4096 vs 2048, DXT5 vs DXT1, Optimizer vs DDSopt

[LeetMiniWheat]

I'm trying to maximize quality on 2GB VRAM but I have a few questions.

 

1. Is there really a big difference between 4096 and 2048 res textures?

 

2. Optimizer-Textures and DDSopt (I assume) compresses DXT5 down to DXT1. Is this a noticeable quality change? I saw the comparison image on optimizer's nexus page and the DXT1 looked more blocky. I'm tempted to tell Optimizer to do DXT5 instead unless this isn't noticeable in-game.

 

3. What's the difference between Optimizer Textures and DDSopt?

 

4. Also, what about BSA's? Optimizer seemed to crash when the BSA checkbox was used.

 

It seems to run ok without any optimization but I do max out the VRAM around 2030MB. I was getting some freezes/lockups fixed by tweaking INI settings with MadWizard25's tweaks. (though i had to edit by hand because wrye bash was screwing up the ini files)

[frihyland]

I'm trying to maximize quality on 2GB VRAM but I have a few questions.

 

1. Is there really a big difference between 4096 and 2048 res textures?

 

2. Optimizer-Textures and DDSopt (I assume) compresses DXT5 down to DXT1. Is this a noticeable quality change? I saw the comparison image on optimizer's nexus page and the DXT1 looked more blocky. I'm tempted to tell Optimizer to do DXT5 instead unless this isn't noticeable in-game.

 

3. What's the difference between Optimizer Textures and DDSopt?

 

4. Also, what about BSA's? Optimizer seemed to crash when the BSA checkbox was used.

 

It seems to run ok without any optimization but I do max out the VRAM around 2030MB. I was getting some freezes/lockups fixed by tweaking INI settings with MadWizard25's tweaks.

• If you are running at 2560 x 1440 or higher yes you can see a difference, if not not so much.  For that matter if you run at under 1920 x 1080 you won't see much improvement using 2048 vs 1024.
• There is no quality change whatsoever it is merely discarding the unused data (note on some occasions the data actually is being used, if you find such a file let us know we'll add it to the ddsopt exclusion list).
• The first anyone can use the second is for the connoisseur that really wants the best and is willing to put in the effort.
• Haven't used it on bsa's no idea.

[Farlo]

On the subject of Texture Optimizer, what are the "best" settings to use for quality-preservation? By this I mean which compression setting loses the least amount of quality?  I'd like to get my files as small as possible without any noticeable loss in quality but I'm far too lazy to go through DDSopt.  Not only is this true for me, but I'd like to know a brief rationale for the various settings so I can help others if the question pops up.  

[LeetMiniWheat]

looks to me like DXT1 has some visible artifacts compared to DXT5 if you look at the comparison image on the Optimizer-Textures page here -> https://static.skyrim.nexusmods.com/mods/images/12801-2-1340134652.jpg

 

but by default it only compresses images without a "mask" (?) to DXT1c, is that the same as the DXT1 in the image? if so, then there *is* a quality loss. but the question is whether it's actually noticeable in-game or not. or maybe images without a mask (whatever that is) aren't noticeable.

 

the other options it has on medium and maximum is to create mipmaps, and resize patterns/resolution. but if it resizes an image that isn't quite a 16x16 square aspect ratio, wouldn't that warp the image? and how is this a "wrong size" image? none of this is really explained, but I guess is acquired knowledge for any mod developers.

 

so, yeah i agree with Farlo it would be nice to have some kind of guide for those that don't want to use DDSopt

[frihyland]

Read the ddsopt guide and thread for the answers to these questions, there are no simple answers to this stuff. The more you try and reduce this stuff into generalities the more you realize that every texture is unique in its own way and bends the rules :P

 

That said let me try and dumb down 40 pages of technical mumbo jumbo to a few sentences.

 

On the dxt 5 vs 3 vs 1 issue, they all use the exact same algorithm just save different amounts of "color channels" to super dumb it down.  There can be no artifacts unless those extra channels were actually being used, which you should report like I said.  Its a completely lossless process.

 

Now reducing texture resolution is inherently lossy basically the rule (often broken) is that you can reduce size down to 2048 with no noticeable degredation.  As far as non power of 2 sized textures, they are a very serious issue and will almost always break if optimized, they are best skipped as a rule.

[z929669]

I will update the DDSopt guide once Ethatron gets back RE some of the outstanding items on the DDSopt thread. As of the new DDSopt 8.0 pre-release 3, that tool is clearly the best way to go as far as texture optimization goes.

 

DDSopt is now SUPER fast and simple to run, given that one knows what settings to use. Certain textures will not play nicely with any of the texture optimization tools, so it really comes down to knowing what settings to use and what textures NOT to process... DDSopt clearly offers more solutions in these areas, and there is no excuse not to use that app in favor of any others once the exclusion list and settings are finalized. Just point and click followed by a short wait.

[Farlo]

I will update the DDSopt guide once Ethatron gets back RE some of the outstanding items on the DDSopt thread. As of the new DDSopt 8.0 pre-release 3, that tool is clearly the best way to go as far as texture optimization goes.

 

DDSopt is now SUPER fast and simple to run, given that one knows what settings to use. Certain textures will not play nicely with any of the texture optimization tools, so it really comes down to knowing what settings to use and what textures NOT to process... DDSopt clearly offers more solutions in these areas, and there is no excuse not to use that app in favor of any others once the exclusion list and settings are finalized. Just point and click followed by a short wait.

