z929669

EDIT: Please disregard, I have been so busy these past months that I forgot Smile44 had done this already :/ apologies. I love this idea ... I was just in the process of beginning my own personal install of Requiem (much more my style of RPG than the family-friendly RPG style of Skyrrim), and was contemplating just how many mods I would need to scrap from my STEP:Core install if any at all (e.g., Uncapper is likely not needed??). I personally am not that happy with STEP:Extended ATM, and I am thinking that your Pack would be much better suited to using STEP:Core as a base rather than STEP:Extended. This kind of mod is precisely what STEP:Core was designed to precede. Furthermore, I expect some rather big changes to STEP:Extended by 2.3.0 (while Core is very stable both in terms of form and function), and it will definitely not be a good base for this kind of grand-overhaul Pack that centers on arguably the most comprehensive gameplay overhaul around. I humbly request a STEP:Core-only patch. I will use that right away and help with testing various other great mods that would work with this (i.e., most of the mods mentioned in the Requem Handbook as well as other things that the Requiem team cites ... STEP:Core will cover the baseline world fixes and put a nice graphic overhaul onto Skyrim, while this will alter the gameplay fundamentally. Also, you can upload your patches onto the wiki and provide links directly from your Pack if you want.

Hmmmm. Have you notice our wiki? Right on the front page, there is an extensive guide to using Wrye Bash. It opens with a brief explanation of WB and modding, and links to all of the relevant resources and guides you through its setup, explains BCFs, and lots more. It seems like you are reading forum posts for your info? That is hard to absorb, since it is all over the place. Go to the Guide and see if that helps. Note all of the other wiki guides linked on the main page (see the top bar of the forum for a link)

@Spock Agree on the name @SRB Agree about the patches ... MichaelRW does the patch? wierd. Maybe he should contact LoRd KoRn about contributing there. EDIT: Wait ... I know that ... I had already downloaded all of his patches, and just forgot :P . Still, why does the CoT patch exist on both Nexus pages, and why is MichaelRW not working directly on the AOS page ... ? @DoubleYou I had no idea SoS was that tough to set up. That alone is a strong argument for removing from STEP at least until it is cleaned up. I'll take a look at some point myself.

Yep, I meant to include the ReadMe :facepalm: I have already set up the mod page as 'STEP Patches', so add/update whatever you'd like on that. I'll add the ReadMe to the Nexus now :/

Can you all begin commenting on your experience with this mod in relation to Sounds of Skyrim? Can they be realistically used together, or are they too conflicting? Would we even WANT to use them together? What about other sound mods, given these two overhauls?

That is what I assumed. I'll post up an installers.dat script when I get home.

I stand corrected: This mod really does require 60 FPS to work properly. At least lower frame rates present a sense of running hard and getting nowhere. Looking up or down restores the sense of fast movement, but looking straight ahead causes this "motion lag". This mod has a great idea, but it is impractical for STEP, due to the engine limitations and the need to control graphic glitches in higher-end graphics (although cards that will always exceed 60 FPS, regardless of the GPU workload would benefit from this mod, since frames do not need to be capped ... not sure if that is even possible with a heavily-modded game even with the best cards around). There is a pretty advanced discussion of physics behavior in jMonkeyEngine3 ... I am guessing that Skyrim engine limits these kinds of compensations ... ?

Yes, thanks for infusing some insight into the importance of context. Of course you are correct; however, in the case of the weapon swings and given what I know about this mod so far (and you are on the same page as me), the samples were enough in this case. I use 5.1 surround, and the positional-reverb audio of this mod is fantastic. I also use headphones and agree that the sound is fantastic through them. People with simple stereo will not benefit as much. I also found that several of our existing sound mods overlap to some extent, and Skyrim never sounded so good to me as with this mod. Where there are partial conflicts, I am not sure that we want some of the other sound mods, due to the contextual and stylistic differences. I still want to give SoS on its own a fair trial, but AOS will be tough to beat.

Updated OP with some data for this and the other stability mods.

I personally think that this mod is an improvement. Snow is a bit brighter and more detailed than SRO snow (which in turn is better than vanilla). I posted an example screen compare on the OP ... still waiting to update though :/

Looks like this one has too much uncertainty and that the textures could be a bit better. I'd rather wait for a Dwemer metal retex that is fashioned more closely to CaBaL's textures. Removing from MT.

