ACCEPTED aMidianBorn Caves and Mines (by CaBaL)

[Roogal]

The circles on BoS ground texture is pointing out patches of "noise".

Thats really picky man they are wall textures remember not weapon textures.

 

Besides in my view it just looks like granite surrounding larger chunks of rocks see below example.

 

[exploiteddna]

i agree in that the BoS ground textures (cavebaseground01 and cavebaseground02) are really nice looking. I also think that the issues you found with the AMB ground textures could probably be fixed by cabal rather easily... I ran the diffuse map through CrazyBump and generated a new normal map that I think plays a little better...so if i can do it (without any real artistic skill), then im sure cabal can as well :)

 

The other thing is, we must always make exceptions because very rarely will we find a texture pack that is 100% "correct". We must consider if having the "better" ground textures is reason enough to completely trump the entire AMB pack. (i.e. crap walls with good ground VS. good walls with crap ground).

 

On a different, but not unrelated note ... I recently noticed the green glow you (techangel) are referring to with AMB cave walls. In my opinion it looks like specular reflection (im almost 100% sure), and it is green because of the green imagespace or lighting template that a lot of caves use by default (i could be wrong about this being the source of the green for this particular instance, but i know for certain that many caves do you use green imagespace/lighting template colors - im merely drawing a logical conclusion).

[z929669]

To address you CaBal,

 

There are only two specific issues that I have with these textures that are either not present or not noticeable in the other textures compared. As far as coloring and realism you're very close to spot on and you're also correct that there is no real discernible "patten" in your textures. Here's the issues which I've documented in the shots.

 

Graininess / Noise in the Ground

 

Vanilla >> Snow & Rocks HD >> Beauty of Skyrim >> aMidianborn

https://i.imgur.com/rbgVFpT.jpg >> https://i.imgur.com/ooprFQr.jpg >> https://i.imgur.com/GzQiL5q.jpg

 

Shiny Green Stuff on the Walls

 

Vanilla >> Snow & Rocks HD >> Beauty of Skyrim >> aMidianborn

https://i.imgur.com/IKUeyhq.jpg >> https://i.imgur.com/zQbG9ej.jpg >> https://i.imgur.com/UsfUpB3.jpg

 

Yes, I am very analytical and picky when I do compares, but that's only because I want the best for STEP and the mass majority of users. Links to original images provided because STEP forum gallery is not robust enough to maintain quality. Used vanilla lighting in Helgen Keep with 2K textures.

 

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.

[TechAngel85]

Check again...vanilla images magically appear! None of the textures are even close to vanilla...haha!

[Momitja]

A Side question: Is it ok to use multiple cave/dungeon/rocks texture mods?

[rootsrat]

A Side question: Is it ok to use multiple cave/dungeon/rocks texture mods?

 

Perfectly fine. I use Beauty of Skyrim, then overwrite that with Hectrol and then I put Cabal's on top of that. That way I get all of Cabal textures + the ones that he hasn't covered yet from the other mods.

[CaBaL]

...oh i think i get the problem on ground shadows...

let me explain: normal map as you know is an RGB file (red green blue) , where red is the vector of lighting from left to right, green the up-down, blue says how much normal is "deep" ,this is to simpify... now my normal for ground got a bit of relief (pretty much to say the truth) and when the mesh tile is placed upside down (mesh tiling as said is often quite random and not particularry well done in game) textures show an inverted red...or green....this can be very easily fixed just playing with levels of normal channels.... i'll absolutely do for next update.

about those green areas is another problem of meshes....since the specularity is set on a weird green color on the nifs and not on a 50% grey or white...which would be totally right. now on other textures set where the green is stronger u do not notice the mismatching so much...in mine that tend to a desaturate brown u notice much more.

i'm working on parallax for caves and frozen caves...will be very easy to fix the awfull green specularity with a more appropriate color.

thanks for the comparison this time angel... is proper.

[z929669]

To address you CaBal,

 

There are only two specific issues that I have with these textures that are either not present or not noticeable in the other textures compared. As far as coloring and realism you're very close to spot on and you're also correct that there is no real discernible "patten" in your textures. Here's the issues which I've documented in the shots.

