Optimizer Textures

[mothergoose729]

Optimizer Textures by AdPipino

https://skyrim.nexusmods.com/mods/12801

 

STEP currently recommends DDSopt for optimizing textures. I think DDSopt can often times be a superior tool, however I think Optimizer Textures would be a better fit for STEP.

 

The reason is DDSopt has problems with exceptions. To optimize a BSA you have to extract the BSA into loose files and optimize those, because otherwise DDSopt will ruin the BSA. If you select a file that DDSopt is not suited to optimize, than DDSopt can kill the file (read esm, esps, ect). When I optimized my own game using the tool, I noticed that the on camera blood effects from Enhanced Blood textures were corrupted, for example. DDSopt, if configured properly, can work all its magic and do none of its harm but the problem is the configuration process is somewhat involved, and not well suited for the average STEP user.

 

Enter Optimizer Textures. Optimzer Textures does not even need to be extracted from an archive to work. You simply select maximum strength, click BSA, click select all in the BSA tab, and run it. At maximum strength I was able to get my textures folder down to about 4.5gb, while DDSopt forced it down to about 3.95gb using recommend settings. DDSopt does slightly better job with mipmaps, but texture optimzer actually seemed leaner on VRAM, probably due to not including as many mipmaps. Another advantage is that Optimizer Textures takes about 15 minutes to process my texture folder, and about an hour to process all of my BSAs. To perform the same task with DDSopt took somewhere somewhere around three or four hours on my system, mileage of course will vary. 

 

Also, I want to note that in the PDF section 3.A.7 "Increase Overall Performance", the hyperlink that says "texture optimization" leads to this page:

https://wiki.step-project.com/Guide:Skyrim_Installation#tab=Graphic_Editors

 

I believe that is a mistake. EDIT: I see, it in the utilities tab. There really should be a separate page for this.

 

Advantages of DDSopt over Optimzer Textures:

Better compression

Better mipmaps

 

Advantages of Optimize Textures over DDSopt:

Works much more quickly

Much easier to use

Don't have to worry about exceptions - handles them on their own

Optimizing BSAs does not requires manual extraction and repackaging

 

cons of DDSopt:

Difficult to use

Need to worry about exceptions, and some of them may not yet be known

Takes a long time to run

 

I don't want to see STEP get rid of DDSopt or stop recommending it in the STEP guide, instead I want STEP to first recommend Optimzer Textures because it is easier to use and faster, and then I would like to see the community work on a better and more complete power users guide for DDSopt for the brave and daring willing to try it. I think that would give the best of both worlds.

 

Guide to using Optimizer Textures to optimize your skyrim game.

 

Download optimizer textures from the nexus.

 

Extract the archive into a folder. Then double click on ordenator.exe

 

 

In the window, click on the folder icon, and navigate to you skyrim data folder. For most of you, this will be in 'C://ProgramFiles/Steam/steamapps/common/skyrim'.

 

 

In the upper right under profiles, click on the menu and select "maximum". In the menu below it, select "skyrim".

 

 

Click on the box titled "BSA" and then on the tab called "BSA" to the right of "Textures". Check the boxes "Compress BSA", "unite internal files", and "Mark BSA". All of your BSA files will be shown to the right. Select all of them by checking each box.

 

 

When you have done this, click start. Optimizer Textures will run and optimize your entire skyrim install. A window will pop up showing its progress. Wait until it is finished.

 

 

My particular data folder has been optimized before, but there are a few textures that I have added sense the last time I ran it.

 

Optimizer Textures will create a back up of every file it changes and all your BSA in a folder called "Texture Backups" located in "C://TextureBackups". Your texture folder will be archived. To restore you old unoptimized texture just extract it to your data folder in skyrim. Your BSAs will be backed up and renamed with the file extension ".bak" added to it. To restore you old BSA, just rename the file so as to delete the ".bak" extension, and move it to your data folder in skyrim.

 

[rootsrat]

I used it yesterday and it did improve my performance - at a first glance at least. More testing to be done soon, but I think it is worth it. It's also easy to use (thanks for your help on this, mothergoose :) ).

[TechAngel85]

My textures are unoptimized so I'll use this tomorrow (later today when after I sleep...it's 3:43am) and give some specs on the outcome. FYI: this has been included in the wiki here: https://wiki.step-project.com/Guide:Skyrim_Installation#tab=Utilities

[CiXwOw]

I've never used either tool, but I will try this one out now and see how it goes. Then I might try the other to compare.

[CiXwOw]

Okay, so I ran this as suggested in the first post (maximum strength with all BSAs) and although I didn't do any thorough testing (mainly because I don't know how exactly to go about it) I did take a few notes, although probably not of much use, I figured I'd post them anyway.

 

The file size of my Skyrim directory went down by about 400mb. From 27.2gb to 26.8gb. I'm not sure how significant this is, as as I mentioned before I haven't used DDSopt so I have nothing to compare it too.

 

Performance wise I did notice an improvement. Although I'm not sure of the FPS impact (in which I may have gained a few frames, but I'm no good with averages and the like) it did definitely seem to be less choppy. I'm no tech expert, but I think I heard somewhere that a VRAM bottleneck may not necessarily be reflected in an FPS counter. But I may be remembering wrong.

 

So as I said, probably not the best report. Due to my lack of a comparison and my general lack of technical knowledge, but hopefully it's useful to someone. I might do a test with DDSopt tomorrow if I have time so I have something to compare it too as, obviously, the results will vary depending on individual setups.

