z929669

Hmmm. Is the specularity governed by the plugin then? I actually like the look of vanilla water, minus the behavior in many physical circumstances. If there were an option to use the default versus a more moderately or highly specular version, I think that it would be worth it. Otherwise, I think less opacity and more sky reflection would also work. The LODs look a bit like milky-greenish-gray paint, so a bit of reflectivity ...? I unfortunately don't know anything about these settings ow how to manipulate them.

... and Superior Rocks ... are Mountains Parallax ENB dependent? If so, then they aren't needed in this compare (unless there are non-ENB options) EDIT: there are non-ENB versions ... we should be testing all Vivid Landscapes then.

The "replacements" are pretty close to vanilla, so I say let's make it Core.

Fixed

This has recently been updated. Anyone want to do a compare with other contenders? I think that this will conflict with Terrain Bump and AOF Mountains ... if there are meshes, then we would have conflicts with SMIM and No Stretching.

If it is a pure texture replacement, then it is good for Core

@Sparrow Is there any possibility that you might consider offering up a loose files version of Water? I personally avoid BSAs whenever possible, and the new version has four BSAs in subs (but the other subs still have loose files). Also, I posted about distant water LOD issues. I don't think that Water covers any of these, but I suspect that the terrain LOD mods alter these ... do you know? I'd like to get a fix for distant water so that it is more reflective, shimmering, and translucent, depending on the position of the light source. Note the diff in water between vanilla (left) and modded (right). The modded is just 'blah', and it looks more like spilled paint than water. Vanilla is tiled, but at least it seems like water :P here are the mods installed for the right image:

The advantages of using loose files is that you have more control over conflicts, and you can see all conflicts. BSAs hide everything until runtime.

WATER contains no LODs that I can tell.

I revised the section for clarity. @Kelmych Please verify that I have depicted the proper folder structure in that section. I deleted my Working Directory.

Nice find (I prefer the wiki version ;) )

@Sparrow Are water LODs included with this? In vanilla, they are animated, and you can see water reflecting light even at great distance. With HQ LODs and to a lesser extent, this package, that "sparkling" effect is lost. Can something be done to bring this back and also to increase the translucence of distant water?

Snip... Agree.

What thing ...? Confused. If it has MCM functionality, this should be checked. Same for any other attribute. It doesn't matter if it is optional or not. To delete a BCF, simply move to the bottom of the mod page, click on the edit BCF link to go to the file page, and then select "delete all". THis has been done. Â Â Â Â Â Agree.

Use the terrain textures associated with whatever overhaul you are using. Otherwise, they can be omitted. Omit if you are using SkyFalls and Enhanced Distant Terrain 2 or anything else that modifies the terrain EDIT: I am talking about HQ LODs by same author not this mod, so please disregard :P

Yup. That is the exact same thing that happens to me. Do you know if the medium res version fixes the issue? I seem to recall crashes being related to improper install or something. There are some custom options that are not explained well IIRC.

Not bad, but a bit grainy for a coin. I like the vanilla motif, but a bit higher res in a smooth-worn sort of way and better specularity/reflectivity would be good :D

He is obviously experimenting with that addition ... not good, but hail to the effort.

If you edit the mod pages, always use "Page Tools" > "Edit With Form" please and you will not be able to edit notes. Notes should be edited by consensus, but mod attributes are pretty straight forward based on the facts associated with the mods. Not sure if it is your browser, but I have no problem noticing the Ws on the guide. We want to keep columns to a minimum. We could increase the size or boldness or color for the Ws, but I don't think it is necessary. These links are for maintenance convenience, and we want people using the main links to download the mods.

Based on the shots above, this mod is still so-so for me. I adamantly dislike the retexed egg sacks. Higher res, but the open one looks like a computer graphic ... way too clean and angular. The pot on botom left of third graphic looks like it was colored with a marker. The vanilla original is much better, IMO. The rest of the RCI compares look better (but what about the stuff not shown here?).

