EssArrBee Posted February 15, 2014 Posted February 15, 2014 NVSE never really made it out of beta and hasn't been developed in years so don't expect anything. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
redirishlord Posted February 15, 2014 Posted February 15, 2014 Have you been back since the latest enb series binaries included enboost? That seems to be helping since last I ran New Vegas. I'm installing a new build inspired by EssArrBee's wiki as we speak, lot's of good stuff currently on Nexus.
AyleidRuin Posted February 15, 2014 Posted February 15, 2014 'redirishlord said: Considering the success of the 1.7 alpha of SKSE with the memory patch 3.0 features' date=' I wonder if a new NVSE with the same is something we can hope for?[/quote']That would be Killer!!! *EDIT*I didn't read your posts EssArrBee, Redirishlord So nvSe is out...but using the ENBoost for FNV would be a great start huh? thanks for the info :D^not that I would stop using nvse.exe
redirishlord Posted February 15, 2014 Posted February 15, 2014 @AyleidRuin, I think you can forego 4gb patch in favor of enboost. I'm using E ENB & NVSE. I set my memory in enblocal to 10240 (the max) with the default 256 reserved since I have 16gb RAM + 2gb VRAM to work with. I'm sure memory patch 3.0 features would manage things even better, I just don't know if NVSE is stil being developed like SKSE is.
Allsunday Posted February 15, 2014 Posted February 15, 2014 Well, today (yesterday but I'm still awake) I started experiencing CTDs, lots of them. My crash dumps were like the ones Nearox was having before stabilizing his game (unable to find C-Runtime symbols, even with unqualified search and lots of memory problems). Kudos to Nearox for posting here and in the enbseries forums. So, here I am trying different options and possible solutions but nothing seems to be working. SSME, SKSE 1.7, memory values tweaking @enblocal.ini, .dlls compiled under different versions, you name it. First sign of progress was achieved by uninstalling The Dance of Death (damn my luck, two days ago I was saying that that mod worked like a charm). This put an end to three 100% reproducible CTDs I was having but we're only halfway through. The "final fix" was increasing my user virtual access (cmd > bcdedit /set IncreaseUserVA 2900). After uninstalling The Dance of Death and increasing virtual access CTDs stopped. No crash/freeze whatsoever. I was still having some nasty stuttering but that was ELFX fault and has nothing to do with this. I know I'm not giving a lot of details and I'm not even running STEP right now (going to install the new version in a couple of weeks), but the virtual access thing really made the game better, no ctd at all, and I haven't seen it as a possible solution. Was my problem totally unrelated? Is there another way to achieve the virtual access "fix" that's more popular than this one and that's why I haven't heard about it? I'm really curious. I'm using SKSE 1.7 by the way.
Nearox Posted February 15, 2014 Posted February 15, 2014 Quote Well, today (yesterday but I'm still awake) I started experiencing CTDs, lots of them. My crash dumps were like the ones Nearox was having before stabilizing his game (unable to find C-Runtime symbols, even with unqualified search and lots of memory problems). Kudos to Nearox for posting here and in the enbseries forums. So, here I am trying different options and possible solutions but nothing seems to be working. SSME, SKSE 1.7, memory values tweaking @enblocal.ini, .dlls compiled under different versions, you name it. First sign of progress was achieved by uninstalling The Dance of Death (damn my luck, two days ago I was saying that that mod worked like a charm). This put an end to three 100% reproducible CTDs I was having but we're only halfway through. The "final fix" was increasing my user virtual access (cmd > bcdedit /set IncreaseUserVA 2900). Glad that you fixed it. Doesn't IncreaseUserVA only apply to 32 bit systems though? I thought 64bit allocated up to 4gb by default?
Allsunday Posted February 15, 2014 Posted February 15, 2014 I don't have the slightest idea. After that every single reproducible CTD disappeared and the FTL flying show started.
keithinhanoi Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 Quote I don't have the slightest idea. After that every single reproducible CTD disappeared and the FTL flying show started.IncreaseUserVA can't and shouldn't be used with 64-bit Windows, because it can already give 4GB of memory (called user-mode virtual address space) to programs. It's only needed for when you're try to use programs that want more than the default 2GB limit that 32-bit Windows allows. By setting it to 3000, you've just allowed Windows to give 3000MB to any program, and reduced the amount of memory the Windows system can use from it's default 2GB to 1096MB. Remember that Windows 7 x86 (32-bit) is limited to using a maximum of 4GB of RAM. Reducing the memory for the Windows system is fine as long as you aren't using any 32-bit drivers which assume they can use the normal 2GB of memory for the system, and then find out they can't. This can cause all kinds of problems, even errors when writing files, such as was explained here. Another important thing to keep in mind is that some of the 1096MB you're leaving for windows may be used for something called hardware mapping, which is system RAM used to match memory on hardware devices, including your videocard. If you've got only 4GB of RAM, that hardware mapping has to happen there, typically around 128-256MB for video cards, and with other hardware devices can reach a total of 512-768MB, all taken away from the memory you've allowed Windows. If you've got more than 4GB of RAM, then hardware can be remapped above the 4GB mark, and so all of the first 4GB will be available to Windows + your program(s). Finally, increasing the UserVA value (and thus lowering the Windows system VA) can cause more paging - using your page file - which means using your HDD/SDD as a cache to extend your available memory through the use of virtual memory. This can slow things down considerably, and translate to lower performance in your game. To avoid this, you should try to make sure all unnecessary processes are disabled or not running while playing Skyrim. So I suggest using caution with IncreaseUserVA, and if you notice any strange behavior with your system or things not working as expected, try reverting it with cmd > bcdedit /deletevalue increaseuserva. Bottom line? If you're having to use IncreaseUserVA, then if at all possible, upgrade to 64-bit Windows, and invest in some more RAM!
