z929669

@WilliamImm Why "Consistent Older People 15 in the optional files section" and not v 16?

NMM is in everlasting Beta .... not sure why they don't implement some basic intelligence around hierarchical management and other features that MO and WB both have ... probably because NMM's focus is on mod tracking and Nexus integration across many gaming platforms. STEP recommends MO or WB, not just WB. (and the former is definitely simpler for beginners). However, you will learn a great deal more about modding mechanics by using WB than any other mod manager. This is why I personally recommend that new modders experiment with manual installation and then move to WB, which forces people to manage package structures, installation order and conflict resolution.

Yes I mostly agree with what you're saying. I think we're at a point in this debate where we're nitpicking the words each of us are using to describe the situation. I try very hard to stay away from using subjective terms or absolutes, such as "best", and perhaps Z should have used the word "better" in place "best"..../snip Fair enough. let me rephrase: I think that the "best" way to compare textures (under vanilla lighting and the baseline settings described in the STEP Guide) is to present long-, medium-, and close-up-screens. This allows a comprehensive assessment of the work (also, viewing texture composites close-up around the object model is very different from viewing individual DDS within Gimp, etc.). As I said, close-ups are often the best way to differentiate between "good" and "great" work, because the devil is in the details. The same can be said for any texture-model viewed at any distance, since any given texture composite can look good at any one range and not so good at some other range. The ideal viewing angle, distance and setting will depend on the textures being assessed. For the cave textures (and rocks and vertical-models), I think the close-ups are particularly important, because we often find ourselves very close to said models in-game, and blur/stretching/steepness/topographical-inconsistencies can be masked at a distance. "Nitpicking" is often the only way to differentiate among good work that is otherwise equal, and is thus OK, IMO (i.e., see "rigorous analysis"). I for one enjoy just knowing that the model I see looking so good and real in the distance would look just as good and real with my char's face pressed right up against it. For people like me, the substance inherent beneath the surface is just as important as the net manifestation. ... I take my red and white wines if different glasses ... same goes for my pilsner and my pale ... and none EVER from a "cup", thank you very much ;)

+1 to Micaelrw. Close-ups are often the best way to differentiate between good work and great work (Sparrow helped me to understand this when working with Terrain Bump).

It helps a lot to have very close-up shots like this. Blurring is quite apparent in S&R and aMB walls, but BoS is a great improvement. Rocks in ground textures in aMB do look concave rather than convex. Not impressed by any of the ground textures, but tough to judge any of these without a direct vanilla comparison. Often, vanilla proves to be best, so I am wondering how it stacks up in these good examples (well done .... I am tending toward agreement with tech and Sparrow on this one, but voting silently for vanilla amid my uncertainty). I will look at some vanilla cave textures at some point to get a good idea of the baseline. Wow. Vanilla for me in these particular compares ... hands down the best detail, consistency and contrast, IMO of the lot. That makes perfect sense. I agree that Tech's compares this time nicely illustrate his points and that he has provided some actionable feedback. I look forward to the update. Based on all of the work on cave textures thus far, it would seem that a combination of the various artists' textures is best and that vanilla may well be best in a lot of situations. We'll need a whole lot more compares of all of the possible base cave textures (all map types) in order to say what is best for sure (under vanilla lighting). Are there 5 base cave texture motifs in the game? Poll updated. Multiple picks are allowed, so please recast your votes once all of the vanilla are added. (SEE OP)

Bump

I vote to include the "True Orcish & Daedric Weapons" patch into this as Core component. This is a fix to a vanilla oversight and downright inconsistencies within TES5 perk, crafting and ore/mining progression and all historic TES Lore (including previous games). Can anyone argue that this is not a fix in all of these aspects?

As I said in the other thread, BoS mines are a complete deviation from vanilla. Mines are not caves, and the unnatural variation of textures fit a mine much better (people are hacking out and sawing the rock). The best result would be some combination of all of the above, but S&R is closest to vanilla and arguably a slight improvement (particularly the ground textures, which are too contrasting in vanilla. Cave ground should look much like ceiling and walls)

I like RD+BoS best for STEP, but vanilla is a very close second for me. RD is my favorite all around, but not for STEP.