 

Graininess / Noise in the Ground

 

Vanilla >> Snow & Rocks HD >> Beauty of Skyrim >> aMidianborn

https://i.imgur.com/rbgVFpT.jpg >> https://i.imgur.com/ooprFQr.jpg >> https://i.imgur.com/GzQiL5q.jpg

 

Shiny Green Stuff on the Walls

 

Vanilla >> Snow & Rocks HD >> Beauty of Skyrim >> aMidianborn

https://i.imgur.com/IKUeyhq.jpg >> https://i.imgur.com/zQbG9ej.jpg >> https://i.imgur.com/UsfUpB3.jpg

 

Yes, I am very analytical and picky when I do compares, but that's only because I want the best for STEP and the mass majority of users. Links to original images provided because STEP forum gallery is not robust enough to maintain quality. Used vanilla lighting in Helgen Keep with 2K textures.

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.

Check again...vanilla images magically appear! None of the textures are even close to vanilla...haha!

Wow.  Vanilla for me in these particular compares ... hands down the best detail, consistency and contrast, IMO of the lot.

...oh i think i get the problem on ground shadows...

let me explain: normal map as you know is an RGB file (red green blue) , where red is the vector of lighting from left to right, green the up-down, blue says how much normal is "deep" ,this is to simpify... now my normal for ground got a bit of relief (pretty much to say the truth) and when the mesh tile is placed upside down (mesh tiling as said is often quite random and not particularry well done in game) textures show an inverted red...or green....this can be very easily fixed just playing with levels of normal channels.... i'll absolutely do for next update.

about those green areas is another problem of meshes....since the specularity is set on a weird green color on the nifs and not on a 50% grey or white...which would be totally right. now on other textures set where the green is stronger u do not notice the mismatching so much...in mine that tend to a desaturate brown u notice much more.

i'm working on parallax for caves and frozen caves...will be very easy to fix the awfull green specularity with a more appropriate color.

thanks for the comparison this time angel... is proper.

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)

[Aiyen]

I am still not sold on the issue at hand. I have tried a bit more to look around, and it really does depend on which cave you are in imo. The lighting, even in vanilla is not constant across ALL cave types. Also I have a really hard time noticing that the noise applied to the texture stands out really badly at my game resolution. Only if I put my face directly up into the wall is it noticeable.

 

Also I in general do not give much for super closeup shots of a texture to decide any textures merit. It makes no sense since in a realistic gaming situation you are never going to be staring all day up close at a rock.

 

That added with my point above makes me suggest that we only do compared from like the middle of a hallway to the wall, or from the entrance into a cave etc. If anything looks really off in that case then it is a problem.

[statmonster]

Agreed. I want them to look nice when I am playing, not in some other situation (such as either a photographic screen captures or closeups starting at an inanimate texture). Of course that is a lot harder to just by just looking a a few screenshots.

[exploiteddna]

I am still not sold on the issue at hand. I have tried a bit more to look around, and it really does depend on which cave you are in imo. The lighting, even in vanilla is not constant across ALL cave types. Also I have a really hard time noticing that the noise applied to the texture stands out really badly at my game resolution. Only if I put my face directly up into the wall is it noticeable.

 

Also I in general do not give much for super closeup shots of a texture to decide any textures merit. It makes no sense since in a realistic gaming situation you are never going to be staring all day up close at a rock.

 

That added with my point above makes me suggest that we only do compared from like the middle of a hallway to the wall, or from the entrance into a cave etc. If anything looks really off in that case then it is a problem.

I agree with the importance of far-away/distant shots, but strongly disagree that closer shots have no value.  I do notice the details when I am in-game, running through caves and such. So yeah, distant shots have importance, but i think closer shots are equally as important. theres nothing worse than seeing a texture that looks decent from far away, but when you move closer turns all blurry.  I think that the majority of bethesda textures look decent when youre far away... its when you get closer that you first notice their lack of definition. Thats the whole point of high-def replacers.

[z929669]

+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).

[Aiyen]

I am not saying that that they are entirely non essential at all. But I am not giving much if the only basis is closeups where you start to nitpick at how a certain pebble is looking wrong. Because if you are playing the game then you would never ever notice that sort of thing. Only because you now know it is there you are going to "notice" it.

 

For example at my monitor with my resolution I do not notice the glaring issues that tech pointed out with vanilla lighting.... unless I go to the exact same cave as he is in. Hence why I say that it is obviously also lighting dependent. Just because one lighting condition provide less then perfect texture quality does not mean it is overall not a good one.

 

In essence the stuff you notice while playing is the overall feel of the texture, and how it fits in. And to some extent how blurry it is going to look when you focus on that particular part of the screen. You are never going to notice how the normal map is for individual tiny pebbles on the texture unless you put your face all the way up in the rock, which again is nitpicking at tiny details that imo have no relevance. Unless it is a repeatable pattern across the entire texture which ruins the overall feel and look of the texture.

