Cleaned Skyrim SE Textures (by Kartoffels)

[TechAngel85]

Yeah, I wouldn't recommend the direct replacement.

[DarkladyLexy]

ok these are some screenshots of Performance monitor run using the vanilla start (as this is the only truly consistent way to benchmark Skyrim) the benchmark runs until the point you exit the cart in Helgen. These benchmarks were also done without running xLODGEN or DynDOLOD, please also note they use my full Lexy LOTD SE Setup.

This is Without the Clean textures:

https://mega.nz/file/SioUwK6K#TLOXa3qC-BUmiYptbURr1o2u7BPAxXsprSfwwajKpmI

 

 

Without:

https://mega.nz/file/X6x2zIZI#QmWDk5mOMX4GK-8TxhTlx7F3_ElmhvHIk3y4YjkLovk

 

my conclusion for me and my little guide an 8GB download to save what 100-150MB is not worth it. I do find it curious that the average VRAM with Cleaned Skyrim SE Textures is actually higher than without. I didn't anything different in the two runs.

[DoubleYou]

The VRAM level looks within the margin for error on those screens, so the only benefit would be in the quality of the textures themselves, if they truly make a difference and "clean" up artifacts.

 

I have been testing the associated Cubemaps mod, and I am seeing some oddities that I think are being caused by it.

[TechAngel85]

I agree. This mod isn't for "saving resources". It's goal is to clean up the textures for SE. When they made SE they generally upscaled a good portion of the textures. However, they did a piss poor job when doing so. The majority of their upscales are a blurry mess. Therefore, this mod went back to the original LE textures, processed them through ESRGAN, and that's about it. There is more to it than that, but that's it "in a nutshell". Some of the ESRGAN process was to remove BC1 compression artifacts and then to upscale them.

However, as mentioned in the OP. Doing this wasn't without it's unforeen issues. The plants and grass were edited further in SE to remove "painted shadowing" from them. I believe this was done due to SE's new lighting/shaders. It's very obvious that this objects no longer match the SE lighting as they are very dark in-game. They also reintroduce bugs in the plants where entire branches and parts of the plants are black due to the painted shadowing. These aren't that big a deal because they'll be overwritten 90% of the time by users.

So the real compare here is whether or not the processing improves the textures over the vanilla like/feel. I've ran around the game with just this installed and it is most definitely an improvement, imo. I'll grab some shots today.

[TechAngel85]

I added some shots to the OP. It cleans most of the textures, as advertised, however, an big enough improvement...? 

[Mercury71]

My eyes are old so i dont see much of an improvement in the pictures. For example the skull in the last two looks just as good to me in both pictures... a bit different maby.

As Lexy say... prolly not worth the download for most people. If being included in STEP i will install it just to follow the guide.

[TechAngel85]

Yeah, this is our process for determining mods that will and will not make it into the Guide. ...feedback from all community members is taken into account within that so all feedback on these mods is welcomed!
 

[DoubleYou]

Tech, that picture of the tree looks like the tree wasn't fully skinned in the second shot. It might look different upon a reload? The texture shouldn't remove limbs from the tree itself.

 

I would have to agree from the attached shots that the textures look barely different. In the future, we should probably replace the default upscaling with AI upscaling to actually enhance the details. As is, this mod probably does improve textures, but very minutely, despite a large download size.

[TechAngel85]

Tech, that picture of the tree looks like the tree wasn't fully skinned in the second shot. It might look different upon a reload? The texture shouldn't remove limbs from the tree itself.

The branches aren't removed, it's just poorer mipmapping from CSSET. You'll notice a lot of detail lose from these mipmaps. Dead pines are even worse. I think the texture is half the size of vanilla SE texture too for tree branches. Many of the textures from CSSET are actually LE sizes.

 

I've been working with the tree textures myself and they are a "treat" to work with... *sarcastically stated*  . They require a lot of additional post processing in a photo editor to get them to look right and the mipmaps are a pain in the arse. Here's my textures:

 

Vanilla > My Texture

[z929669]

Vanilla or CSSET? Your texture? Confused, since we are looking at CSSET in this thread. At close range, I do think "my texture" looks better. In that further range, they just look different. Mips both appear to be honoring the original .