EDT-Earth + EDT2 looks nice. See the galleries on this and adjacent EDT thread OP (see last two images in each compare; but be aware that I still need to update to the latest version of EDT2 to account for blotchy snow fix, so Winterhold image does not apply). I personally slightly prefer the Distant Terrain and Tree LOD noise map with EDT2, but it is very close.

You must use "Edit With Form" to fix. Thanks for volunteering to do this SRB. I have been tackling piecemeal, but there are too many. If you want to do this, I'd suggest editing mods in the guide first, and while you are in editing each, it would not hurt to add any missing info if you have it. Things on the mod attributes page ... most info is correct, but lacking since the person creating the page may not have known all of the details. thanks!

This mod gets updated at least twice a week. I thin that the author is slowly building upon it rather than tweaking it. It would be good to confirm though. I am testing it in my next or next to next round for Core.

Wow, thank you for trying to epxlain it all to me. It is now pretty clear how to continue with DDSOpt! I actually followed Neo's instructions on DDSOpting the vanilla textures, which does not use the batch file. What is the different result to be expected from this approach? And yes, the table is too complicated. I can give you some tips from the point of view of a noob/regular user (aka me) maybe it can help you to better structure it: - As you mentioned yourself, the lack of recommendations means that the table has little guidance. After all, it is called a DDSOpt 'guide' :P - The column labels are rather incomprehensible for the average user that is looking for a few optimizations to reduce VRAM. What does it mean when it says no/yes in mip-maps? That the mod package is missing some mip-maps? Stuff like that could be explained at the beginning of the guide in a legend or in a seperate textbox. - Mip-maps, errors, compression and size could be combined in one column, or at least reduce the column width/labels to make space for new columns... read further below :) I think, but maybe I'm thinking too big, that it would be extremely helpful for the entire modding community if this became a reference table with information based on testing and/or reported user experiences: - A column labeled 'potential VRAM savings':The VRAM savings could be contributed by testing via the community. Perhaps open a new thread calling for people to test the difference between a DDSOpt and non-DDSOpt version of the mod. You could limit included results to 1680x1050 or 1080p resolutions. Attach a note saying that VRAM savings can vary greatly between systems.  - Another column labeled 'potential FPS savings'. Because not all users are interested in saving VRAM. Quite some people I know have issues with FPS instead of VRAM. For instance, DDSOpting Skyrim Flora Overhaul  (and I did not decrease resolution) reduced my VRAM use by only 20mb but it strangely enough also increased FPS in areas like the Rift by 4-6 with no noticeable quality loss. - Another column labeled 'potential and/or known graphical complications from DDSOpt' (or a shorter title) could indicate problems that may/have been found to arise from DDSOpting the specific mod. E.g. DDSopting normals to half-size can sometimes increase shimmering. An extensive lsit of notes at the end of the table can explain texture - Develop a benchmark standard. E.G.: 1) mod must be run in a vanilla environment with no other mods enabled 2) 'high' default settings must be used 3) ini must be default ini with no specific tweaks 4) the benchmark goes like: standing stones - riverwood - whiterun - fast travel to ivarstead - run to riften. Just some examples :)  - Develop a DDSopt standard (e.g. exteriors to 1k textures/.5k normal and interiors to 2k textures/.5k normals) or develop multiple ones (e.g. low, medium & high res) Of course, these columns will not be filled with data in a day. But this way, a database will gradually be built as users/step people contribute to it. Information can be extracted from the existing forum threads too, of course. The table should have a warning saying that the values are indications and/or estimates and therefor may vary widely per system. I already wrote down VRAM savings for every mod that I DDSOpted (about 10) so that could be a start, although I may have used less than optimal settings reading from your post of explanations. I realize that such a table can never be definite, or produce the same result for any user, but to have a roadsign is better than to be lost in the wilds :) I'm just spitting out some ideas, that's all :P I'm willing to assist should you decide to embark on such a project. It sounds like you just need to get out there and start editing ;) We'll clean up anything that gets messy if necessary. The important thing is that more users get out on the wiki and contribute.