DROPPED Skyrim Flora Overhaul (by vurt)

[Nearox]

To anyone using Grass on Steroids with SFO: Judging from comments at nexus (haven't tried 1.85 or 1.84 myself yet) is that quite some patching is needed. Some users contributed a couple of fixes but not all.

 

I myself really don't know which conflicts are important to fix and which should not be fixed between these mods. Records such as 'wave period', 'position range' and 'uniform scaling' are totally alien to me. Hope someone else can take a look.

[vurt]

Just change the density in the .ini..? The density i skyrim flora overhaul.esp has been raised quite a bit in v184 and v185. Have you even tried it without the mod and with a density of 10 in the .ini? I really don't see what his .esp would do to make it better, but i'm all ears if you have suggestions..

 

Also, he claims the mod will boost FPS? That is completely nonsensical.

[DoYouEvenModBro]

To anyone using Grass on Steroids with SFO: Judging from comments at nexus (haven't tried 1.85 or 1.84 myself yet) is that quite some patching is needed. Some users contributed a couple of fixes but not all.

 

I myself really don't know which conflicts are important to fix and which should not be fixed between these mods. Records such as 'wave period', 'position range' and 'uniform scaling' are totally alien to me. Hope someone else can take a look.

Hm. I've been using 183b and GOS and I haven't noticed anything wrong. Can you provide a link to the forum page where people are saying that?

[Nearox]

Well GrassOnSteroids actually puts the 'density' (as well as the 'max slope') at 255 for all grass records.

 

I'm not sure how his mod works, but to give an example: Looking from whiterun tower at northwatch keep with 1.81b and iMinGrassSize=40, my Skyrim runs at 44 FPS. When using GrassonSteroids on top if it, and by setting iMinGrassSize=75 as the author recommends, my Skyrim runs at 44FPS but the amount of grass is greatly increased. When setting iMinGrassSize=100, I experience slightly less grass than if I would only run SFO with iMinGrassSize=40, but my Skyrim runs at 49 FPS.

 

Like I said, I don't know how such a thing works. Whatever trickery he applies, I do know it improves the amount of grasses in the game while mainting or even improving FPSs -at least on my system (i5 2500k, 6950 2gb).

---

To anyone using Grass on Steroids with SFO: Judging from comments at nexus (haven't tried 1.85 or 1.84 myself yet) is that quite some patching is needed. Some users contributed a couple of fixes but not all.

 

I myself really don't know which conflicts are important to fix and which should not be fixed between these mods. Records such as 'wave period', 'position range' and 'uniform scaling' are totally alien to me. Hope someone else can take a look.

Hm. I've been using 183b and GOS and I haven't noticed anything wrong. Can you provide a link to the forum page where people are saying that?

Sorry I should've said that those comments are made on the GoS comment section. Just open page one and then it starts with a comment from crimsongekko. It starts with:

 

here's what you need to do to make them 100% compatible:

 

1) open grass on steroids in tes5edit

2) expand "Grass" under grass on steroids , click on FernGrass01

3) drag the "Min slope" value from SFO column to GoS column

4) expand "grass" under SFO, scroll down to vurt_tundragrnd

5) right click the top of the SFO column ( where it says [01] Skyrim flora overhaul.esp ) and click "copy as override" , then select the GoS plugin

6) a new column will appear on the right, in the GoS column you need to set density and max slope to 255 and position range to 0.000010

 

the fern edit is a minor thing, but the latter is important otherwise vurt_tundragrnd is barely used.

[DoYouEvenModBro]

So what exactly is the problem with SFO and GoS right now? I've been using the recommended grass density of 75 with Grass on Steroids. What should it be now with the new SFO? Do we really need to patch it manually like that?

 

 

Vurt, are you saying that you do not think Grass on Steroids is needed anymore since your new 184/185 versions added more Grass Density?

[vurt]

@Nearox

 

That's interesting. It would mean that the density setting from the editor is more efficient than the one in the .ini. I'm guessing the .ini placement places the individual meshes very closely, while the editor setting places the meshes a bit further apart which in turn makes the grasses look less "patchy" and you get the "full" look but with lesser grass, and with less poly's to render = FPS boost. That's the only way it could work, afaik..

