z929669

Definitely better with lower brightness (but lighting will impact greatly). I like it. Whether or not it is an improvement is subjective I guess. I am not sure what a wisp mother is supposed to look like :P

OK, thanks. I did some research on Boris's forums, and it appears that: UseDefferedRendering=true... enables AA/AF and other graphics settings in enblocal.ini. I am guessing that this setting does not impact anything in enbseries.ini though. Further research and my own testing indicate that: UsePatchSpeedhackWithoutGraphics=true... in fact does disable enbseries.ini-related graphics (and all downstream ENB graphics) but has no impact on: [ENGINE] ForceAnisotropicFiltering=true MaxAnisotropy=16... since I have proved (to myself) that AF is still effective (by comparing screens with/without using my graphics and enblocal.ini as independent sources. Same is true for the FPS limiter (verifiable via hotkey) and vsync in enblocal.ini, so my guess is that UsePatchSpeedhackWithoutGraphics has no impact on enblocal.ini-sourced graphics (that is likely UseDefferedRendering as mentioned above). Again, this is partly fact and partly my own speculation based on my own testing and interpretation. I suspect that Neo suspects issues with Boris's occlusion culling, and that is why he recommends disabling. Boris does mention that it is incomplete in both its scope and effectiveness. EDIT: I also see now that in your previous post (the one that I highlighted your assumption and responded "not so") was correct and I was wrong. "yes, so". I misinterpreted what you were saying. Turning off: UseEffect=false... setting under enbseries.ini seems redundant with: UsePatchSpeedhackWithoutGraphics=true... but the latter may be more efficient (I do both).

Hey dude, could you make a guide on how to disble all the effects of an enb but keeping only the parallax effects, like you did with enboost.So I believe if you leave the UsePatchSpeedhackWithoutGraphics=false in enblocal.ini, then open up ebseries.ini and set the first line to false: UseEffect=true->false. That should turn off all the graphics but allow all the stuff on the enblocal.ini to work. You'd have to customize everything accordingly though, like AF, occlusion culling AA, vsync, fps limit, and the other fixes. Example for that section: [FIX]FixGameBugs=true FixParallaxBugs=true  FixAliasedTextures=true IgnoreLoadingScreen=true IgnoreInventory=true FixSsaoHairTransparency=false FixTintGamma=true RemoveBlur=false FixSubSurfaceScattering=false FixSkyReflection=false FixCursorVisibility=true I will make it a point to update the enblocal.ini section of the guide today... or maybe tomorrow... or never, who knows with these things. :pNot so. enblocal.ini settings work regardless, and if you delete enbseries.ini, it is regenerated with UseEffect=true. I do set this to 'false' just in case it prevents futile initialization or processing, but it has no impact on enblocal.ini as far as I can tell. Specifically, enblocal.ini triggers/settings under [ENGINE], [LIMITER] and [iNPUT] all have measurable effect (so I assume the whole INI is always processed and applied when present along with the specific d3d9.dll that it is tied to). It would be great to have some feedback on some things I found (see this post for details) as well as the [PERFORMANCE] settings: [PERFORMANCE] SpeedHack=true   ; why not "false"?? EnableOcclusionCulling=false   ; why not "true"??