 

If it's a mipmapping issue, then the tree screen in OP would need to be compared close up vs further away. The compare textures for that tree in particular look VERY different, and the shot is at fairly close range. I'd like to see that particular tree close up before making a determination. It could be diff in the alpha of the base texture itself.

 

I also think it's a very bad idea for the author to 'replace' the default game BSAs. It's asking for trouble, and I'll bet it won't last.

 

Agree that there is not a huge diff from vanilla in the screens posted. However, the biggest diffs would indeed appear to be mips or alpha on the mips. I actually think the mips may be better in CSSET based on that screen of the woman (look at the change in the tree behind her). But I would need to see a closeup of that tree to be sure.

[TechAngel85]

Vanilla or CSSET? Your texture? Confused, since we are looking at CSSET in this thread. At close range, I do think "my texture" looks better. In that further range, they just look different. Mips both appear to be honoring the original .

"My texture" is above in the post. I work on EVT and have recently been redoing the branch textures from an ESRGAN cleanup and upscale of my own. They are a bit different. I've toned down the yellow, which is very heavy in the vanilla texture. Mine also don't have any noise.

 

If it's a mipmapping issue, then the tree screen in OP would need to be compared close up vs further away. The compare textures for that tree in particular look VERY different, and the shot is at fairly close range. I'd like to see that particular tree close up before making a determination. It could be diff in the alpha of the base texture itself.

 

Agree that there is not a huge diff from vanilla in the screens posted. However, the biggest diffs would indeed appear to be mips or alpha on the mips. I actually think the mips may be better in CSSET based on that screen of the woman (look at the change in the tree behind her). But I would need to see a closeup of that tree to be sure.

I posted a closeup of the branch texture in OP. As I mentioned, there isn't any increase in quality at close range besides a small cleanup of the compression. Hence, I post my textures above for comparison of what can be done using the same process, but more specificalized with post-processing.

[Greg]

I also think it's a very bad idea for the author to 'replace' the default game BSAs. It's asking for trouble, and I'll bet it won't last.

I'm also concerned that he's providing Unofficial Skyrim Special Edition Patch - Textures.bsa. Should this BSA override USSEP and what do we do if USSEP adds another texture fix to the BSA that isn't covered here?

[z929669]

I'm also concerned that he's providing Unofficial Skyrim Special Edition Patch - Textures.bsa. Should this BSA override USSEP and what do we do if USSEP adds another texture fix to the BSA that isn't covered here?

Indeed. Just a baaad idea.

 

@tech

I mean a closeup of the tree in the OP ... The pine cloeseup looks softer with CSSET ... could be why it loses more detail in mips.

 

The problem with batch editing anything is that you may fix some issues and introduce others that don't fit the batch specs. Unless the result is a net gain in performance or appearance, it's not worth it. So far, I'm not sure if this is a net benefit or not, so I will defer to your judgement.

[Greg]

Agree that there is not a huge diff from vanilla in the screens posted. However, the biggest diffs would indeed appear to be mips or alpha on the mips. I actually think the mips may be better in CSSET based on that screen of the woman (look at the change in the tree behind her). But I would need to see a closeup of that tree to be sure.

 

 

@tech

I mean a closeup of the tree in the OP ... The pine cloeseup looks softer with CSSET ... could be why it loses more detail in mips.

 

The problem with batch editing anything is that you may fix some issues and introduce others that don't fit the batch specs. Unless the result is a net gain in performance or appearance, it's not worth it. So far, I'm not sure if this is a net benefit or not, so I will defer to your judgement.

I think you are referring to the bush/vine behind Ria at Pelagia Farm in the third set of screenshots? This one stands out to me because the CSSET version seems significantly darker for some reason. If not, I'm confused... ;-)

[TechAngel85]

I think you are referring to the bush/vine behind Ria at Pelagia Farm in the third set of screenshots? This one stands out to me because the CSSET version seems significantly darker for some reason. If not, I'm confused... ;-)

On that image, you're seeing CSSET reintroducing the faking shadowing that was present in LE. It looks horrible in SE's lighting.

 

This mod is providing a few thousand unconflicted textures...so we're trying to judge based off a small set. Personally, I don't see any benefit of including this, however, on the flip side 90% of the "issues" are already overwritten by other mods in STEP...it's an odd and tough call.