 

I took a look at it in the editor. It's missing the 255 settings for the new grasses that i have added so those will be placed very sparse compared to the other grasses. It probably contains meshes that i've now removed too, so yes, it needs to be updated. However, i'm planning to do a new Overgrown version for v1.85 for people that want extreme lushness, it will also place grasses on some of the "no-grass"-ground textures, it works fairly good most of the time but can sometimes introduce grass on parts of the roads etc.

[DoYouEvenModBro]

Well GrassOnSteroids actually puts the 'density' (as well as the 'max slope') at 255 for all grass records.

 

I'm not sure how his mod works, but to give an example: Looking from whiterun tower at northwatch keep with 1.81b and iMinGrassSize=40, my Skyrim runs at 44 FPS. When using GrassonSteroids on top if it, and by setting iMinGrassSize=75 as the author recommends, my Skyrim runs at 44FPS but the amount of grass is greatly increased. When setting iMinGrassSize=100, I experience slightly less grass than if I would only run SFO with iMinGrassSize=40, but my Skyrim runs at 49 FPS.

 

Like I said, I don't know how such a thing works. Whatever trickery he applies, I do know it improves the amount of grasses in the game while mainting or even improving FPSs -at least on my system (i5 2500k, 6950 2gb).

---

 

To anyone using Grass on Steroids with SFO: Judging from comments at nexus (haven't tried 1.85 or 1.84 myself yet) is that quite some patching is needed. Some users contributed a couple of fixes but not all.

 

I myself really don't know which conflicts are important to fix and which should not be fixed between these mods. Records such as 'wave period', 'position range' and 'uniform scaling' are totally alien to me. Hope someone else can take a look.

Hm. I've been using 183b and GOS and I haven't noticed anything wrong. Can you provide a link to the forum page where people are saying that?

Sorry I should've said that those comments are made on the GoS comment section. Just open page one and then it starts with a comment from crimsongekko. It starts with:

 

here's what you need to do to make them 100% compatible:

 

1) open grass on steroids in tes5edit

2) expand "Grass" under grass on steroids , click on FernGrass01

3) drag the "Min slope" value from SFO column to GoS column

4) expand "grass" under SFO, scroll down to vurt_tundragrnd

5) right click the top of the SFO column ( where it says [01] Skyrim flora overhaul.esp ) and click "copy as override" , then select the GoS plugin

6) a new column will appear on the right, in the GoS column you need to set density and max slope to 255 and position range to 0.000010

 

the fern edit is a minor thing, but the latter is important otherwise vurt_tundragrnd is barely used.

Is that patch for imingrasssize=75? Or does it not matter? This seems out of my league. Hopefully the author will just patch it.

[Nearox]

*I really should've put my question in the GoS thread (if it exists). Didn't intend to spoil SFO with GoS talk*

 

Because GoS is based on an older SFO. 1.79e I think. Just had a more extensive look, from what I can tell there are 11 grasses in SFO 1.85 that are not touched by GoS. Because the density of the other grasses is intensified, you'll therefore will see relatively much less of the new grasses. Second, the Color Range under 'DATA' of GoS seems to be consistent with 179e but conflicts with a number of SFO 185b records. Third, the 'wave period' of a few grasses has been altered in SFO 185. GoS alters this (generally seems to add 100.0 or doubles it) as well. Not sure what this record does, but if a higher value represents a slower wave motion then I guess that would explain some of the FPS gain of GoS. Fourth, GoS sometimes alters the flags 'uniform scaling', 'fit to slope' and 'vertext lighting' and I don't know why it only somtimes follow SFO flags and sometimes seems to follow its own logic even though other DATA values are similar.

 

Let me point out again that I was asking a question about the 2 mod's compatiblities, so none of what I said is a 'claim', nor is it any kind of criticism directed at Vurt. Just want to sort this out, as the author of GoS seems to have been gone for some time. But yeah, should've done the initial post on this question in the GoS thread...

