Screenshot request - Med / High / Ultra : V - Skyrim

» Sat Dec 10, 2011 7:41 pm

Low:
[img]http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/2442/1lowa.jpg[/img]

Medium:
[img]http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/5051/2mediumo.jpg[/img]

High:
[img]http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/7079/3high.jpg[/img]

Ultra:
[img]http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/2090/4ultra.jpg[/img]

I took the screenshots myself, so if anybody have questions, ask away.
Ps. All images are 1080p, so you need to maximize the image to really see the differences.

Thanks! The soft shadows and ultra looks amazing! :shocking:

» Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:16 pm

Low:
[img]http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/2442/1lowa.jpg[/img]

Medium:
[img]http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/5051/2mediumo.jpg[/img]

High:
[img]http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/7079/3high.jpg[/img]

Ultra:
[img]http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/2090/4ultra.jpg[/img]

I took the screenshots myself, so if anybody have questions, ask away.
Ps. All images are 1080p, so you need to maximize the image to really see the differences.

Big thanks. But is it some kind of mistake or am I blind that I can see that the game looks really, really nice on low settings? That's cool (if it's true).

» Sun Dec 11, 2011 1:21 am

There also seems to be more terrain on high and ultra - if you look in the centre and follow the river up a path seems to appear on the higher settings (either a path or some other sort of terrain as on Ultra there is a tree shadow going over it

» Sat Dec 10, 2011 1:24 pm

Low:
[img]http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/2442/1lowa.jpg[/img]

Medium:
[img]http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/5051/2mediumo.jpg[/img]

High:
[img]http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/7079/3high.jpg[/img]

Ultra:
[img]http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/2090/4ultra.jpg[/img]

I took the screenshots myself, so if anybody have questions, ask away.
Ps. All images are 1080p, so you need to maximize the image to really see the differences.

High looks better than Ultra to me...??

» Sat Dec 10, 2011 10:15 pm

Big thanks. But is it some kind of mistake or am I blind that I can see that the game looks really, really nice on low settings? That's cool (if it's true).

think your blind.. just open up a window comparing the robe textures even medium beats it

» Sat Dec 10, 2011 6:02 pm

Obviously this is unecessary but don't troll...

Low to Ultra comparison SIDE TO SIDE:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/840/lowtoultra.png/

You can really tell the difference with water and at a distance there's a huge difference, CHEERS!

» Sat Dec 10, 2011 7:49 pm

Hey man, thanks for the comparison shots, really appreciate it!

» Sat Dec 10, 2011 6:32 pm

It's actually incredible how picky some people are about graphics.

Im' a real graphics junkie and I love the graphics on even low. I couldn't even tell the subtle differences until people pointed them out!

» Sat Dec 10, 2011 10:09 pm

Thanks for the comparison shots.

My eyes/screen see quite a bit of difference in the ground texture clarity from the low to ultra pics. I's not that they're super-different, if that makes sense but they're nowhere near as blurred. Like a camera lens that's better focused. Even up close under the chrs. feet, which is not exactly distant "draw distance."

Water looks about the same.

What is the max in-game AA/AF settings? Or does it just say "Ultra"...

There's a lot of differences, notice from medium to high, the texture comes to life, at least for me it's night and day.
The water looks about the same on pictures, but in motion Ultra looks much better.
Ultra also has FXAA on the trees, as you can see on top of them, and I think there's also AO, hence the much more detailed shadows.

In game AA is 8 and AF is 16, but looks better if you force the same values via driver.

» Sat Dec 10, 2011 4:00 pm

It's actually incredible how picky some people are about graphics.

Im' a real graphics junkie and I love the graphics on even low. I couldn't even tell the subtle differences until people pointed them out!

They are not bad at all on low.

Ultra has obvious sharper texture and much more subtle shadowing as well as more detail on some elements (look at the pillars of the bridge).

» Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:29 pm

Do the presets (high medium low, etc have any effect on the view distance slider?

» Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:24 pm

Obviously this is unecessary but don't troll...

Low to Ultra comparison SIDE TO SIDE:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/840/lowtoultra.png/

You can really tell the difference with water and at a distance there's a huge difference, CHEERS!

I still don't think there's a huge difference with water in these screens. There is a difference - shading and less "flat" way out far away, but it's not "huge."
But in motion/in-game it's probably a lot more noticeable.

