Quick question on graphics mods

Post » Sat May 19, 2012 12:20 pm

I'm getting the gist from these forums that skyrim has room for improvement graphically. However, my PC will probably only be able to run the game on high/medium. Are there any must-have graphical optimization/improvement mods that don't increase the strain the game puts on your computer?

Cheers
User avatar
louise hamilton
 
Posts: 3412
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:16 am

Post » Sat May 19, 2012 12:16 am

Skyrim HD lite is a good place to start. One of the FXAA injectors is also a good idea. Beyond those, I can' think of anything that's MUST HAVE since a lot of it is personal preference. I'd try Lush Grass, and Lush Trees and perhaps the Flora Overhaul (lowres). May want Realistic Water Textures (Medium res) as well, though Skyrim HD does redo the Water textures, this is a good alternative. None of these have huge impact to performance, especially if you have a decent amount of RAM and VRAM.
User avatar
Krystal Wilson
 
Posts: 3450
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:40 am

Post » Sat May 19, 2012 7:41 am

Skyrim HD lite is a good place to start. One of the FXAA injectors is also a good idea. Beyond those, I can' think of anything that's MUST HAVE since a lot of it is personal preference. I'd try Lush Grass, and Lush Trees and perhaps the Flora Overhaul (lowres). May want Realistic Water Textures (Medium res) as well, though Skyrim HD does redo the Water textures, this is a good alternative. None of these have huge impact to performance, especially if you have a decent amount of RAM and VRAM.
Umm... none will impact performance? Are you kidding?

The HD texture pack will be about double the memory usage, and the FXAA would add more strain to the GPU.


OP, if your computer can only run mid/high range, then don't bother. The game looks good as is. It can use some improvements, but, but if your computer isnt up to par, you will only be hurting yourself.
User avatar
Damian Parsons
 
Posts: 3375
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 6:48 am

Post » Sat May 19, 2012 3:06 am

OP, if your computer can only run mid/high range, then don't bother. The game looks good as is. It can use some improvements, but, but if your computer isnt up to par, you will only be hurting yourself.
I disagree with this, my laptop runs Skyrim on high, and I added several graphics mods with barely any performance impacts. OP, I'd at least give some mods a chance, because vanilla Skyrim is kind of ugly.
User avatar
Trevor Bostwick
 
Posts: 3393
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 10:51 am

Post » Sat May 19, 2012 1:31 am

The thing with the graphical improvements (just talking textures here) is they will have no affect on performance, assuming you have enough RAM and VRAM. Your graphics card doesn't care and your CPU doesn't care about the higher resolution textures. As long as you have enough memory so the textures don't have to be swapped out all the time, you'll be fine.

However, if you have <4gb of RAM and <1gb of VRAM you'll probably be in trouble. In that case the 'lite' versions of the aforementioned mods will probably work out better, though you may still see some performance hit.

FXAA is really the only one mentioned that could negatively affect performance in a substantial way...

Peter
User avatar
Scared humanity
 
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 3:41 am

Post » Sat May 19, 2012 5:35 am

Umm... none will impact performance? Are you kidding?

The HD texture pack will be about double the memory usage, and the FXAA would add more strain to the GPU.


OP, if your computer can only run mid/high range, then don't bother. The game looks good as is. It can use some improvements, but, but if your computer isnt up to par, you will only be hurting yourself.
I suggested the Lite and lo-res versions of those BECAUSE they don't have the effect you stated. Skyrim HD lite is only 1024X1024 textures, and the other low res/med res files are smaller. Lush grass/trees didn't drop my performance at ALL (And are advertised as such on their download pages). So, NO, those WON'T have a huge negative impact on the performance.

Edit to add: I am only running the game at Medium to high settings (granted I've tweaked the hell out of those settings because I'm pretty good at it) and Running every mod I listed I still get 45-60 FPS in most places and no lower than 20-25 in bottleneck zones.

My system:
Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 x86
Intel Pentium Core 2 Duo 2.8GHz
4GB DDR2 1024 MHz RAM
nVidia GeForce 9800GTX (BFG Factory OC to 833 MHZ) with 768MB GDDR3 VRAM
User avatar
Claire
 
Posts: 3329
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:01 pm

Post » Sat May 19, 2012 10:00 am

I agree about Skyrim HD lite, doesn't really effect my fps in anyway even the normal version, saying that though, some texture mods do reduce fps for me (I've had issues with mountain texture mods slowing down my PC)

Btw; am I the only one who doesn't like the FXAA? Maybe it's the version I tried and I know it's customizable, but from what I remember it adds sharpening, vignette and a blue tint to the world, which looks quite ugly imo.

Plus some characters faces turn pitch black.

I really don't think it looks better from vanilla.
User avatar
Katie Pollard
 
Posts: 3460
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 11:23 pm

Post » Sat May 19, 2012 2:39 am

I agree about Skyrim HD lite, doesn't really effect my fps in anyway even the normal version, saying that though, some texture mods do reduce fps for me (I've had issues with mountain texture mods slowing down my PC)

Btw; am I the only one who doesn't like the FXAA? Maybe it's the version I tried and I know it's customizable, but from what I remember it adds sharpening, vignette and a blue tint to the world, which looks quite ugly imo.

Plus some characters faces turn pitch black.