[DoYouEvenModBro]

*I really should've put my question in the GoS thread (if it exists). Didn't intend to spoil SFO with GoS talk*

 

Because GoS is based on an older SFO. 1.79e I think. Just had a more extensive look, from what I can tell there are 11 grasses in SFO 1.85 that are not touched by GoS. Because the density of the other grasses is intensified, you'll therefore will see relatively much less of the new grasses. Second, the Color Range under 'DATA' of GoS seems to be consistent with 179e but conflicts with a number of SFO 185b records. Third, the 'wave period' of a few grasses has been altered in SFO 185. GoS alters this (generally seems to add 100.0 or doubles it) as well. Not sure what this record does, but if a higher value represents a slower wave motion then I guess that would explain some of the FPS gain of GoS. Fourth, GoS sometimes alters the flags 'uniform scaling', 'fit to slope' and 'vertext lighting' and I don't know why it only somtimes follow SFO flags and sometimes seems to follow its own logic even though other DATA values are similar.

 

Let me point out again that I was asking a question about the 2 mod's compatiblities, so none of what I said is a 'claim', nor is it any kind of criticism directed at Vurt. Just want to sort this out, as the author of GoS seems to have been gone for some time. But yeah, should've done the initial post on this question in the GoS thread...

I think it's probably best to just stop using GoS until the mod author updates it. If you use a maxgrassvalue of 10 instead of the default 20, it might provide the same effect but I'm not sure about the fps decrease. The author seems like he/she isn't updating the mod anymore so that mod might just die off :-/.

[Nearox]

@Vurt, jsut saw that you already commented about the new grasses not touched by GoS.

 

Thank you for your explanation and for having a look at this. I know quite some people here actually use GoS more as a tool to increase their FPS without losing too much grass density, as opposed to loading up their game with even more grass (for which it can obviously also be used). It seems as if GoS has a way of multiplying grasses without having a linear relation to FPS impact.

 

Looking forward to your overgrown version :)

 

@DoYouEvenModBro

 

Looking at tes5edit it seems like GoS is actually based on a few rather simple enhancements, which shouldn't be too hard to tweak for new flora added by SFO. Probably just needs a number of tries to get it right. 

[DoYouEvenModBro]

@Vurt, jsut saw that you already commented about the new grasses not touched by GoS.

 

Thank you for your explanation and for having a look at this. I know quite some people here actually use GoS more as a tool to increase their FPS without losing too much grass density, as opposed to loading up their game with even more grass (for which it can obviously also be used). It seems as if GoS has a way of multiplying grasses without having a linear relation to FPS impact.

 

Looking forward to your overgrown version :)

Yea, I was using it to get MORE grass for less of a performance decrease, haha. I wonder if using v185 WITHOUT GoS and just lowering the grass density value to 10 instead of 20 will kill fps. 

[Neovalen]

I've found 184/185 Regular with default MinGrassSize setting to be quite pleasant. It seems much more dense than previous versions already.

 

I already dropped GoS from my current SR:LE due to this. If it ever gets updated I will be sure to look at it.

 

Vurt, I noted most of your added plants/shrubs don't seem to have a wind blowing anim... is that something that could be added in the future? They still look good but occasionally to see some plants moving from wind and others not seems off.

[vurt]

yes i should take a look at that, sometimes i've tuned it down too much, i really hate when they move too much..

[Aiyen]

Oh well guess I will have to wait around.. or update it myself. Yet another thing on my skyrim todo list.

 

Yes more grass can look nice, but I personally find it annoying to have too much of it, and I already am running near 20-30 FPS so I cant give up the FPS boost I get from GoS atm.

[vurt]

With GoS: https://piclair.com/data/lhtlm.jpg

Only SFO: https://piclair.com/data/7qsob.jpg

 

GoS: iMinGrassSize=75

SFO: iMinGrassSize=20

 

FPS is in the upper left (same for both, no FPS boost). I checked in a few other places too, no difference in FPS (+/-1).

 

Imo, it doesnt look very good. The grass was so large it was sometimes difficult to see anything in first person. Sure, the coverage is great because the plants are absolutely enormous, fern blades large as a whole person in third person.. Lupins large as trees almost: https://piclair.com/data/e8jf9.jpg

 

But whatever, people have different taste :) but that FPS boost some people claim, i think you should test it yourselves.. Placebo is a powerful thing ;) and when you test you obviously must test from the exact same spot (from a save).