Skyrim

[STEvil]

Whats with all the images on the forums getting auto-resized? While I welcome it, their getting auto-resized to stupidly small dimensions. Also, it looks like bethesda have never heard of DoF in that image

Its your browser doing the resizing.

[NEOAethyr]

It does it here too but I just open the image in a new page and it's full sized then.
It's not my browser, I don't have fit to width enabled every often, only when zooming.

My browser only shrinks the image down when it's just an image without a page, in which case I just click on the image and it makes it full sized, I thought it was lame but everyone else liked it so :\.

To be honest, wouldn't just waste bandwith if you have to open every image in a new page anyways to view it right? (I know cache right?, well opera's cache has never worked, it always reloads...)
I can't even read anything in those tiny pics.
Well, maybe not tiny, but on a 1080p 24in screen it's to small..
I'm not complaining though...

[STEvil]

Are you using Firefox? If so, its your browser. The page zoom function (control + +/-) resizes everything, not just the text.

edit - if you're clicking the image then its likely from photoshack or something which is the one doing the resizing.

[vohu manah]

lol drama-thread

....NEOAethyr what do you think of the game so far? ^^

[Frag Maniac]

Hey, got an interesting idea, let's get BACK ON TOPIC.

How's your frame rates in Skyrim after the Nvidia 295.73 driver update everyone? I'm looking for someone that can verify whether it can be played on a GTS 250 1GB with the HD texture DLC. That's with a 950 at 3.2HGz and 6GB RAM.

Currently I'm running the stock game at 1600x900 with no AA, 8x AF, High textures, Low radial blur, Med shadows, and High decals with max draw distance and details w/ VSync on averaging 55-60 FPS. I will accept dropping to 1280x720 with everything else same settings for the HD pack, but I'm hoping to get the same FPS. What say you, is it a go or no?

[UrbanSmooth]

Hey, got an interesting idea, let's get BACK ON TOPIC.

How's your frame rates in Skyrim after the Nvidia 295.73 driver update everyone? I'm looking for someone that can verify whether it can be played on a GTS 250 1GB with the HD texture DLC. That's with a 950 at 3.2HGz and 6GB RAM.

Currently I'm running the stock game at 1600x900 with no AA, 8x AF, High textures, Low radial blur, Med shadows, and High decals with max draw distance and details w/ VSync on averaging 55-60 FPS. I will accept dropping to 1280x720 with everything else same settings for the HD pack, but I'm hoping to get the same FPS. What say you, is it a go or no?

1. OC your CPU higher. At least 4GHz, you should see some decent improvement.

2. Never accept playing at a lower resolution. You're a PC gamer, not a console gamer, LOL!

3. Get the Skyrim HD texture mod from Skyrim Nexus. It's a smaller file size than the DLC and looks better.

4. You can make your game run better by using different settings within the Skyrim.ini and SkyrimPrefs.ini files.

5. Enjoy!

[Frag Maniac]

1. OC your CPU higher. At least 4GHz, you should see some decent improvement.

2. Never accept playing at a lower resolution. You're a PC gamer, not a console gamer, LOL!

3. Get the Skyrim HD texture mod from Skyrim Nexus. It's a smaller file size than the DLC and looks better.

4. You can make your game run better by using different settings within the Skyrim.ini and SkyrimPrefs.ini files.

1. I won't be OCing the CPU higher until I get a GPU that can actually keep up with it. Until then it's clearly my GPU that is the bottleneck, not the CPU.

2. If you were on a GTS 250, you'd understand how ridiculous that sounds. I can play OK at 1600x900 IF I turn all AA off, as I discovered in my testing last night, but with the HD pack of course it's likely going to dip lower than I care to see it and the resulting choppiness I don't like.

3. Smaller file size because it only covers at best 1/4 of the game. I don't see how that is a good solution. It would only play fine where there's no texture improvements. In towns where the textures have been converted completely, it would likely play worse.

