Jump to content


Photo

STEP Compilation Installers choice


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 whismerhill

whismerhill

    Prisoner

  • Members
  • 33 posts

Posted 04 December 2015 - 11:36 AM

hi, in short

I'm not new to modding skyrim but it's the first time I'm delving into STEP. (I'm also a simple modder at times)

I'm trying to find a baseline to know which package to download because I would like, if possible, to avoid downloading too many packages.

 

I didn't manage to find anything by searching

so is there comparison screenshots of :

 

STEP Compilation Installer - High Res - 2292c

or

STEP Compilation Installer - Normal Res - 2292c

 

and is there a baseline of the type of gfx card + amount of memory recommended for both ?

 

Thanks.

 

PS: here's my quick configuration for information purposes:

I7-2600k

16GB

GTX760 2GB


  • 0

#2 EssArrBee

EssArrBee

    Incompatibilism Manager

  • STEP Staff
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,721 posts

Posted 04 December 2015 - 12:32 PM

So STEP is mostly built around a mix of 1k-2k textures. 1k for most outdoor stuff and 2k for interiors, armors, and weapons. You're system would be a little higher than what is necessary to run STEP at normal res. I guess the baseline would be a Core i5, 8GB RAM, any mid-range card with 2GB of VRAM.



#3 whismerhill

whismerhill

    Prisoner

  • Members
  • 33 posts

Posted 04 December 2015 - 02:35 PM

Thanks a lot, that totally answers my question and

with that I believe I'll go with the normal res, that gives me some headroom.


  • 0

#4 elwaps

elwaps

    Commander

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 223 posts

Posted 04 December 2015 - 06:01 PM

...you're gonna urgently need when using an ENB or ETaC or JKs Skyim/Cities...  :;):


  • 1

#5 whismerhill

whismerhill

    Prisoner

  • Members
  • 33 posts

Posted 07 December 2015 - 12:22 PM

yeah I'm looking at ENBs but still unsure if I'm gonna use one,

-57% fps as advertised in SkyRealism - ENB Evolved seems pretty huge to me

it would mean I'd need something like 100~120 average without ENB to start with

 

maybe I'll use ENB but without some of the heavier effects... However since I didn't find any comparisons, it'll probably be some hand tweaking and since my setup is not yet complete, this seems daunting from where I stand for now xD


  • 0

#6 elwaps

elwaps

    Commander

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 223 posts

Posted 07 December 2015 - 07:06 PM

I benchmarked my installation, Vividian ENB (default vanilla preset) together with Vividian Clouds and Groundfogs, VividSnow, Climates of Tamriel, Supreme Storms and Enhanced Snow System took me down from 56.3 to 36.0 fps (while reducing VRAM usage and improving fps stability quite a bit). As CoT and the others are known for having a fps impact, the effect of Vividian wasn't that bad.

 

Why aiming for 60fps+ anyway? Are you planning to use Oculus Rift?


  • 0

#7 TechAngel85

TechAngel85

    Akatosh

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,058 posts

Posted 07 December 2015 - 07:31 PM

ELEP is a good choice if you just want some effects like better shadows without the huge performance impact. ELEP keeps the vanilla colors. Vividian Performance version is very good as well.

#8 whismerhill

whismerhill

    Prisoner

  • Members
  • 33 posts

Posted 08 December 2015 - 01:09 AM

I benchmarked my installation, Vividian ENB (default vanilla preset) together with Vividian Clouds and Groundfogs, VividSnow, Climates of Tamriel, Supreme Storms and Enhanced Snow System took me down from 56.3 to 36.0 fps (while reducing VRAM usage and improving fps stability quite a bit). As CoT and the others are known for having a fps impact, the effect of Vividian wasn't that bad.

 

Why aiming for 60fps+ anyway? Are you planning to use Oculus Rift?

Thanks for the tips (& you too TechAngel)

 

to answer your question~: first 100~120 / 57 % = 43 ~ 51,6

 

so yeah I'd prefer 60+ but anything about 50+ is fine, 45+ is tolerable

 

and why aim for that, well it's a question of personnal preference on the responsiveness of games, 30 FPS games tend to annoy me to no end, and a 45 average means you'll get some dips to 30 already. I already played in conditions like these on multiple games before, I can get accustomed to it but I don't like it.

 

For example a little while back I had a GTX470 superclocked (approximately equivalent to a GTX560Ti), and Tomb Raider 2013 was running not so good, so I disabled some stuff but still left the tressfx effect, because I felt like it somewhat increased realism (even though sometimes the wind direction for your hair seemed wrong), I had to bear with the 30~45 range FPS for playing this, I did it but didn't like it.

 

I can't really explain this, it's a general feeling, I know most people are less sensitive about this than I am.


  • 0

#9 elwaps

elwaps

    Commander

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 223 posts

Posted 08 December 2015 - 10:35 AM

Well, I must be a graphics ***** then. In games like Skyrim (=games I already know and I love because of their immersion) I tend to go for (stable) 30fps (without noticeable drops) and as much eye candy as possible. Doesn't apply to racing games, shooters etc, of course. But if I had to choose between dense, real looking grass and gaining 5fps, I'm always gonna go for the grass. ;) And when my math is right, upgrading to the 980 Ti should push me from 36 to about 75fps in average, which is exactly what I'd need to do an Oculus playthrough... ^^

 

Had that 470 SuperClocked too, by the way. Awesome card back then, unfortunately today its even too weak for a properly modded Skyrim.


  • 1


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users