TESTING NEEDED FOR 2.2.8 GUIDE I need some help testing some new settings that I am now using to fix issues related to microstutter and vsync. Currently, the guide recommends the following (probably incorrectly though). These settings are based upon my own experience with this issue, which is caused by frame rates that are higher than monitor refresh rates. I helped to resolve without using any tools other than graphics-driver settings and FPS limiter (not ENB) ... but there are caveats ... read through this whole post, as not all info is correct (I added corrections further below): [*]vsync to "always on" (via graphics software) [*]enable triple buffering (via graphics software) [*]enable FPS limiter (using Nvidia Inspector or enblocal.ini [AMD users]) This does resolve microstutter outdoors for the most part on my system, but there is still just a tiny bit along with slight screen tearing with horizontal panning, and the stutter is still present indoors. This is all much worse without the previous settings though. EDIT: This was faulty logic on my part. FPS limits reduce tear, while vsync eliminates tear ... vsync makes the most sense if the frame rate will always exceed the monitor refresh rate (pretty much impossible in graphics-modded Skyrim even with the best video card), but it also paves the way for D3D tri-buffering, so it is useful for most everyone playing Skyrim; thus FPS limit makes sense with vsync OFF not on. However, in playing around with enblocal.ini, I have found that the following two settings completely resolve microstutter and screen tearing indoors and outdoors on my system, resulting in liquid-smooth camera movement in-game: EnableVSync=true ; default is "false"VSyncSkipNumFrames=0 ; only works if EnableCSync is "true"Further, I do not need to enable FPS limiter or triple buffering at all! EDIT: I now speculate that ENB provides triple buffering whenever EnableVSync=true. Can anybody verify that this works on their system? What is your GPU/VRAM? Additionally, I am able to squeeze out an additinal 3-4 FPS by running Anisotropic Filtering via my graphics software rather than through enblocal.ini, and no other enblocal.ini graphics enhancements are necessary (unless ENB effects are desired).EDIT: more testing on my end reveals that the microstutter only occurs when FPS is lower than 60 FPS (my monitor refresh rate), because when I invoke the limiter, I get microstutter at high frame rate (looking upwards outdoors or within city/indoor cells), but no detectable difference when outdoors looking across the landscape (where my FPS drop to below 40). Unlimited FPS with vsync (in enblocal.ini) puts it to bed completely. Again, my graphics triple buffering, forced vsync and enbseries.ini FPS limiter helps, but does not eliminate by any means ... enblocal.ini EnableVSync eliminates though. I assume that VSyncSkipNumFrames=1 (or 2 or 3) may help some people with high monitor refresh rates and certain GPU/drivers, but those values only cause either flicker (1) or strobing-trailing (2) effects for me. EDIT 2: I should have been disabling vsync and only using the FPS limiter, but I still got better performance outdoors when enabling both ... but not indoors. I learned a lot from carefully reading this article and this post. Following are options that I'd like others to verify so that we can make sound recommendations (with alternatives) in the guide. Vertical tearing can be a minor nusance to some or a huge deal breaker for others, depending on severity and user preference. It was really bad in my case. Reduce vertical tearing [*]Use FPS limiter (available in Nvidia Inspector [nvidia users], RadeonPro [AMD users], or enblocal.ini [all users]) [*]set iPresetInterval=0 in skyrimprefs.ini (turn of skyrim vsync) Eliminate vertical tearing [*]enable vsync (available in Nvidia Inspector [nvidia users], Catalyst Control Center or RadeonPro [AMD users], or enblocal.ini [all users]) [*]enable triple buffering for D3D (available in Nvidia Inspector?? [nvidia users], RadeonPro [AMD users], or enblocal.ini [all users]) - This reduces the frame-drop cost of vsync when the frame rate is less than the monitor refresh rate (i.e., prevents stutter due to the frame buffer waiting on the back buffer to update with a complete frame, because there is a second back buffer serving the first, which in turn is serving the frame buffer, giving effectively 2/3 instead of 1/2 the frame rate when vsync is enabled and the frame rate is less than the monitor refresh rate) - NOTE: this is ONLY available for OpenGL, so AMD-powered triple buffering does not work for Skyrim. Nvidia Inspector might provide triple buffering for D3D ... can anyone confirm? Can anyone report the following under each of the following scenarios?: [*]With iPresetInterval=0; FPS limit disabled; graphics vsync tweaks disabled [*]With iPresetInterval=0; FPS limit enabled; graphics vsync tweaks disabled [*]With iPresetInterval=0; FPS limit disabled; graphics vsync tweaks enabled [*]GPU make/VRAM [*]Typical frame rate (FPS) indoors and outdoors (looking for approx. min/max here) [*]Vertical tearing level indoors and outdoors [*]Camera smoothness during play indoors and outdoors (panning & forward movement your opinion: smooth, somewhat smooth, somewhat choppy, very choppy)

So I went back to take screenshot without ENB, in neutral lightning (Riften) and this is the result: that's vanilla lighting? If so, it is bordering on the edge of an improvement, IMO. Just think the scarf is too bright though.

