Spock Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 I searched the development forum and saw parallax was brought up over half a year ago by TheCompiler and a few months back by EssArrBee, I hope I didn't miss any significant discussion in between. Since ENB made it into the STEP:Core, what about using parallax and shadows? Maybe introduce it to extended? There is an non ENB ini fix for the lego shadows but it involves reducing the draw distance significantly (to about 2000 depending on FOV), I think the vast majority of STEP users will want to use ENB for Shadow fixing if not more. Those who have performance concerns that do not allow for parallax or ENB shadows probably won't use extended. Please correct me if I'm wrong this this speculation. I personally think parallax mapping can add a lot to the visual pleasure of the game and using such mods has become quite popular.
TechAngel85 Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 I searched the development forum and saw parallax was brought up over half a year ago by TheCompiler and a few months back by EssArrBee, I hope I didn't miss any significant discussion in between. Since ENB made it into the STEP:Core, what about using parallax and shadows? Maybe introduce it to extended? There is an non ENB ini fix for the lego shadows but it involves reducing the draw distance significantly (to about 2000 depending on FOV), I think the vast majority of STEP users will want to use ENB for Shadow fixing if not more. Those who have performance concerns that do not allow for parallax or ENB shadows probably won't use extended. Please correct me if I'm wrong this this speculation. I personally think parallax mapping can add a lot to the visual pleasure of the game and using such mods has become quite popular.Turning on a few extra features in the ENB (Core is simply using ENBoost) for Extended is a possibility. The only issue is the performance because we have set minimum hardware requirements. The ENB feature must be able to run at those minimum requirements to be considered. Unless we raise the requirements specifically for Extended.
EssArrBee Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 We could use a setting with just shadows on, but some effects don't work with driver or Skyrim AA or AF. We need to get our STEP member/ENB authors on that part.
Spock Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 Turning effects on in ENB alone costs performance because some shaders start to run even with all effects disabled. Maybe this can be minimized (or even circumvented) by editing the fx files. If shaders already run and shadow distance is high enough to cause the shadow lod bug using ENB shadows at high with 512 resolution looks better and costs less performance then vanilla shadows at 8k resolution.
EssArrBee Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 So how is everyone's experience with LOOT so far? I'm guessing that MO is having some problems with it since Wolverine is posting about it on the Beth forums. I can't get it to work with FNV through MO either. If it gets to a point that it works, then we should switch to it and get rid of all the BOSS instructions that are annoying.
DoubleYou Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 I have yet to use it successfully. I really want to see what Tannin has in mind with this change and with the whole BOSS integration feature.
TechAngel85 Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 It's still too new so I haven't even tried it yet.
z929669 Posted April 2, 2014 Author Posted April 2, 2014 I am out of the loop for the latest ... please remind me what LOOT is doing. Regarding shadow fixes: What exactly is the proposed methodology, how simple is it to implement, and what is the performance cost? Let's get it documented in a single post for reference (maybe we can all keep the OP updated with relevant info from this thread?)
EssArrBee Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 LOOT is bOSS v3 but it is different because it can sort automatically instead of from the master list.
MadWizard25 Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 (edited) I have been using LOOT the past two days. As far as I can tell it works fine. The load order is radically different from BOSS. I have had some issues with incorrectly placed plugins, but it requires far less maintenance since i dont need to make dozens of BUM userlist rules. I like the lesser priority option, which drops plugins earlier in the load order. No more userlist rules unless a plugin has to go right after another. What was surprising is that LOOT tells you what plugins it finds that conflict. Well it found about 6, but I know from tes5edit that I have many more conflicting plugins, so Im not sure what LOOT is doing. In any case, so far so good. Then again I have not gotten past Riverwood and Whiterun yet, and am still doing vurts stress test. I haven't been able to test the particulars of my mod load order. Edited April 2, 2014 by MadWizard25
Spock Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 Regarding shadow fixes: What exactly is the proposed methodology, how simple is it to implement, and what is the performance cost? Let's get it documented in a single post for reference (maybe we can all keep the OP updated with relevant info from this thread?) What I would propse is providing a STEP ENB that only contains shadows, parallax, some settings (like vsync) and the relevant game fixes. ENB shadows alone cost very insignificant performance which can be mitigated be lowering shadow resolution. Enabling effects cost me up to 8 FPS though because some shaders start running. This might be avoidable by altering the .fx files, but that's beyond my knowledge. Aiyen seems like a good candidate to ask for help.ENB shadows are only really necessary if you run a certain shadow draw distance as that's what introduces the shadow lod bug. For more information see this post. It would probably be better if the ENBoost link in the 2.2.8 (and 2.2.9) wiki would point to the enbdev download. The nexus download is outdated.
thommaal Posted April 20, 2014 Posted April 20, 2014 (edited) The current 2.2.9 guide includes "The Skyrim Distance Overhaul LOD Improvement" and "Dynamic Fires". It looks like they conflict. Could someone else test this to confirm/refute the result? Edited April 20, 2014 by thommaal
EssArrBee Posted April 20, 2014 Posted April 20, 2014 2.2.9 changes pretty often since it is under development.
TechAngel85 Posted April 20, 2014 Posted April 20, 2014 The current 2.2.9 guide includes "The Skyrim Distance Overhaul LOD Improvement" and "Dynamic Fires". It looks like they conflict. Could someone else test this to confirm/refute the result?I just confirmed this. Disabling Dynamic Fires's ESP fixes the issue with the Giant Campfires. I have been against Dynamic Fires for a long time and here is another reason. The biggest reason is it had (not sure if they've been fixed) issues with some interior fires. You'd go into an Inn and if you stayed long enough the fire would go out and you'd have NPCs gathered around a fire that didn't exist anymore. Those interior fires should not be altered by Dynamic Fires because it's reasonable to believe they'd be maintained where NPCs are gathered around them. The same could be said of any fire (campfires and giant campfires as well) with NPCs gathered around it. If this isn't an issue that the STEP Patches can fix. I'll be removing Dynamic Fires over SDO in my installs.
Recommended Posts