xLODGen - Terrain LOD beta 109 for FNV, FO3, FO4, FO4VR, TES5, SSE, TES5VR, ENDERAL, ENDERALSE

[sheson]

Your link for Beta 40 is borked, it tries to link directly to the x64 exe ;)

Fixed. Thanks for letting me know.

[Mitradis]

Thank you for update.

[sheson]

Thank you for update.

You are welcome.

[sheson]

beta 41 adds BC7 support for SSE, TES5VR and FO4 and uses a better algorithm for BC1/BC2/BC3 to reduce artifacts.
 
Left old method, right new method
 

Edited March 4, 2019 by sheson

[Tacocat]

Wow thanks, that looks like a huge step up.

[Tacocat]

Generation of lod for all the vanilla worldspaces + bruma and pale pass worked flawlessly and MUCH faster thanks to bc7. Didnt see any bugs so far and noticed a slight gain in lod quality and performance <3

[El_Rizzo]

So this might be a dumb question, but would it make sense to use bc7 for diffuse textures as well as for normals, or should bc7 only be used for normals and dxt1 for diffuse? And what is the difference between bc7 quick and max? Is it affecting quality or just the amount of compression?

Edited March 8, 2019 by El_Rizzo

[sheson]

So this might be a dumb question, but would it make sense to use bc7 for diffuse textures as well as for normals, or should bc7 only be used for normals and dxt1 for diffuse? And what is the difference between bc7 quick and max? Is it affecting quality or just the amount of compression?

http://www.reedbeta.com/blog/understanding-bcn-texture-compression-formats/

 

https://github.com/Microsoft/DirectXTex/wiki/Texconv

-bcmax Uses maximum compression (BC7: enables mode 0 & 2 usage)

-bcquick Uses minimal compression (BC7: uses just mode 6)

 

 

The technical aspect however are just theoretical.What counts is how things look in the game and how much video memory the textures are going to use.

 

For that I suggest to generate some terrain textures in the different formats and then compare the result in the game.

 

Without having done any such tests, let me just assume (prove me right/wrong with some actual tests screenshots):

 

With the latest update, BC1 (DXT1) will probably have sufficient quality for both terrain diffuse and normal textures while using the least amount of video memory.

Edited March 8, 2019 by sheson

[El_Rizzo]

First of all, thanks for the informative links, as someone who generally has no deeper knowledge about textures, this was quite interesting and enlightening (tho I won't pretend that I understood all the technical aspects ^^). As for testing the different compression methods, I created a chunk (LOD level 4, 0,0) with 888(8), 565, BC1, BC7 quick and BC7 max for both diffuse and normal maps and compared them using paint.net with up-to-date dds plugin and this is what I noticed:

 

Aside from an ever so slight shift in some colors, BC1 and 888 diffuse textures are looking the same to me, the only notable exception for both diffuse and normal maps was BC7, which has a more grainy look to it (both quick and max) than any other format used. An example of what I mean can be seen here:

888 format

 

 

BC7 max format

 

As for normal maps, I noticed a slight degradation in detail when comparing BC1 with 8888 and again BC7 looks more grainy than the rest, tho I'm not sure if it even makes sense to compare normal maps on their own?

 

For now I'm gonna use BC1 for both diffuse and normal textures as it seems to be the best trade-off between size and quality.

Edited March 9, 2019 by El_Rizzo

[sheson]

First of all, thanks for the informative links, as someone who generally has no deeper knowledge about textures, this was quite interesting and enlightening (tho I won't pretend that I understood all the technical aspects ^^). As for testing the different compression methods, I created a chunk (LOD level 4, 0,0) with 888(8), 565, BC1, BC7 quick and BC7 max for both diffuse and normal maps and compared them using paint.net with up-to-date dds plugin and this is what I noticed:

 

Aside from an ever so slight shift in some colors, BC1 and 888 diffuse textures are looking the same to me, the only notable exception for both diffuse and normal maps was BC7, which has a more grainy look to it (both quick and max) than any other format used. An example of what I mean can be seen here:

888 format

 

 

BC7 max format

 

As for normal maps, I noticed a slight degradation in detail when comparing BC1 with 8888 and again BC7 looks more grainy than the rest, tho I'm not sure if it even makes sense to compare normal maps on their own?

 

For now I'm gonna use BC1 for both diffuse and normal textures as it seems to be the best trade-off between size and quality.

H, BC7 should have the least amount of artifacts and color banding.

 

The thing is, those compression differences you are able to spot when directly comparing textures in an image viewer most likely do not play such a big role in game with lighting and the noise texture are applied.

 

DXT1 should be the smallest files for the same resolution, thus potentially allowing to increase the resolution by one step if hardware resource allow it. That will improve the quality more than anything. 

 

(565 is out of the question since it does not work with SSE on running on Windows 7)

[El_Rizzo]

The thing is, those compression differences you are able to spot when directly comparing textures in an image viewer most likely do not play such a big role in game with lighting and the noise texture are applied.

 

DXT1 should be the smallest files for the same resolution, thus potentially allowing to increase the resolution by one step if hardware resource allow it. That will improve the quality more than anything.

Yeah, hence why I'm sticking with BC1 :) I considered increasing the resolution further, but I'm currently at 2048 for diffuse at level 4 and I think that is sufficient enough for me, so I'll keep it that way since Sim Settlements + a lot of texture mods manages to fill up the 11gb Vram of my 1080ti at the current settings already

 

 

(565 is out of the question since it does not work with SSE on running on Windows 7)

I'm aware, but since I'm on Windows 10 and I tested with Fallout 4 it shouldn't be a problem, unless I'm somehow mistaken.