Allsunday Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 Great answer keithinhanoi, thank you! Thing is, I already use w7 x64 and I have 4gb. Do you have any idea why did I see an improvement after that change?
keithinhanoi Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 'Allsunday said: Great answer keithinhanoi' date=' thank you! Thing is, I already use w7 x64 and I have 4gb. Do you have any idea why did I see an improvement after that change?[/quote']Ahh, I see. Technically, you're not giving Skyrim access to more memory, because on Windows x64 a 32-bit application can access 4GB of memory. In Skyrim's case, there's the 3.1GB limit because the rest is needed by the system (kernel) if I understand things correctly. Your original problem causing the crashes is you've increased Skyrim's "hunger" for RAM by modding it, and that is competing with system resources because you've only got 4GB of physical RAM to play with. So Skyrim has probably been running out of memory before it hits the 3.1GB limit. By setting IncreaseUserVA to 3000, you are likely limiting the available memory space allowed to the system, which in turn insures Skyrim has 3000MB to use, and so you don't see crashes anymore. However, the same problem applies as I mentioned before - some drivers may expect more RAM to be available, and when they don't see it, things will stop working correctly. Basically, you're playing with fire, and your choices are to either reduce Skyrim's "hunger" with lower resolution / more optimized texture packs or fewer mods, or preferably invest in more RAM - not very expensive, but well worth it.
Allsunday Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 I do need more RAM and I'm going to buy it next month (vacations took all my money :P). Thank you, now I understand. I do not have a lot of textures tho but I'm going to check how much memory Skyrim is consuming.
alex62 Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 For such issues, you can also use long path tool, it works good.
Domiel Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 I've got a Weird issue I cant get my head around. I've installed latest skse and enboost, disabled all mods and then did a test with Memory Blocks Log. skse.ini settings: Reveal hidden contents [General] ClearInvalidRegistrations=1 [Display] iTintTextureResolution=2048 ;other values could be 1024 2048 4096 [Debug] WriteMinidumps=0 [interface] EnableContainerCategorization=1 [Memory] DefaultHeapInitialAllocMB=768 ScrapHeapSizeMB=256 MemoryBlogslog.log output: Reveal hidden contents logging of blocks enabled logging max values only Timer disabled Block1 Block2 256MB 256MB 85 8 85 8 85 9 85 10 85 11 85 12 85 13 85 14 85 15 85 16 85 17 85 18 85 19 85 20 85 21 85 22 85 23 85 24 85 25 85 26 85 27 85 28 85 29 85 30 85 31 85 32 85 33 85 34 85 35 85 36 85 37 85 38 85 39 85 40 85 41 85 42 85 43 85 44 85 45 85 46 85 47 85 48 85 49 85 50 85 51 85 52 85 53 85 54 85 55 85 56 85 57 85 58 85 59 85 60 85 61 86 61 86 62 87 62 87 63 88 63 88 64 89 64 89 65 90 65 91 65 91 66 92 66 92 67 93 67 94 67 94 68 95 68 95 69 96 69 97 69 98 69 99 69 100 69 101 69 102 69 103 69 104 69 105 69 106 69 107 69 108 69 109 69 110 69 111 69 112 69 113 69 114 69 115 69 116 69 117 69 118 69 119 69 120 69 121 69 122 69 123 69 124 69 125 69 126 69 127 69 128 69 129 69 130 69 131 69 132 69 133 69 134 69 135 69 136 69 137 69 138 69 139 69 140 69 141 69 142 69 143 69 144 69 145 69 146 69 147 69 148 69 149 69 150 69 151 69 152 69 153 69 154 69 155 69 156 69 157 69 158 69 159 69 160 69 161 69 162 69 163 69 164 69 165 69 166 69 167 69 168 69 169 69 170 69 171 69 172 69 173 69 174 69 175 69 176 69 177 69 178 69 179 69 180 69 181 69 182 69 183 69 184 69 185 69 186 69 187 69 188 69 189 69 190 69 190 70 191 70 192 70 193 70 194 70 195 70 196 70 197 70 198 70 198 71 199 71 200 71 201 71 202 71 203 71 204 71 205 71 206 71 206 72 206 73 206 74 206 75 206 76 206 77 206 78 206 79 206 80 206 81 206 82 206 83 207 83 208 83 209 83 209 84 210 84 211 84 212 84 212 85 213 85 213 86 214 86 214 87 215 87 216 87 217 87 218 87 219 87 219 88 219 89 220 89 221 89 222 89 223 89 224 89 225 89 226 89 227 89 228 89 229 89 230 89 231 89 231 90 232 90 233 90 234 90 235 90 236 90 237 90 238 90 239 90 240 90 241 90 241 91 242 91 243 91 244 91 245 91 246 91 247 91 248 91 249 91 249 92 250 92 251 92 252 92 253 92 254 92 255 92 256 92 Why would it stop at 256 on block 1 when I've clearly set it to 512? I performed the test by continually spawning actors until the game crashed. Did it several times every time game crashes on 256 ram usage. I'm using Mod Organizer and the log file outputs to my overwrite folder while I've installed skse in the main skyrim directory with the settings file in Skyrim\Data\SKSE\skse.ini
DoubleYou Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 Could you take a picture of the file in explorer (PrntScr)?
Domiel Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 Nvm I'm an idiot. Fiddled around with it so much i didn't realize I wasn't using the latest skse. Updated to the alpha and it works like a charm:)
Recommended Posts