Nope, it is azirok's "Double Pelt bugfix" that I installed from Skytest patches page just for kicks.

Do I need to load up the new patch onto the Nexus for 2.2.7?

Agreed. I can't tell a difference between the Matriarchs. They look identical to me. I'm not saying that this is the case...because I have no proof of that whatsoever...but in OTHER mods, sometimes you don't realize that the mod isn't that impressive until you look at the HRDLC and realize it's just a SLIGHTLY sharper version (cough telvanni reborn cough). Again, not saying that's the case here at all. The screens are not a fair representation, since the lighting angles are different. The only way to properly compare would be using Nifscope or Blender or something that will place the texture onto the model under identical lighting conditions ... or just look in-game in good light. Video might work well too, but that is time consuming.Not sure if this gif image helps, but here it is: That one is tough to judge as well, because one of them has lots of green covering the body, and the other doesn't. I assume that this green is in flux, so that one has neither more or less ... ? Based on these alone, I like the darker one (darker spriggan, not darker background), but I suspect that the lighter colored spriggan may have better detail under all that green magic.

Anything reliant on ENB won't work for STEP I'm afraid. It could be a STEP mod for ENB Packs though (Pack author's discretion) ;)

OK, Requiem (azirok-erized) load order cont. I'll PM azirok to stop over and straighten us out :P [spoiler=Smile44's Interpretation] 6D Requiem.esp 6E Requiem - Resources.esp 6F Requiem - Immersive Armors.esp 70 Requiem - Immersive Armors - Addon.esp 71 Requiem - Immersive Weapons.esp 72 Requiem - Immersive Patrols Merged All.esp 73 Requiem - HearthFires.esp 74 Requiem - Falskaar.esp 75 Requiem - Wyrmstooth.esp 76 moonpath_questdata.esp 77 Requiem - Moonpath Patch.esp 78 RealisticNeedsandDiseases.esp   79 RND Requiem Food Patch.esp 7A 3DNPC.esp 7B 3DNPC - Requiem Patch.esp 7C AOS_Requiem Patch.esp 7D BetterQuestObjectives-RequiemPatch.esp 7E REQ - BCS Patch.esp 7F Requiem - Guard Dialogue Overhaul Patch.esp 80 Civil War Overhaul.esp 81 Civil War Overhaul - Requiem Patch.esp 82 DragonCombatOverhaul.esp   83 DragonCombatOverhaulDragonborn.esp 84 DragonCombatOverhaul - Requiem Patch.esp   85 DragonCombatOverhaulDragonborn - Requiem Patch.esp 86 AOS_DCOd Patch.esp 87 RND Requiem Food Patch.esp 88 Requiem - Dragonborn.esp 89 Requiem - SIC Patch.esp 8A Requiem - SIC Patch - DLC2.esp 8B Requiem - WAF+Clothing and Clutter Fixes Patch.esp 8C Requiem - CCOR Patch.esp 8D Requiem - Dragonborn - CCOR Patch.esp 8E Requiem - SIC CCOR Patch.esp 8F SkyTEST-RealisticAnimals&Predators.esp 90 SkyTEST-RealisticAnimals&Predators-Dawnguard.esp 91 SkyTEST-RealisticAnimals&Predators-Dragonborn.esp 92 SkyTest RealisticAnimals&Predators - Requiem Patch.esp 93 SkyTest RealisticAnimals&Predators - Requiem Patch - HearthFires.esp 94 SkyTest RealisticAnimals&Predators - Requiem Patch - Dragonborn.esp 95 SkyTest RealistAnimals&Predators - Requiem Patch - Hard Times.esp    ??? Where is this from? 96 Alternate Start - Live Another Life.esp [Version 2.3.4] 97 BetterQuestObjectives-AlternateStartPatch.esp 98 Requiem - Hard Times.esp   99 Bashed Patch, 0.esp According to one of aziroks SkyTest page, "all other requiem patches" should precede SkyTest plugin; additionally, according to his CCOR page, Requiem - Dragonborn plugin needs to precede SIC patches; finally, his Dragonborn patch page agrees and also states that "all other Requiem patches" should precede requiem - Dragonborn plugin. My confusion is in where Hard Times loads in relation to the Dragonborn patch. Note that SkyTest patch has a Hard Times plugin too, so I assume this carried forward the pertinent HT stuff :o_O: Thus my version (I defer to all of Smile44's comments about everything else): [spoiler=z929669's interpretation] 6D Requiem.esp 6E 3DNPC.esp 6F 3DNPC - Requiem Patch.esp 70 AOS_Requiem Patch.esp 71 BetterQuestObjectives-RequiemPatch.esp 72 REQ - BCS Patch.esp 73 Requiem - Guard Dialogue Overhaul Patch.esp 74 Civil War Overhaul.esp 75 Civil War Overhaul - Requiem Patch.esp 76 DragonCombatOverhaul.esp 77 DragonCombatOverhaulDragonborn.esp 78 DragonCombatOverhaul - Requiem Patch.esp 79 DragonCombatOverhaulDragonborn - Requiem Patch.esp 7A AOS_DCOd Patch.esp 7B RND Requiem Food Patch.esp 7C Requiem - Resources.esp 7D Requiem - Immersive Armors.esp 7E Requiem - Immersive Armors - Addon.esp 7F Requiem - Immersive Weapons.esp 80 Requiem - Immersive Patrols Merged All.esp 81 Requiem - HearthFires.esp 82 Requiem - Falskaar.esp 83 Requiem - Wyrmstooth.esp 84 moonpath_questdata.esp 85 Requiem - Moonpath Patch.esp 86 Requiem - Hard Times.esp 87 Requiem - Dragonborn.esp 88 Requiem - SIC Patch.esp 89 Requiem - SIC Patch - DLC2.esp 8A Requiem - WAF+Clothing and Clutter Fixes Patch.esp 8B Requiem - CCOR Patch.esp 8C Requiem - Dragonborn - CCOR Patch.esp 8D Requiem - SIC CCOR Patch.esp 8E SkyTEST-RealisticAnimals&Predators.esp 8F SkyTEST-RealisticAnimals&Predators-Dawnguard.esp 90 SkyTEST-RealisticAnimals&Predators-Dragonborn.esp 91 SkyTest RealisticAnimals&Predators - Requiem Patch.esp 92 SkyTest RealisticAnimals&Predators - Requiem Patch - HearthFires.esp 93 SkyTest RealisticAnimals&Predators - Requiem Patch - Dragonborn.esp 94 SkyTest RealistAnimals&Predators - Requiem Patch - Hard Times.esp 95 Alternate Start - Live Another Life.esp [Version 2.3.4] 96 BetterQuestObjectives-AlternateStartPatch.esp 97 Bashed Patch, 0.esp