» Sat Dec 10, 2011 2:59 pm

Do the presets (high medium low, etc have any effect on the view distance slider?

A lot, you can see the sliders moving as you press the buttons from the different levels of detail.

» Sat Dec 10, 2011 10:14 pm

I still don't think there's a huge difference with water in these screens. There is a difference - shading and less "flat" way out far away, but it's not "huge."
But in motion/in-game it's probably a lot more noticeable.

well one looks like nintendo 64 water and the other looks like it belongs in this game water to me it makes a huge difference but it's an opinion none the less! ^.^ Can't wait to see it on my 60" LED 64 water or not i'm gonna play this game until my finger tips bleed!!!

» Sat Dec 10, 2011 9:57 pm

So is the 360 version low or medium?

» Sat Dec 10, 2011 10:36 pm

There's a lot of differences, notice from medium to high, the texture comes to life, at least for me it's night and day.
The water looks about the same on pictures, but in motion Ultra looks much better.
Ultra also has FXAA on the trees, as you can see on top of them, and I think there's also AO, hence the much more detailed shadows.

In game AA is 8 and AF is 16, but looks better if you force the same values via driver.

Thanks for the reply. Decent default settings. And yeah, I'm going to fiddle w/the driver settings just to see :laugh: tho normally I'll probably just stick with the in-game settings.
And I figured about the water...some things are just hard to catch in a screen. Can't wait!

What I've seen so far=I like/am satisfied for the game & engine. Anything I may end up disliking will have more to do with artstyle rather than graphic settings.

» Sat Dec 10, 2011 10:50 pm

Not that much difference in any of those pics imo, maybe I'm just easily pleased.

» Sat Dec 10, 2011 8:44 pm

Judging from these shots I would say 360 looks somewhere around medium or even high, which I guess is not that surprising, but I call complete BS on "Ultra will melt your face off", it's only slightly better than high.

Even so, the overall feel of the art direction is incredible, can't wait to hop in!

» Sun Dec 11, 2011 12:50 am

It's not a big difference. Draw distance and shadows mostly.

» Sat Dec 10, 2011 10:49 am

well one looks like nintendo 64 water and the other looks like it belongs in this game water to me it makes a huge difference but it's an opinion none the less! ^.^ Can't wait to see it on my 60" LED 64 water or not i'm gonna play this game until my finger tips bleed!!!

Hehe....isn't it amazing/cool the different things people notice/prefer etc?
And I'm going to play until my brain explodes from a caffeine overdose whilsttrying to stay awake to go "just a little further..." :rofl:

» Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:40 pm

The screenshots are just for comparison on the detail level.
You can't judge the whole "melt your face off" thing, just from pics.

I'm playing on ultra, and in some places, it is quite amazing actually.
You stop for a second and think, OMFG, that looks really fantastic.

» Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:36 pm

Judging from these shots I would say 360 looks somewhere around medium or even high, which I guess is not that surprising, but I call complete BS on "Ultra will melt your face off", it's only slightly better than high.

Even so, the overall feel of the art direction is incredible, can't wait to hop in!

I thought xbox was low settings?

» Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:19 pm

I thought xbox was low settings?

Watching the live streams, it's pretty clear the consoles are low settings, with even lower rez textures in spots.

» Sun Dec 11, 2011 12:21 am

Low:
[img]http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/2442/1lowa.jpg[/img]

Medium:
[img]http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/5051/2mediumo.jpg[/img]

High:
[img]http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/7079/3high.jpg[/img]

Ultra:
[img]http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/2090/4ultra.jpg[/img]

I took the screenshots myself, so if anybody have questions, ask away.
Ps. All images are 1080p, so you need to maximize the image to really see the differences.

Did you label High and Ultra correctly? High has much sharper textures than Ultra

» Sat Dec 10, 2011 9:16 pm

The screenshots are just for comparison on the detail level.
You can't judge the whole "melt your face off" thing, just from pics.

I'm playing on ultra, and in some places, it is quite amazing actually.
You stop for a second and think, OMFG, that looks really fantastic.

Since you are currently playing, would you say the system requirements are accurate? Looking at your comparison shots, the difference in quality makes me think the official requirements are a complete load of crap.