Atrimore recommended using it for 60 FPS and greater and also stated that it was only for non-standard uGrids, but he does not provide users with much detail into his line of thinking, and I am inclined to think that he is not entirely sure himself with all of the projects he has going :P Best way to determine is to test ourselves, so hoping others jump in!

WilliamImm is the guy I am hoping will put it on the fast-track (I just hate submitting info to BOSS, but I probably should :P )

Yes, I am very happy with Core performance and graphics. It lacks the gameplay enhancements though that I like in my own game (kryptopyr to the rescue). RE Dragon souls: Thanks, that saves me the trouble. I think that it has something to do with the fact that I extracted all vanilla BSAs and unstalled them as mods (removed BSAs from Skyrim/Data). There may be some corruption or other mysterious engine issues when dealing with loose script files in some cases. That is my next check. After that, I will assume that I have save-game corruption and will try to sort that out if possible. My savegame has survived nearly 2 years of STEP testing with lots of different mod lists. Don't want to lose my char though :P UPDATE: That was it. Skyrim - Misc unpacked did not work correctly with regard to this script. I have heard from others in the BSAopt forum that unpacked/re-packed BSAs can have problems with regard to script behaviors, so I am going to go with the BSAs for these ... for now.

We need to confirm behavior under 60 FPS, as requiring this frame rate is just silly, since most cards (even high end ones) cannot constantly maintain this frame rate (esp with lots of mods), and thus we advise users to limit FPS to under 60 FPS to improve frame behavior on high-end cards (along with vsync and triple buffering). I personally cannot believe that this mod had no impact under 60 FPS until I test myself ... please join me!

That is the point. This is more for first-person movement I think, Player perspective matters a lot, and first person is default behavior .

Testing this alone against STEP:Core (no SoS), overriding other sound plugins with this one. Part of our testing should examine what conflicting sounds are better ... example: Better Weapon Swings. AOS has superior swing sounds where they overlap, IMO. This guy is meticulous, and I tend to favor those with that kind of attention to detail. Still need to compare against pure SoS. If one or the other seems better, then we should compare with using both mods (depending on load order). Again, this may obviate other sound mods, so a detailed compare of the conflicts with each is necessary.

I am testing this one too ATM. The section relevant to STEP would appear to be the last one. All the rest should be left to default settings for testing initially. good to know that the other stuff works as advertized too though, as any breaks would make this a problem, even with unused functionality in STEP.

Along with Stable uGrids, this would seem to be a potential game stabilization 'package' if they play nicely together. Anyone know of the technical status of each? Need some help browsing those Nexus threads and the Beth forums for answers ... and testing with STEP. The mod description confirms testing this with both ENBboost and Stable uGridsToLoad ... both successfully.

Any updates on this? Why is it not being used in Skyrim LE? Who says that this is specific to increased uGrids?? It would seem that this kind of alteration would benefit standard uGrids by improving thread handling and CPU prioritization.

https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/38572/? Need mod testers on this please. I am testing in my game, but that is not enough! MT: We especially should be testing these *.dll code appendages together (Stable uGrids, Safety Load)

I accidentally synced an old copy of the directory after I merged after reinstalling my OS. Sorry! I will remove from my side and avoid resyncing irrelevant files henceforth ;) I also added some links to the wiki into your readme and created a STEP Patches mod page with some of those instructions if you want to look at the wiki guide to check that. Mod Section A. Also, I think you forgot to answer my previous question: Does your patch cover the supposed conflict between BoS and GDO? There were instructions about merging in TESVEdit to fix, and I removed those anticipating that they could also be included in the patch. Lastly, I was playing STEP:Core with the patch last night, and it is smooth as silk on my box; however, I did notice that my dragon soul absorption no longer works, so you might test this in your game. I have not isolated the cause, but the patch is one of two of my first places to check.

If the main plugin from this mod overlaps 100% with the USKP, then sombody needs to inform BOSS people to add this note. Alternatively, Brumbek should be notified to remove it from his mod.

Given that we only support Legendary Ed, I'd say to merge with DB version. Also, there is a apparently conflict between Guard Dialog Overhaul and AMB Book of Silence. Does the patch resolve this or not (it does not say so in the ReadMe). It would be great if it did so that we can remove the TESEdit instructions from BoS (I did so now in anticipation, since we don't want to bother our users with TESVEdit requirements).