Awesome to hear!  I guess I'll hold out until that's all figured out and 8.0 is finalized.  Glad to hear it's getting a lot easier to deal with.

[oqhansoloqo]

I have a question that goes along with the 4096 vs 2048 part of the original post. First of all, I run my game and view Windows at 1080p (1920x1080). When I view some of the comparison screenshots on mod authors' mod pages of the different versions of mods 1K, 2K, 4K I can almost always notice a difference in quality between all of them - even noticing that the 4K version looks better than the 2K version. But I am only using a resolution of 1920x1080 to view the screenshots, and also the screenshots are not full screen and have likely been compressed. So my question is, if viewing the game at 1080p is not a high enough resolution to notice the difference between 2K textures and 4K textures, why do I notice the difference in the screenshots? :)  It lends me to believe that I will also notice a difference in the game.

Also, might as well throw this in here. I will be getting a 4GB video card soon and I am thinking that it's better to reoptimize my vanilla texture files so that I am using "very high quality" constraint settings. IOW - optimize everything to 2K and forget about capping exteriors at 1K. Why isn't there an option listed in the guide for optimizing the vanilla textures at "very high quality" constraint settings?

The highest listed currently is this, which mentions using "very high quality settings", but those aren't given in the guide in the vanilla files section:

"2 Gb or greater VRAM : Use the High Quality settings from the figures below; use reduced resolution (1kx1k) with exterior tangent space normal map textures and perhaps on some exterior color maps with mods loaded in the game. In some cases Very High Quality settings can be used for the Vanilla Textures."

 

I'm guessing the new 4GB graphics card would qualify for the "In some cases Very High Quality settings can be used for the Vanilla Textures" part.

Edited March 23, 2014 by oqhansoloqo

[Kelmych]

There aren't any vanilla textures larger than 2Kx2K but we'll add a V2 for normal maps that recommends 2048x2048. The difference is small since there are only 10 2Kx2K tangent space normal maps.

I'm not sure why the 4Kx4K resolution looks better in the game. Perhaps some of the additional processing in a GPU (shaders, normalization, ...) can make use of larger resolutions; I'm not familiar with all the details of the processing on the graphics card.

The mipmaps (see Q1) in a texture file contain a set of lower resolution versions of  a texture, and generally the graphics card uses the size needed which for a 1920x1080 monitor would be a 2Kx2K version or smaller (for objects that don't use most of the screen). The mipmaps produced by DDSopt are supposed to be better than the ones produced by many of the programs used to create textures, and some creators of high quality textures use DDSopt to produce their mipmaps.

[oqhansoloqo]

Excellent - thank you Kelmych.  :)

[oqhansoloqo]

I just checked the guide again.  Something got messed up: the label for the V2 screenshot got switched back to "H1", which could definitely confuse some people.

Edited March 23, 2014 by oqhansoloqo

[Kelmych]

fixed

[Spock]

I am too thinking about going 2k exteriors, the guide seems to have changed since I consulted it last time. I can no longer find the exterior/interior distinction. Is there a general movement to 2k exterior color maps for high quality or did I overlook something?

One part of the guide says that normal maps are responsible for blurrieness when up close. I always thought normal maps are only there for a 3d-ish effect and color maps are what gets blurry when too close. My plan was to go 2k color maps and 1k normal maps for exteriors. My texture knowledge is very limited though, I'd like to understand more about this so I can choose a reasonably quality/vram option.

[oqhansoloqo]

The processing of the vanilla texture files have not been given the exterior/interior distinction, but processing of the STEP mod texture files have (at least about 4-5 of them, anyway...).  You may have been thinking about the tab in the guide labeled "Optimizing the STEP Mods".

 

Kelmych (aka Gandalf lol) will have to help you with your inquiry about the types of texture files though, as my knowledge is also pretty limited.

Edited April 3, 2014 by oqhansoloqo

[Kelmych]

I am too thinking about going 2k exteriors, the guide seems to have changed since I consulted it last time. I can no longer find the exterior/interior distinction. Is there a general movement to 2k exterior color maps for high quality or did I overlook something?One part of the guide says that normal maps are responsible for blurrieness when up close. I always thought normal maps are only there for a 3d-ish effect and color maps are what gets blurry when too close. My plan was to go 2k color maps and 1k normal maps for exteriors. My texture knowledge is very limited though, I'd like to understand more about this so I can choose a reasonably quality/vram option.

There weren't enough exterior textures in the HRDLC to justify separating them into,a separate folder, so the vanilla textures use three categories. The mods optimization discussions and the batch file for sorting mod textures have either 3 or 5 categories (the batch file has a user entered choice). Mods can have many exterior textures. The STEP mod optimization examples tab has an example of mods with many exterior textures. Normal maps (bump maps) are responsible for 3d effects, but without them items are "blocky" which can be perceived as blurry. Often 2k exterior color maps with 1k normal maps is a good choice; I've found I sometimes need to use 1k for both to control VRAM Usage.

[Spock]

Hm... I dunno if it's my browser or something but I see only three pics of options under "Optimizing STEP mods".

 

Normals seem to be a fair bit larger then color maps, at least in SRO. Is there data on Vram use of the various quality options? More specifically on 4 gb Vram, since the release of the 290 and 760 4gb this setup seems to become more popular.