z929669

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.

All constructive edits are welcome, thanks ;)

I see the file on the Nexus ... thanks! I'll run some updated compares with the new version ;) (Thanks to Phazer for clarifying above ... he is correct).

So you ran SRO snow01_n through DDSopt, re-mipped using all of the Behave options for mipping, and the reult is fine? It might be good to include your own optimized version of vanilla and another of SRO side by side in order to test that you get the tiled snow pattern at least on vanilla. Right now, I am not sure if we can say that SRO optimized was subjected to the same method as vanilla optimized (demonstrating that optimization breaks vanilla at least with respect to this texture).

Actually, it would/should be Realistic Smoke & Embers, right?

I think that we only need to be concerned with tiled, smooth ground textures. Rocks, grass, plants, roads, etc should be OK. I would be careful with these textures for mods as well, but I have not verified. A great litmus would be to run snow01_n from SFO through DDSopt.I optimized snow01_n.dds from three mods with 2K versions: Serious HD, SRO, and HD2K. Using the preview mode of DDSopt to compare textures, the results after optimization were similar to those with the vanilla Skyrim textures version. At full resolution there are almost no differences between the original texture(s) and the optimized one(s), but at lower mip levels the differences increase. Are there any mod testing savegames that use this texture in the view at the point where the game was saved so I can see if it is still purple with the optimized textures from the other mods? The save I posted that you used on my help thread has bott he tiled snow textures as well as the purplish planar LOD textures. These are two different issues though. snow01_n optimization exacerbates the apparent tiling/striping effect in the non-distant snow textures in that save. Way out on the horizon, there are also two LOD missing color maps, which is a different issue and the texture is unknown. EDIT: here is that savegame.

I added a time limit to post edits to thwart certain people from erasing their posts entirely. I'll relax this again and see what happens. I'll also see about user rights on tag names.

I think that we only need to be concerned with tiled, smooth ground textures. Rocks, grass, plants, roads, etc should be OK. I would be careful with these textures for mods as well, but I have not verified. A great litmus would be to run snow01_n from SFO through DDSopt.

@Kelmych RE snow01_n and other landscape ground normal maps, I think that all mipping has a problem in DDSopt ... most will not be apparent in game, but I have seen enough subtle tiling/striping in the vanilla ground landscapes to be convinced that I do not want to touch the ground landscape normals. I tried various settings under Behave, and none resulted in any noticeable changes in the mip diffs. Basically, I suspect that any compressed, smooth TSNs will have this problem and suggest that we handle all that we know of in the BAT process. I only fixed my TSN under the landscape ROOT of STD and HRDLC2.

OK then. I'll test it out and see for myself. Just did not want to join the flock unless there was some evidence that this is fundamentally different than the tactics that were debunked previously. Will report back at some point. thanks ;)

Seems like we all are so anxious for 'magic' to be a fact of life that we simply refuse to accept the reality that claims of memory 'optimizations' are just not true. Am I missing something here that is fundamentally different from any other memory-opt 'tricks' as we discussed in great detail on this thread? "Sweeping allocated RAM under the rug" does not make it disappear, right? Torminater's results seem pretty instructive to me, and Uhuru's logic that ENBhost absorbs memory that would otherwise cause TESV process to hit its cap does not ring true.

Yeah, I suppose that these changes should be placed below under "Changes for this release" or some such.

Thanks tech ... I don't think that vanilla texture is a DDSopt issue, but I could be wrong. SMIM is better, and I suspected as much and posted to confirm on the Nexus thread ... no response yet. I also have UHDFE slated for installation upstream of SMIM and Realistic Smoke & Embers upstream of that for 2.2.7; however, it looks like Extended might be RS&E? If so, then I like that better and will suggest keeping that mod in Sec J and Core if it has no issues.

I just finished a complete wizard based on the FOMOD. It is available on the wiki now. I also updated the FOMOD to work with the new folder structure. I'd appreciate it if someone familiar with NMM could test the new FOMOD installer for several options to confirm that it works OK. I don't mess with NMM. I have tested the wizard, so that should be good. I also contacted the author, so if he wants, he can use the new package and installers.

That was my bad. I changed the recommendation to match SR and did not account for the BCF. The BCF will need to be remade.

My bad, I removed it on the 29th after confirming that it is completely overwritten by No Stretching, which made it obsolete, as this mod was just before the latter in the load order. I thought I added this to the changelog, but I evidently did not. Adding now. EDIT: I actually DID add this to the changelog

Why spend more on 3rd-gen+ i5/i7 when the Lynnfield will get you the same gaming bang for much less of the buck? Remember that the mobo price will also go way down with an out-of-production CPU (as long as there are supplies anyway). It should not cost more than $1000 with top of the line SSD, case and accessories. It is the GPU that will kill you if you want a good experience. That costs about $450+ for the proper kind of power needed to run Skyrim at 60 FPS, unless you get something used. Best Buy has a big markup too. Get your hardware on the internet ... and another good reason not to mess with a laptop ... short average lifespan (2 versus 5+ years) and ultimately much higher cost of maintenance.

It is clear that these will be nixed from Core, but Extended is another matter. I think both have a place in the latter in some form or another.

Echoing Aiyen's method. Buy piecemeal from NewEgg and TigerDirect and build one yourself. To save money, get a socket 1156 i5-760 processor. This is totally relevant for gaming and significantly cheaper than the latest gen Intel setups. I'd get a Gigabyte or Intel mobo (I use the Intel p55kg, which is cheap and dependable, but you might want to get something with latest generation SATA and PCIe). You should be able to build a very respectable rig for $1,000-$1,500 (depending on your graphics card, probably your most costly single component ... I got a single-used AMD 7970 for $280 on eBay). I personally would NEVER use a laptop for gaming unless I had a real monitor, mouse and keyboard to plug into ... even then, building yourself and upgrading are not practical with a laptop.

Thanks for the detailed analysis, Michaelrw. We'll find this useful as we assess this mod for STEP:Extended (not suited to STEP:Core based on your assessment). I personally agree with your nits ... maybe we could ask the author to produce a version that allows piecemeal selection of specific options?

Would you like to be recognized as a contributing mod tester? I can do this if you plan on being around in the future and doing this sort of thing even if infrequently.

Very nice. Love this mod.

The problem is in the Mip levels. The lower you go, the worse it gets in the preview compare diff. It winds up creating a tiled pattern in game. The same may be true for other snow normals, but I haven't seen them yet.