Let's address on your pack thread ;)

Agreed. I can't tell a difference between the Matriarchs. They look identical to me. I'm not saying that this is the case...because I have no proof of that whatsoever...but in OTHER mods, sometimes you don't realize that the mod isn't that impressive until you look at the HRDLC and realize it's just a SLIGHTLY sharper version (cough telvanni reborn cough). Again, not saying that's the case here at all. The screens are not a fair representation, since the lighting angles are different. The only way to properly compare would be using Nifscope or Blender or something that will place the texture onto the model under identical lighting conditions ... or just look in-game in good light. Video might work well too, but that is time consuming.

Duh ... ash it is indeed. Strike my comments about too dark and too bumpy for ground textures then. We are in agreement there. I doo like the smoother dunmer structures though, as that is more in line with Morrowind. And bumpy mushroom tops ... not so good IMO.

I personally prefer the realistic bow sounds just a bit, so I overwrite AOS with these. Not a big deal though. Updated the wiki page. not sure about this, and I defer to SRB.

@SRB Done. @roots thanks, will take care of this asap. Also, any staff can work on this by moving pages to new title. Please just don't include any spaces between '-' if you do. Also, be certain to allow a 'redirect' by keeping that box checked, or links from the guide will not work! lastly, keep the mod name as succinct as possible for anything over 30 chars.

@roots Let's add all of Ren's stuff to testing (if you think it applies to STEP and is an improvement). No better way to get the compares we need.

I am mainly referring to the replacer versus vanilla, but it would be good to see the Atronach in action and how it pertains to the game as well.

