasionally when turning your char quickly in game, but you would need to really look for it to actually think you notice it). Realistically, 20-30 FPS might introduce some occasional ability to notice an individual frame or two here and there (i.e., stutter/flicker/whatever), but not so much over 30 FPS. But it has more to do with sharpness/blurriness and converting natural analog signals into artificial digital signals. people will always argue for higher numbers though, regardless of the strength of the argument :/ If you want to increase smoothness of moving digital images, then you need to decrease contrast and brightness, and increase blur (ENB is the answer, believe it or not, even if it costs you 20 FPS in performance)

You should post on Neovalen's thread or in support on that topic specifically (please search for existing posts/answers on the support forums before creating a new one). Neo and WilliamImm are our resident experts on that mod.