It helps a lot to have very close-up shots like this. Blurring is quite apparent in S&R and aMB walls, but BoS is a great improvement. Rocks in ground textures in aMB do look concave rather than convex. Not impressed by any of the ground textures, but tough to judge any of these without a direct vanilla comparison. Often, vanilla proves to be best, so I am wondering how it stacks up in these good examples (well done .... I am tending toward agreement with tech and Sparrow on this one, but voting silently for vanilla amid my uncertainty). I will look at some vanilla cave textures at some point to get a good idea of the baseline.

The file names are identical, but the file contents are different. Just use the files as indicated and trust the results.Reading again, I see what you are saying. Can you provide the folder numbers for those that are identical that you think should not be? Can anyone else confirm?

Are Arena and Daggerfall updated to be compatible with Win 7+, or is it same old? I recall having issues running them on Win 7

Yes, this one might just be the best now judging by the screens. Agree that the most intriguing is the grass noise version ... screens anyone?

The file names are identical, but the file contents are different. Just use the files as indicated and trust the results.

Need to experience these in-game I think ... or video. Some better shots of blending with the ground might help. The BOS mines are no good, because they are depicting a more natural cave look. Mines should show more unnatural variation and evidence of human intervention ... like the vanilla textures. All-in-all, I give BOS caves a respectful thumbs down relative to the competition. Hectrol is the most natural IMO, and he/she chose to leave the mines alone. Notice that the color of the rock is more consistent with vanilla rocks and mountains outdoors. S&R is my second pick, but they are a bit too colorful (although consistent with vanilla color). For STEP:Core, I think that S&R is best (for me personally, I like Hectrol)

I'd be happy to upload the compare to illustrate. Could you create the 565 uncompressed as an alternative "performance" tradeoff? (or supply me with the source file, and I will prepare the diffs/compares) ... and yes, I still have yet to prepare the performance version for testing, but I just finished optimizing all of the vanilla textures and will tackle shortly. EDIT: not sure what I was thinking there .... your examples aren't normal maps :P

I corrected the OP, which was a bit misleading in linking to DDSopt versions on Github and the Nexus ... the Nexus version was actually Github, and I never updated the descriptions. Fixed now.

UDP makes sense; however, it would need to be in both for thoroughness, since the faulty DDS is also in both. EDIT: I just now saw that the fix is already in the UDP, so this is a moot point in the guide :P

thread restored

I did report it, but it should apply to the UHRP, since that will override, no? I believe that if the texture is loose, it wins, even over a plugin.Bump EDIT: After much toil, I have found another bug that may be related to the TGA processing error noted previously.... I am messing again with the terrain TSNs, and this time, rather than reducing to 565 uncompressed (2:3), I decided to apply the well-established reasoning of reducing the texture resolution without changing the uncompressed format (1:4). This (128x128; 888) theoretically should be an improvement over vanilla (256x256; DXT1), but still a bit less quality than conversion to 565 (256x256). However, I discovered that it is not possible to do this using pre5b due to a bug in converting from X8R8G8B8 to R8G8B8 (note that conversion to R5G6B5 works as expected). This CAN be done using the manual method from the preview tab, but who wants to do that for thousands of terrain normals?? I decided to determine if the was a version-specific bug, and it turns out that it IS. You have to go back to pre3 to get the results expected through the automation. For kicks, I decided to see if this was related to the TGA processing bug noted previously, but alas, it is still a problem in pre3. If Ethatron ever gets back to this, I am hoping that this is a simple coding fix. Until then, I am going to try the same methodology on the MSNs to determine if the result is viable (but I am skeptical about the conversion using pre5b, so that will have to be verified).

I did report it, but it should apply to the UHRP, since that will override, no? I believe that if the texture is loose, it wins, even over a plugin.

I have updated the scripts to handle a few errors based on the output and for consistency and will shortly upload a new archive. I have tested and verified 1_HRDLC_Clean-START.bat & 1_HRDLC_Clean.bat EDIT: updated BAT files and the guide link to pull from the wiki (we are hosting now rather than DB ... this allows version tracking)

I see it now. The new instructions also look good. Thanks!