4. I've already done that. I tweaked everything I could that didn't cause unacceptable visual tradeoffs.

Anyone actually HAVE any experience trying the official HD texture DLC pack on a GTS 250 1GB? Guess I'll have to DL a 3+ GB file and experiment if I can't get any pertinent responses.

[Manicdan]

this game is so severely limited by cpu.
im running the high res pack at 1920x1200 with 0x aa, 16x af many details pushed pretty high and i get 30fps or more, all with a 4870 1GB, with my 4850 512mb it was lower by a noticeable margin, thanks to a 4.7ghz 2500k not being the bottleneck

[SabreWulf69]

Fixed the lake image above with an updated, better water looking one :-)

[Frag Maniac]

this game is so severely limited by cpu.
im running the high res pack at 1920x1200 with 0x aa, 16x af many details pushed pretty high and i get 30fps or more, all with a 4870 1GB, with my 4850 512mb it was lower by a noticeable margin, thanks to a 4.7ghz 2500k not being the bottleneck

That's what i'm saying. I could crank my CPU up higher, but it won't likely help at all. The only issues I have frame rate wise are caused by my 250's shader power limitations when heavy fog and torchlight is onscreen. The GTS 250 1GB is still one of the best bang for buck cards, but at some point it runs out of oomph.

[Manicdan]

i dont think were completely agreeing

i think you are getting limited by your gpu, 1080p might not be possible with the high res unless you drop some view distance or extra effects.
but the game really is bad for almost any cpu out there, unless its overclocked.

[UrbanSmooth]

1. I won't be OCing the CPU higher until I get a GPU that can actually keep up with it. Until then it's clearly my GPU that is the bottleneck, not the CPU.

Are you serious? Frag...OC your CPU higher.

[Frag Maniac]

Are you serious? Frag...OC your CPU higher.

I WILL, when it's necessary. Apparently you aren't grasping what Manicdan and I are saying.

[SabreWulf69]

Mine is running at max graphics with a 560Ti and an overclocked Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 4.0GHz. Didn't lag until I started tweaking LOD, others effects and adding a gazillion texture packs o.O Definitely making me thinking about those juicy 670Ti cards coming out with 2GB of gcard ram, though an SSD could also help with the caching aspect but alas that money I'd rather spend on a gcard haha :-)

[Frag Maniac]

Definitely making me thinking about those juicy 670Ti cards coming out with 2GB of gcard ram...

Yeah I read about that, but there's also rumors floating round that they may skip the 600 moniker and call Kepler chips 700 series. Whatever I replace my 250 with I doubt I'll spend top dollar for a flagship card though because by 2014 Maxwell is going to make them all look sick.

[NEOAethyr]

lol drama-thread

....NEOAethyr what do you think of the game so far? ^^

I re-installed it a while back, plus the patches including the texture pack.
I only played it a few hours afterwards, played my old save.

I'm surprised because I can max out the texture res with no probs.
Though I cannot max everything out, I just max out the textures, char draw distance, and res, the rest I keep at a min.
Cpu is at stock speeds, so is the vga card.

Lod bais is -15 of course, set via the external program sli profile importer thingy.
It looks pretty decent for a game these days.

The new mouse I got makes it feal like it's running faster then it really is, it just feels faster because of how quick I can turn around and stuff.

I'm running it on the 32bit os, with kernel mem limit removed.
The game it's self doesn't support using more then 2gigs on 32bit, and I assume 4gigs on a 64bit os.
But regardless, it still runs good, windows it's self has lots of extra ram that way and it shows, the extra hd activity in the bg doesn't stutter up the gameplay at all.
Same goes for cod-mw3..., doesn't use more then 2gigs on 32bit windows, but seems fine at that anyways once windows has enough for it to play with in the bg.

[vohu manah]

I re-installed it a while back, plus the patches including the texture pack.
I only played it a few hours afterwards, played my old save.

I'm surprised because I can max out the texture res with no probs.
Though I cannot max everything out, I just max out the textures, char draw distance, and res, the rest I keep at a min.
Cpu is at stock speeds, so is the vga card.