I was actually aware of all the default settings, and they seemed like 'corrections' and /or 'fixes' to me, but I wanted your analytic input, having scrutinized the crafting system in much more detail than me. As long as your defaults do not cause compatibility issues (and it sounds like they actually enhance downstream compat), I think that they should be left alone, and I would go so far as to say that this should be a STEP:Core mod. Anyone disagree? Any potential issues with Packs or downstream modifications?

Added to accepted.

thanks Spock. Yes, we will be dropping SoS (except for Dungeons).

LOD = level of detail (pertains to only objects painted in distance --these are not the actual models ... think of them like the background paintings often used in movies where the landscape looks real on screen, but all of the shots are in the studio with tweaked lighting). Meshes are the 3D 'wire' structure that hold the 2D texture 'tapestries' (they do much more as well, but this is their most obvious function)

My preferences are: Second image - Ground texture blending is good as well as overall composition. First image: sand it too bumpy and the structures maybe a bit too bumpy. Textures blend nicely though.Third image: Sand is too dark, and blending with ground cobblestones is not as good IMO.Fourth image: sand is too bumpy, and ground cobblestones don't blend well with the sand.Second image - all previous comments regarding first set apply; additionally, I like the pillars best in this one, as they pop out a little better.Second image - sand and pillars are nicely done. Blending is also good First image: sand it too bumpy; although, the stone floor is really good (but photorealism maybe does not make the most sense). Textures blend nicely too.Third image: sand it too dark; blending is not so good.Fourth image: sand is too bumpy; although, the stone floor is really good (but photorealism maybe does not make the most sense). Textures blend nicely too. Furthermore, blending of stone line at left is better than the first image.First image - ground texture is just better IMO and blending is best with the overall composition. Second image: sand is great (like the ripples best), but faux ground stones do not blend well with the actual stone models.Third image: sand it too dark; blending is not so good.Fourth image: Same problem as second image, but overall composition has slightly better blending than second.No single image wins for me: First image: Shrooms and structures look best; ground is too tiled and bumpy.Second image: Ground is good, wooden doors are a bit too dark, shrooms not as good as first.Third image: sand it too dark; otherwise, same as second.Fourth image: Shrooms and structures look best; doors are a bit too dark; ground is too tiled and bumpy. (this would be best with ground of second image)No single image wins for me: First image: Good, but ground is too dark.Second image: Ground is good, but shrooms are too bumpy and less interesting than first. Doors also too dark.Third image: Ground is too dark, shroom tops too bumpy (shroom bases are good, as are the doors).Fourth image: Best overall, but doors are too dark, and ground may be too bumpy, but hard to tell for sure in this one.First image - ground texture is just better IMO and blending is best with the overall composition. Second image: sand is right; cobblestone blending not so good though.Third image: sand it too dark; blending is good.Fourth image: sand is right, but a bit too bumpy; cobblestone blending not so good.Second image - blending with ground stones maybe not ideal, but overall has best composition (would be beter with mountain slabs of fourth image though) First image: sand it too bumpy; blending on ground is good though.Third image: sand it too dark; blending with big rocks is not so good.Fourth image: sand is too bumpy; Mountain rocks are definitely the best in this one though IMO (would be beter with ground textures of first image though).Fourth image - near and distant ground blend best. Near is bumpy, but it looks right here, as there appears to be grass or ground cover. First image: foreground ground texture is too smooth. Distant ground does not belend so well.Second image: Foreground ground is good. Distant ground does not belend so well.Fourth image: foreground ground texture is too smooth. Distant ground a bit too dark.Second & Fourth image - Slightly better ground composition than the other two, but can't tell any other diffs between them (or between the other two).@SRB Nice work putting it all together. I am not sure how my picks correspond to the others' but unless there are some stark diffs (i.e., there is divided consensus with me and one other thinking differently than two or more others), then take my comments into consideration and go with your gut.

Just now seeing this thread!?! Moved to MT for better prioritization. Will comment (without reading thread first) when I have had time to digest. PS: I like the idea of presenting variations withoug letting on what mod they are associated with. It removes bias and controversy around a particular mod author ;)

Anyone care to post before/after screens?