DROPPED Skyrim Flora Overhaul (by vurt)

[vurt]

I recommend that you try different iMinGrassSize settings and stick with 20 if your computer can handle it, go all the way to 40 if you're having big performance issues. It will make the game look better than if you would disable the .esp at least, imo. As you can see in the comparison screen that i put up, you get patches of grass @ 40, instead of the more fuller grass @ 20 (which imo looks way better).

[z929669]

I recommend that you try different iMinGrassSize settings and stick with 20 if your computer can handle it, go all the way to 40 if you're having big performance issues. It will make the game look better than if you would disable the .esp at least, imo. As you can see in the comparison screen that i put up, you get patches of grass @ 40, instead of the more fuller grass @ 20 (which imo looks way better).

 

I agree. In fact, I personally only have 1 GB VRAM, but I use iMinGrassSize =10 because it looks so good. I also have crossfire though, so that keeps my frames up. Thicker grass is a good trade-off for 2048+ terrain textures IMO.

[TechAngel85]

There is a new "basic" version up which boasts for best compatibility and performance. The hand placed plants and trees have been eliminated from this version. I'm curious as to the difference in looks and performance. Z, could you add this version to your compares on the wiki for those of try to squeeze every little bit of performance out of Skyrim + STEP and still have it looking good?

[Farlo]

There is a new "basic" version up which boasts for best compatibility and performance. The hand placed plants and trees have been eliminated from this version. I'm curious as to the difference in looks and performance. Z' date=' could you add this version to your compares on the wiki for those of try to squeeze every little bit of performance out of Skyrim + STEP and still have it looking good?[/quote']

I tried the Basic version and there is a very noticeable loss in quality, although I did gain 5-10 FPS in the heavily forested areas.  The grass goes back to looking like it does in Vanilla: patchy and not appealing at all.  IMO it's worth the performance hit (I get 25-30 FPS outdoors with most things un-optimized) but for those who really need the extra frames it's a viable option.

[EssArrBee]

There is a new "basic" version up which boasts for best compatibility and performance. The hand placed plants and trees have been eliminated from this version. I'm curious as to the difference in looks and performance. Z' date=' could you add this version to your compares on the wiki for those of try to squeeze every little bit of performance out of Skyrim + STEP and still have it looking good?[/quote']

I tried the Basic version and there is a very noticeable loss in quality' date=' although I did gain 5-10 FPS in the heavily forested areas.  The grass goes back to looking like it does in Vanilla: patchy and not appealing at all.  IMO it's worth the performance hit (I get 25-30 FPS outdoors with most things un-optimized) but for those who really need the extra frames it's a viable option.[/quote']

The basic version is definitely suited for a performance STEP recommendation, maybe even baseline. The Diverse Trees plugin is just to good to pass up though if you have the power and should be recommended for Extreme STEP and probably baseline. You guys might also take a look at the 2048 tree LODs that are available, one for each type of SFO.

[vurt]

The grass goes back to looking like it does in Vanilla: patchy and not appealing at all. 

No, then you did something wrong (didnt edit the .ini or didnt enable the .esp). Only difference with basic is that you don't get the few hand placed lupin fields and fern fields + the new hand placed trees. Grass is no difference and still requires the .ini edit (like it says on the page). To get better FPS i recommend this:

 

[Farlo]

The grass goes back to looking like it does in Vanilla: patchy and not appealing at all. 

No, then you did something wrong (didnt edit the .ini or didnt enable the .esp). Only difference with basic is that you don't get the few hand placed lupin fields and fern fields + the new hand placed trees. Grass is no difference and still requires the .ini edit (like it says on the page). To get better FPS i recommend this:

 

Ah, I might have made that INI edit without remembering and attributed it to SFO; thanks for clearing it up Vurt :D 

 

If the only difference is hand placed trees then I see no reason to use the Basic version unless there are conflicts with other mods and trees start growing through each other.  I will add that INI tweak to the mod page for those who may need it.  Can you set it to any value in between those, i.e. to 30 to get slightly more grass?

[vurt]

Yes 40 was just an extreme example to show how big difference it makes.

[TechAngel85]

Thanks for clearing that up Vurt. I might very will use that version then for my system. I already exclude the diverse trees from my installation for performance reasons. Laptop users need all they can get!

[T113]

Admittedly I skipped to the last page, so my apologies if this has already been brought up, but...

Anyone using Skyrim Flora Overhaul who is having trouble with fast travel or entering/exiting areas should consider trying the alternate Trees LOD files in the optional files section.

 

Example:

2048 tree LODs for v179e

Lower res Tree LOD's for v1.79e. Use if getting stuck on fast traveling.

 

In my case, I was unable to exit Markarth and this cleared it right up.

[DoYouEvenModBro]

Why are we recommending the basic SFO 181 version ONLY instead of the 179e version? Should users with good rigs still not use 179e?

[Freyrgjurd]

3.1Gb RAM limitation, I guess.

 

SFO is a taxing mod. After all, there are a LOT of trees. In Flakreath area the situation is aggravated and that could cause freezes / ctds.

[TechAngel85]

The main difference between these two versions are the hand placed objects. Version 181b does not include the ESP and therefore, does not have any hand placed trees, grasses, etc in the game. It's a straight texture replacement. This is more in line with the STEP Mandate and is also in preparation to STEP 2.3. You can, by all means, use 179e if you wish.

[Freyrgjurd]

I found that interesting, since the file is almost 40Mb larger. That's why I thought there were more taxing textures, not just the additional .esp.

[TechAngel85]

I found that interesting' date=' since the file is almost 40Mb larger. That's why I thought there were more taxing textures, not just the additional .esp.[/quote']

Vurt created a lot of "unique" objects that he placed by hand. These textures are not present in v181 because there is no custom placed textures; thus, no need for the extra textures and that is the reason for the files size difference. The extra objects included several "one of a kind" trees placed throughout Skyrim, cattails, lupin fields, etc