 

Also standing in the middle of a hallway inside an interior and looking at the walls do not count as "far distance" in my book.. but rather the normal "playing distance". And I think when vanilla is compared to any higher res textures then they also fail in that regard since they do in fact look a bit blurry. If you are standing at a hall... looking into a large cave then the wall on the far side is going to count as "far distance", and there the vanilla textures do look good.

 

So saying that Closeups are "often" the "best" way to decide between two textures is just false imo. It makes no sense since textures depend very heavily on lighting/mesh/view angle etc. If it was as simple as closeups then we could just do a gimp/photoshop compare of the texture and be done with it.

 

What is vital with all landscape textures will always be how they blend in with all other textures. This is after all the hardest part of designing textures for any game level, and why it does take a while. (At least that is my understanding from reading about the topic.)

[exploiteddna]

I am not saying that that they are entirely non essential at all. But I am not giving much if the only basis is closeups where you start to nitpick at how a certain pebble is looking wrong. Because if you are playing the game then you would never ever notice that sort of thing. Only because you now know it is there you are going to "notice" it.

 

For example at my monitor with my resolution I do not notice the glaring issues that tech pointed out with vanilla lighting.... unless I go to the exact same cave as he is in. Hence why I say that it is obviously also lighting dependent. Just because one lighting condition provide less then perfect texture quality does not mean it is overall not a good one.

 

In essence the stuff you notice while playing is the overall feel of the texture, and how it fits in. And to some extent how blurry it is going to look when you focus on that particular part of the screen. You are never going to notice how the normal map is for individual tiny pebbles on the texture unless you put your face all the way up in the rock, which again is nitpicking at tiny details that imo have no relevance. Unless it is a repeatable pattern across the entire texture which ruins the overall feel and look of the texture.

 

Also standing in the middle of a hallway inside an interior and looking at the walls do not count as "far distance" in my book.. but rather the normal "playing distance". And I think when vanilla is compared to any higher res textures then they also fail in that regard since they do in fact look a bit blurry. If you are standing at a hall... looking into a large cave then the wall on the far side is going to count as "far distance", and there the vanilla textures do look good.

 

So saying that Closeups are "often" the "best" way to decide between two textures is just false imo. It makes no sense since textures depend very heavily on lighting/mesh/view angle etc. If it was as simple as closeups then we could just do a gimp/photoshop compare of the texture and be done with it.

 

What is vital with all landscape textures will always be how they blend in with all other textures. This is after all the hardest part of designing textures for any game level, and why it does take a while. (At least that is my understanding from reading about the topic.)

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".

Sure, there are times when we are very far from the walls and dont notice details. There are also plenty of times where there are narrow walkways and you can't help but notice the fine details. Now, should we be nitpicking a single stone or pebble? Probably not. But in techangels defense (if that's what you were referring to), i think he was talking about shiny pebbles that were scattered all over the texture 

(although i personally did not get a lot of this effect during my testing of this set, i know what he's referring to. ive used some textures in the past that for some reason or another -- i think oversharpening will cause this -- have a lot of very small white/shiny pebbles or speckles on it that will create a type of glitter effect.   But..this is off-topic)

 

I just think it is important for both "distant" and "closeup" screenshots, regardless of how we want to define "distant" and "closeup". Since we can't measure distance inside the game (not that i would even want to, lol), we're going to have to assume that "closeup" is roughly equivalent to 1-2 waraxe/battleaxe lengths (swing/reach distance), give or take... so close enough to see detail, but not as close as possible. 

 

I definitely agree that the most important thing is how they blend in with surroundings and the overall feel of the environment. But it certainly doesnt negate the importance of texture quality (which you already know, im just making the point) :D

[Aiyen]

I am not just referring to Tech´s nice shots! I understand that he is trying to make a point by doing closeups and showing in detail what he meant earlier! That sort of analysis is great!

 

However I just want to stress out that shots like that should not be the sole basis of evaluation, since it makes very little sense game playing wise.

Specifically about his shots and general comments!

I can find the stuff he talks about, but I really really have a hard time noticing those particular details pop out, unless i really look close up, and even then only in certain lighting conditions. I guess there is a resolution of both textures and game, component to this as well, which is what my initial statement was meant to illuminate. I would not be surprised if monitor settings even play into this, I personally do not play with very high brightness settings (both ingame and monitor) so that might also contribute.

 

Edit: Also I agree with your statement that we kinda need to sharpen up our semantics. Guess we should try to get a base comparison guide made so we all talk about the same in the future!