I really don't think it looks better from vanilla.
There are several FXAA injectors and exponentially more settings for them. I use the Himmelsrand Shader Suite and it looks pretty nice. May have to toy with the Gamma a little for your tastes ,but generally, I like how it looks and it beats the green tinted world we were given.
User avatar
Trish
 
Posts: 3332
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 9:00 am

Post » Sat May 19, 2012 3:50 am

The thing with the graphical improvements (just talking textures here) is they will have no affect on performance, assuming you have enough RAM and VRAM. Your graphics card doesn't care and your CPU doesn't care about the higher resolution textures. As long as you have enough memory so the textures don't have to be swapped out all the time, you'll be fine.

However, if you have <4gb of RAM and <1gb of VRAM you'll probably be in trouble. In that case the 'lite' versions of the aforementioned mods will probably work out better, though you may still see some performance hit.

FXAA is really the only one mentioned that could negatively affect performance in a substantial way...

Peter

OK cheers, thats useful. I have 4GB of RAM but only 512MB RAM on my graphics card. Unfortunately for skyrim it would seem, my CPU is the strongest component. I'll have a look at some of the lite versions then.
User avatar
Stephanie Valentine
 
Posts: 3281
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 2:09 pm

Post » Fri May 18, 2012 9:43 pm

I suggested the Lite and lo-res versions of those BECAUSE they don't have the effect you stated. Skyrim HD lite is only 1024X1024 textures, and the other low res/med res files are smaller. Lush grass/trees didn't drop my performance at ALL (And are advertised as such on their download pages). So, NO, those WON'T have a huge negative impact on the performance.

Edit to add: I am only running the game at Medium to high settings (granted I've tweaked the hell out of those settings because I'm pretty good at it) and Running every mod I listed I still get 45-60 FPS in most places and no lower than 20-25 in bottleneck zones.

My system:
Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 x86
Intel Pentium Core 2 Duo 2.8GHz
4GB DDR2 1024 MHz RAM
nVidia GeForce 9800GTX (BFG Factory OC to 833 MHZ) with 768MB GDDR3 VRAM

Does the lite version, in your experience, actually make a difference? I'm obviously expecting the difference to be less than with the full mod, but is it still worth installing?
User avatar
Jonathan Windmon
 
Posts: 3410
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:23 pm

Post » Sat May 19, 2012 5:09 am

There are several FXAA injectors and exponentially more settings for them. I use the Himmelsrand Shader Suite and it looks pretty nice. May have to toy with the Gamma a little for your tastes ,but generally, I like how it looks and it beats the green tinted world we were given.

Yeah I think I may of tried that one, and a couple of the other ones that are meant to be more realistic, but I keep switching back to vanilla for one reason or another (it just looks more natural imo). Saying that though I think the lighting indoors looks much better with FXAA. It's the sharpening with some FXAA injectors I can't stand, makes everything look like a cartoon.

Sorry to derail the thread a bit btw!
User avatar
Pants
 
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 4:34 am

Post » Sat May 19, 2012 5:01 am

Does the lite version, in your experience, actually make a difference? I'm obviously expecting the difference to be less than with the full mod, but is it still worth installing?
THe difference is incredible. If I were at home, I'd run a few screenshot comparisons. To note I've installed the full mod before (testing how far I could push my old machine) and the difference in appearance isn't TERRIBLY noticeable between the full and lite versions of the HD mod. I was doing it just for beautiful SS and found out that the difference is negligible to me. To others with.. more sensitive eyes that bleed when textures are below 4096x4096, maybe it's no better than vanilla. But for me it's GREAT.
User avatar
Sarah Bishop
 
Posts: 3387
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:59 pm

Post » Fri May 18, 2012 11:03 pm

THe difference is incredible. If I were at home, I'd run a few screenshot comparisons. To note I've installed the full mod before (testing how far I could push my old machine) and the difference in appearance isn't TERRIBLY noticeable between the full and lite versions of the HD mod. I was doing it just for beautiful SS and found out that the difference is negligible to me. To others with.. more sensitive eyes that bleed when textures are below 4096x4096, maybe it's no better than vanilla. But for me it's GREAT.

Cool, that's encouraging. And you say there was little performance hit with the lite version? Do you have to have the textures set to high for the upgraded packs to work or do they simply override all the settings when installed?
User avatar
Suzie Dalziel
 
Posts: 3443
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:19 pm

Post » Sat May 19, 2012 4:36 am

I haven't read the whole thread so if anything similiar was mentioned already I'm sorry.

Best to install Wrye Bash for Skyrim and utilise BAIN for installing/uninstalling mods. This way you can easily delete even larger texture packs with ease. If you're not familiar with Wrye Bash already there are a few guides available. http://www.tesnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=35230 for example.
User avatar
stevie trent
 
Posts: 3460
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 3:33 pm

Post » Sat May 19, 2012 3:40 am

Here's my 2 cents from a newbie in mods.

I have 4 GB memory & 1 GB of vram, first tired the Night Shy mod (my 1st attempt at using a mod) works great so beautiful.
I just installed Serious HD Textures for Landscapes & used the Lite / 1024 version of it.
I love it !! it's a huge improvement.
Not sure it would work for you with 512 MB but I sure would give it a try : )
User avatar
Ellie English
 
Posts: 3457
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:47 pm

Post » Sat May 19, 2012 8:53 am

Thanks guys, all useful. I've just got one more question, kinda unrelated but rather than start a new thread...

Are there any must-have mods that you should install before you even boot the game up for the first time? I'd like to experience bethesda's game for a while before I install some of the more radical mods but, for instance, the UI mod I looked at seemed to be one that you just SHOULD install, regardless of whether you want to experience vanilla skyrim (as I kind of do, for a while at least). Are there any other recommendations?
User avatar
Tiffany Carter
 
Posts: 3454
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:05 am


Return to V - Skyrim