[mothergoose729]

It should be noted that a texture optimizer does NOT improve your fps, it improves mimaps and reduces VRAM usage. Mimaps is what textures look like from a medium distance, before they are generated as LODs. Many textures do not have any mimaps generated and so look odd (like leaves disappearing from a tree) at distance. If your video card is not throttling its VRAM this tool nor another optimizer will have any effect on your skyrim performance. However, for those struggling from a lack of VRAM this can improve performance in that area dramatically.

[TechAngel85]

Here are my results from using this optimizer:

 

Before Optimization:

 

FPS: 34

VRAM Used: 926MB

Data Size: 11.7GB / 12,626,129,661 bytes

 

 

After Optimization:

 

FPS: 34

VRAM Used: 880MB

Data Size: 11.2GB / 12,046,874,897 bytes

 

My results yielded no change in FPS and a slight reduction of VRAM usage, about a 6%. Same for the overall size of the files. I'm not sure if this will increase performance because I noticed as I continued to play the game the VRAM filled right back up. :confused:

[CiXwOw]

It should be noted that a texture optimizer does NOT improve your fps' date=' it improves mimaps and reduces VRAM usage. Mimaps is what textures look like from a medium distance, before they are generated as LODs. Many textures do not have any mimaps generated and so look odd (like leaves disappearing from a tree) at distance. If your video card is not throttling its VRAM this tool nor another optimizer will have any effect on your skyrim performance. However, for those struggling from a lack of VRAM this can improve performance in that area dramatically.[/quote']

Makes perfect sense. Now I feel a bit stupid. So I guess my VRAM usage is a bit high maybe. As I said my FPS didn't seem to change, but it looked like I was getting a bit less stutter. Although now I'm thinking I was just imagining things. But even still, a 400mb reduction in file size sounds like a good thing. So I guess it wasn't a total waste.

[mothergoose729]

Make sure to select your data/textures folder when you optimize as well, if you are not already. If you are struggling for more VRAM using the tool to compress you textures helps a lot, although at a very noticeable loss in quality. I find limiting my textures to 2048x2048 worked very well for me, but you will see a reduction in texture quality in some cases.

 

When I used the tool on my textures folder, I noticed a pretty consistent reduction in file size of about 25%. With texture reduction obviously a great deal more.

[Starac]

Here are my results from using this optimizer:

 

Before Optimization:

 

FPS: 34

VRAM Used: 926MB

Data Size: 11.7GB / 12,626,129,661 bytes

 

 

After Optimization:

 

FPS: 34

VRAM Used: 880MB

Data Size: 11.2GB / 12,046,874,897 bytes

 

My results yielded no change in FPS and a slight reduction of VRAM usage, about a 6%. Same for the overall size of the files. I'm not sure if this will increase performance because I noticed as I continued to play the game the VRAM filled right back up. :confused:

If you use my mod, any kind of optimization is not recommended.

[TechAngel85]

If you use my mod, any kind of optimization is not recommended.

 

Forgive my ignorance, I'm new to the community. Which is your mod?

[Besidilo]

If you use my mod, any kind of optimization is not recommended.

 

Forgive my ignorance, I'm new to the community. Which is your mod?

SRO.

[stoppingby4now]

SRO = Skyrim Realistic Overhaul

[TechAngel85]

SRO = Skyrim Realistic Overhaul

Thank you! I didn't optimize any of my textures in the texture folder unless the program did i automatically. I simply pointed it to the Skyrim folder and let it do it's thing.

[z929669]

DDSopt will be the preferred method for STEP in the end, as it can be scripted from the command line. It is also more accurate than OT.

 

For now though, it will be best to rely on mod authors to process textures and not incorporate any texture opt into STEP. That can lead to problems unless we define all potential issues and package up a solution ourselves.

 

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[mothergoose729]

Just imagine this scenario.

 

You are the average skyrim PC gamer. You google "mods for skyrim" because you heard about it. You get on the nexus, and stumble upon STEP. You go crazy installing all the best texture mods for STEP, then load up your game and it doesn't play as smooth as you want it. You look around for a while to try and find ways to make the game run better without getting rid of your cool mods. You stumble upon the STEP wiki, see the texture opimization thing, and download DDSopt.

 

You run the program. No instructions on the download section, nothing intuitive about the interface. Maybe they find your guide on the HD texture pack and use it correctly... maybe. That still leaves the vast majority of their texture mods unoptimized. But this is a persistent uneducated user. They fiddle with the program, run it on a bunch of files, wait a couple hours for it to finish what it does... and now their game doesn't start, because they didn't add esp and esm to the file exceptions. They panic and hit the forums. They didn't create a file back up, so there is nothing to be done. They are forced to reinstall skyrim, and that person probably never uses STEP again. On a scale of 1-10 in terms of how bad an experience can be for inexperienced user, that is probably an 11.

 

Now contrast that with Optimizer Textures... sure DDSOpt does the same things Optimizer Textures does and does it better, but optimizer textures has a much better interface, much better documentation, and most importantly it nearly impossible to kill an installation of skyrim using the tool.

 

It is just not realistic in the slightest to think that STEP users are going to write a script in command prompt. It is also entirely unreasonable for the STEP team to take on the task of testing and documenting every texture. DDSopt is a powerful tool for a powerful user. Its is not appropriate at all for anybody else. Even in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing, there is still the risk of creating bad files.

 

If STEP is serious about advocating texture optimizing at all, then STEP should promote the tool that is easiest to use and safest for the user. That is not DDSopt in it current form. A better alternative would be not to recognize a texture optimizer at all, and leave it in the forums, rather than recommend something that has the very real potential of killing an installation.