Skyrim Hi-Res Texture Pack Gets Huge Update
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Skyrim's achilles heel is not the game's use of GPU power (Obviously, you want a GPU with 1GB of VRam or more to run Skyrim at peak framerates.), but Skyrim's bad FPS is mostly due to the game only using a maximum of two threads. So really, resizing textures is only really good for people with GPUs that don't have that much VRAM.Hagi said:
WOO! Time to get back to Skyrim =D
Although running this on surround previously caused my GPUs to make some noise, I might have to scale down to 1980x1080 for this XD
Although running this on surround previously caused my GPUs to make some noise, I might have to scale down to 1980x1080 for this XD
I did just buy myself an 8 core but haven't played Skyrim in ages... might have a go at this again with the new DLC when I'm done with my massive backlog.
That honestly amused the shit out of me when the Hi-Res texture pack first launched. There were a lot of textures that outright broke when you installed it and only showed meshes, others just black nothings. Modders fixed it all within a day. It took Bethesda a month to release a "fixed" version of the texture pack that fixed some things and broke others.shameduser said:
I wonder if they fixed the pink fire logs and the woodcutting thing in the update.
Or if I'm still using the fix for nothing.
Or if I'm still using the fix for nothing.
So, basically, you need a computer and not a brick. Those requirements aren't high. Phones these days have quad core processors, 4Gb is the lowest amount of RAM you should have in a gaming PC, and 1Gb Graphics card with DX9... Why hello there 2008.
Personally I haven't like Bethesda's HD texture packs that much. Still look rather blurry on a lot of items, and the fan made mods are better, so I'll wait for the Dragonborn version of that to come out, seeing as I've already got the Hearthfire and Dawnguard updates.
Personally I haven't like Bethesda's HD texture packs that much. Still look rather blurry on a lot of items, and the fan made mods are better, so I'll wait for the Dragonborn version of that to come out, seeing as I've already got the Hearthfire and Dawnguard updates.
If any of you have been running S.T.E.P and or the Texture Pack Combiner, coupled with this update, I would advise none of you to attempt doing so if your video card has less than 1.5GB of VRAM, there are a couple of textures that eat up to 50mb of ram alone. With that said, I am kinda sad that almost everything I have installed, mod wise, will most likely be broken and unusable, I would strongly suggest all graphic texture whores, such as myself, that are using aforementioned graphic enhancing processes, to just remove them all and play with standard Bethesda high-def textures until those mods are updated. Things may get a bit broken otherwise.. I am kind of dreading seeing what these textures will do to my Skyrim Realistic Overhaul, HD2k, and other awesome textures..
Yeah, just a heads up that those specs are minimum for launching and running the game at maybe 30 fps. Getting it to actually look nice will need quite a bit more than that.Joccaren said:
You're not using many mods are you?Zer_ said:
You can mod Skyrim up to require 4GB of VRAM easily. At that point tools like this allow you to push that down by optimizing those textures (not just resizing them, it automatically converts them into more efficient formats).
It's a great tool to get that little extra performance out of Skyrim if you're pushing the bounds of your VRAM (which you at all times should be, there's absolutely no shortage of mods that greatly increase texture quality).
Glad to see Bethesda support the PC version. I will now shamelessly request that everyone make sure they download and use my Static Mesh Improvement Mod. It will CHANGE.YOUR.LIFE.
http://skyrim.nexusmods.com/mods/8655
or
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=11832
http://skyrim.nexusmods.com/mods/8655
or
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=11832
tbh i've just been running the more accessible player made texture mods and frankly i don't stare at the buildings or the lighting too often to notice anything other than say, certain graphical glitches or other strangeness caused by the way things overlap, and that's fixed with that patch above, but it's not really necessary, per se
just touch up whatever matters to you
just touch up whatever matters to you
1. No. They're the "Recommended" specs, which means they're what's required to run the game at recommended settings [Usually Max] and with the HD texture pack at a playable FPS that varies between 30 and 60 dependent on the developer. Basically, you have that and you're set, even though its half a decade old. Skyrim ain't that power hungry TBH. The only time it becomes power hungry is when you install 20Gb of graphics mods.ResonanceSD said:
2. The minimum requirements of the game are actually a dual core processor at 2.0Ghz, 2Gb RAM and a DX9 card with 512 Mb of RAM, and you could have that sort of rig back in 2003, a decade ago. If you have a brick, you can play Skyrim running at maybe 30FPS.
Basically, no. Those are not the minimum requirements to launch the game at 30FPS, they are the recommended requirements for playing the game, which generally means you'll play it max settings at either 30 or 60FPS. In both cases, its still rather low system specs that people really should be able to meet, or they need to upgrade their computer - and not just for gaming. You'll notice massive performance increases in pretty much all aspects if you're still using the minimum required rig and you upgrade to something like the recommended, let alone if you have something beneath the minimum requirements...
Skyrim ain't that much of a power hungry game. Its not the best optimized, but that doesn't change the fact that it was made to run on 8YO hardware, and runs on 10YO hardware anyway - with 5YO hardware maxing it out. The fan made content is what makes it a strain for modern computers, and even that's largely an engine issue more than a hardware issue.