[sheson]

Yeah, hence why I'm sticking with BC1 :) I considered increasing the resolution further, but I'm currently at 2048 for diffuse at level 4 and I think that is sufficient enough for me, so I'll keep it that way since Sim Settlements + a lot of texture mods manages to fill up the 11gb Vram of my 1080ti at the current settings already

 

I'm aware, but since I'm on Windows 10 and I tested with Fallout 4 it shouldn't be a problem, unless I'm somehow mistaken.

It works fine in FO4 AFAIK

[kranazoli]

Hi Guys and Girls,

 

I have asked that question from Sheson and got an answer. (DynDOLOD topic)

 

Now, I ask you, who play Skyrim SSE and use xcLODGEN and/or DynDOLOD.

From the Oldrim Skyrim time, I just used DynDOLOD.

 

ATM, I do not have how things gopingon with SSE! There are some Guide here which recommend to use xLODGEN with SSE-Terrain-Tamriel.esm and DynDOLOD, as well.

For instance: TUCOGUIDE

 

 

 

At the Nordic Guide:

 

"DynDOLOD (or here): This is a more advanced and also not that performance-friendly option as previous one. Still, it's worth to use it instead of SSELODGen (there are different performance options that you can choose from). [CORE]"

 

But, I am more curious about personal experience from players.

 

 

 

Which method is "the most" recommended one?

 

1.) Use xLODGEN and DynDOLOD, as well. (SSE-Terrain-Tamriel.esm)?

2.) Or, use "'just" DynDOLOD is enough? (DynDOLOD Resources SE + DynDOLOD Standalone and use TexGen and for instance High preset for DynDOLOD)

 

 

 

Because this info is totally new to me:

 

"Recommended Optionals
 
TES5-Terrain-Tamriel.esm, SSE-Terrain-Tamriel.esm
Put in game data folder obviously. Adds back terrain for Skyrim (Tamriel worldspace) at the outer edges so there is no missing terrain meshes/textures when generating terrain LOD for Skyrim.
Only required to be loaded when generating terrain LOD. No harm done when loaded in-game but typically the player can not get close to these areas, so it is rather useless."

 

Thank You!

Edited March 12, 2019 by kranazoli

[sheson]

Hi Guys and Girls,

 

I have asked that question from Sheson and got an answer. (DynDOLOD topic)

 

Now, I ask you, who play Skyrim SSE and use xcLODGEN and/or DynDOLOD.

From the Oldrim Skyrim time, I just used DynDOLOD.

 

ATM, I do not have how things gopingon with SSE! There are some Guide here which recommend to use xLODGEN with SSE-Terrain-Tamriel.esm and DynDOLOD, as well.

For instance: TUCOGUIDE

 

 

 

At the Nordic Guide:

 

"DynDOLOD (or here): This is a more advanced and also not that performance-friendly option as previous one. Still, it's worth to use it instead of SSELODGen (there are different performance options that you can choose from). [CORE]"

 

But, I am more curious about personal experience from players.

 

 

 

Which method is "the most" recommended one?

 

1.) Use xLODGEN and DynDOLOD, as well. (SSE-Terrain-Tamriel.esm)?

2.) Or, use "'just" DynDOLOD is enough? (DynDOLOD Resources SE + DynDOLOD Standalone and use TexGen and for instance High preset for DynDOLOD)

 

 

 

Because this info is totally new to me:

 

"Recommended Optionals

 

TES5-Terrain-Tamriel.esm, SSE-Terrain-Tamriel.esm

Put in game data folder obviously. Adds back terrain for Skyrim (Tamriel worldspace) at the outer edges so there is no missing terrain meshes/textures when generating terrain LOD for Skyrim.

Only required to be loaded when generating terrain LOD. No harm done when loaded in-game but typically the player can not get close to these areas, so it is rather useless."

 

Thank You!

Why ask the same question again?

 

As asked, answered and discussed before: use xLODGen to generate terrain LOD first and then TexGen and DynDOLOD for object and tree LOD.

 

 

 

Skyrim.esm does not contain the entire Tamriel landmass, but the vanilla game ships with LOD meshes and textures that cover more area.

 

So TES5-Terrain-Tamriel.esm, SSE-Terrain-Tamriel.esm adds back terrain for Skyrim (Tamriel worldspace) at the outer edges so there is no missing terrain meshes/textures when generating terrain LOD for Skyrim.

 

A common problem with old terrain LOD replacer mods made with OSCAPE back in the day.

[kranazoli]

Why ask the same question again?

 

As asked, answered and discussed before: use xLODGen to generate terrain LOD first and then TexGen and DynDOLOD for object and tree LOD.

 

 

 

Skyrim.esm does not contain the entire Tamriel landmass, but the vanilla game ships with LOD meshes and textures that cover more area.

 

So TES5-Terrain-Tamriel.esm, SSE-Terrain-Tamriel.esm adds back terrain for Skyrim (Tamriel worldspace) at the outer edges so there is no missing terrain meshes/textures when generating terrain LOD for Skyrim.

 

A common problem with old terrain LOD replacer mods made with OSCAPE back in the day.

"But, I am more curious about personal experience from players."