Lod bais is -15 of course, set via the external program sli profile importer thingy.
It looks pretty decent for a game these days.

The new mouse I got makes it feal like it's running faster then it really is, it just feels faster because of how quick I can turn around and stuff.

I'm running it on the 32bit os, with kernel mem limit removed.
The game it's self doesn't support using more then 2gigs on 32bit, and I assume 4gigs on a 64bit os.
But regardless, it still runs good, windows it's self has lots of extra ram that way and it shows, the extra hd activity in the bg doesn't stutter up the gameplay at all.
Same goes for cod-mw3..., doesn't use more then 2gigs on 32bit windows, but seems fine at that anyways once windows has enough for it to play with in the bg.

lol I just had to get a new mouse x2 :P

I can't max out all the textures either, but it's really a beautiful game ^^ and you can fight dragons it it....you hear me? DRAGONS <33333

[SabreWulf69]

Just got the Xtreme-G update of the latest NVIDIA drivers and Skyrim flies now :-)

[NapalmV5]

note: only for powerful 3gb cards

skyrim.ini : http://www.2shared.com/file/588qBoQM/Skyrim.html

skyrimprefs.ini : http://www.2shared.com/file/NaZl8_4-/SkyrimPrefs.html

[Plan.B]

Napalm: are those the Bethesda hi-res textures, or other? What graphics mods are you running? Looks awesome.

[Frag Maniac]

Nvidia claims yet another 45% performance boost in Skyrim with the new 296.1 drivers. Can't say I'm noticing that much on my 250. The frame rate seems to be dipping a bit less though. How about those of you on the 500 series cards? And when are those 670 Ti cards coming? I thought they were supposed to be out some time this month. I'd hoped Nvidia would have said something about it by now.

[NapalmV5]

@296.17 i noticed an increment in sli usage but unfortunately its the same old story in skyrim.. anything interior/inside structures/stone textures and sli is fully utilized.. anything exterior/outside in the open sli is not being fully utilized.. for ex you point at a structure (stone structures/stone interior) in whiterun and sli is at full usage you point at anything else and sli drops to around 50%.. this is how witcher 2 used to be prior to patch v2.0.. pointing at wood structures/textures and bam full sli usage poiting at anything else no full sli

thats how these dx9 titles work.. takes about 6-9 months after release to get full sli usage

Napalm: are those the Bethesda hi-res textures, or other? What graphics mods are you running? Looks awesome.

thanks indeed looks amazing kudos/thanks to the skyrim community

not in this thread.. in sabrewulfs thread ive included the official hd textures as well.. although it is required in order to get more hd textures

if you like/want to try the other pack.. the motherload s.t.e.p pack is at nexusmods.com or if you dont want to register there just google " skyrim step 5,5gb " yeh its bigger than the game itself

the whole game directory resides at 14.6gb

[Frag Maniac]

@296.17 i noticed...

It's 296.10, there is no driver beyond that build, beta or otherwise.

[NapalmV5]

It's 296.10, there is no driver beyond that build, beta or otherwise.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/win8-64...ew-driver.html

[Frag Maniac]

LOL, that's specifically for W8, there's far more people on W7. Since you were judging it specifically on Skyrim SLI performance as if expecting better performance, it sounded like you were confusing it with 296.1, which actually DOES claim a Skyrim performance increase.

There's nothing in the release notes for that driver about a performance boost in Skyrim at all. It's merely meant for W8 testing purposes as it says. How you can justify criticizing it for not offering a satisfactory SLI boost in the game is absurd really.

There's simply not enough known about W8 yet to determine if it will be as good for gaming as W7. From all indications so far, they are prioritizing it as a tablet OS, so I wouldn't count on it being optimized for gaming.

If you want to prioritize tablet performance in the OS you choose, fine, just don't expect stellar gaming performance. Everyone knows MS doesn't give a crap about PC gaming like they pretend to. So when they come out with a tablet OS, it's pretty much obvious gaming performance will be the last priority.