Fallout 4 High Resolution Texture Pack Review @ [H]

No 4k test, I am disappointed. Yes I know it's been mentioned earlier in the thread, but if we keep quiet people will just assume that there are no 4k gamers. I'd take 4k@60hz anytime over 1440p@120hz.
 
I'm glad you guys pointed out the "distance phenomenon" as this is something that's bothered me as a modder (as in mod author) for past and present TES and Fallout games. I'm of the same mind that this isn't a huge visual leap, especially for 50+GB. However I have to side with Bethesda... I see it time and time again that folks will trade the base game's landscape textures for ultra sharp 2K or even 4K (and albeit busy) high-res textures. Sure it looks fantastic up-close; all the individual blades of grass... oooooohh! But at a distance, the busy-ness of such textures turns landscapes to soup! It looks like crap. This is indeed that distance phenomenon, but taken to the extreme. (edit) Attached an example I put together from Skyrim back in 2011.

Before:
2146-1-1323228335.jpg

Modded:
2146-2-1323228336.jpg

That's right... these screenshots ARE labelled correctly! Of course, the modded "after" screenshot looks better if you're staring straight down and zoomed at the floor... but no one plays these games like that! However, in the modded screenshot, the textures are noticeably less detailed at a distance (look beyond the rock formation about halfway up the screen). I believe this to be because the texture is so overly busy/detailed, that when viewed at a normal angle and distance, their tiny details turn to soup.

That phenomenon is exactly why I now avoid HD texture mods for landscapes in favor of mods that add more detail to things the player actually spends 99% of the time looking at up-close: character models and weapons. That said, I actually like that the distant landscapes look nearly identical with the HD texture pack. It's because Bethesda knows what they're doing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this
thingi said:
Says the man that hasn't got a 4K screen lol :p Your rig could easily run Fallout 4 with hi res textures @ 4K at a decent framerate, my similar-ish rig does (admittedly my 1070 is watercooled to a solid silent 2100 boost clock).
Click to expand...

You're right. I don't have a 4K screen; i'm up for an upgrade to a 1440 screen but I'm waiting for the screen technology to stabilize a bit before committing the budget for it. Also, I'd have to own Fallout 4 to take advantage of the texture pack, so... :ROFLMAO:
 
oldmanbal said:
Qarl's texture/mapping mod for Oblivion is still the best texture modding i have ever experienced in a game. When it came out it was almost groundbreaking in fidelity for a pc game at the time.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Best Texture Pack evar.
 
harmattan said:
Because: 58GB complaints + Not enough >4GB cards at the time + Renew interest in the game angle + extra dev effort.
Click to expand...
Remember the outrage when Shadows of Mordor came out and it included "Ultra HD" res textures at release? People were still complaining about the performance even when they were warned that a 6GB video card was needed. It even states as such in the options when you change it.
 
I just found my new hardcore GPU stability test.
I've been using MSI Kombustor (based on Furmark) but this game with UHD pack redefines what is stable.

Today I found my Xtreme IV cooler wasnt mated well to my 980ti core (was maxing at 1440MHz) so refitted and did some testing with a 1.25V bios.
With kombustor its stable at 1520MHz core.
Starting the Brotherhood first mission flying to the airship, it is stable at 1493MHz: vsynced at 60Hz, max temp under 60C.
Ouch!

Hate to think what will happen with vsync off.
 
SPARTAN VI said:
Post goodness...
That phenomenon is exactly why I now avoid HD texture mods for landscapes in favor of mods that add more detail to things the player actually spends 99% of the time looking at up-close: character models and weapons. That said, I actually like that the distant landscapes look nearly identical with the HD texture pack. It's because Bethesda knows what they're doing.
Click to expand...

Agree wholeheartedly. Thank you for posting this! :)
 
SPARTAN VI said:
I'm glad you guys pointed out the "distance phenomenon" as this is something that's bothered me as a modder (as in mod author) for past and present TES and Fallout games. I'm of the same mind that this isn't a huge visual leap, especially for 50+GB. However I have to side with Bethesda... I see it time and time again that folks will trade the base game's landscape textures for ultra sharp 2K or even 4K (and albeit busy) high-res textures. Sure it looks fantastic up-close; all the individual blades of grass... oooooohh! But at a distance, the busy-ness of such textures turns landscapes to soup! It looks like crap. This is indeed that distance phenomenon, but taken to the extreme. (edit) Attached an example I put together from Skyrim back in 2011.

Before:
View attachment 16949

Modded:
View attachment 16948

No, these screenshots aren't labelled incorrectly. Of course, the modded "after" screenshot looks better if you're staring straight down and zoomed at the floor... but no one plays these games like that! In fact, in the modded screenshot, the textures are noticeably worse at a distance. I believe this to be because the texture is so overly busy/detailed, that when viewed at a normal angle and distance, their tiny details turn to soup.

That phenomenon is exactly why I now avoid HD texture mods for landscapes in favor of mods that add more detail to things the player actually spends 99% of the time looking at up-close: character models and weapons. That said, I actually like that the distant landscapes look nearly identical with the HD texture pack. It's because Bethesda knows what they're doing.
Click to expand...

Turn up your AF to x16...
 
It becoming a near monthly chore to shuffle games off my 1TB SSD raids for these kinds of games. I'm now considering going back to raiding platters. Those 6-10TB are starting to look good. . . . .
 
Armenius said:
Remember the outrage when Shadows of Mordor came out and it included "Ultra HD" res textures at release? People were still complaining about the performance even when they were warned that a 6GB video card was needed. It even states as such in the options when you change it.
Click to expand...

Yep, there were pitchforks and gnashing of teeth over "bad optimization" even with the stern warning in the UI. I think most developers must be all "you try to do something nice..." at this point. If I was in charge I'd just lock the option down if your card didn't have enough VRAM with a passive aggressive note on how some people complain about free lunch :)
 
The texture pack really helps out with the weapons. For example, the Radium Rifle has a bunch of capacitors down the top of it. After loading the HD textures all of those capacitors suddenly had readable manufacturer specs on them. Yeah, it's a little thing, but it was impressive none the less.

Also, a couple people have mentioned ReShade. Even with the base textures, ReShade can really sharpen up the distant objects. By default the game looks like you're nearsighted and have forgotten to put your glasses on.
 
Does this play nicely with already installed texture packs? I seem to recall when they released the Skyrim texture pack, it either completely killed other textures, or it gave preference to the textures in the DLC even if a mod texture also existed.
 
Viper87227 said:
Does this play nicely with already installed texture packs? I seem to recall when they released the Skyrim texture pack, it either completely killed other textures, or it gave preference to the textures in the DLC even if a mod texture also existed.
Click to expand...

So far I haven't had any trouble with it. The official HD texture pack is a .esm file with .bsa archives. Being an .esm means it's generally among the first mod files to load. As long as you're using texture packs that load after it (e.g. any .esp file or use a mod manager to move other .esm files after it) you'll be fine. If your texture mod doesn't use a .esp/.esm to load (e.g. mods that drop into %fallout 4/data/textures), then you'll probably have to use archive invalidation in order to override the texture pack.
 
58GB is gigantic, but I'm glad Bethesda are even releasing these. Although the Nexus mods improve on a lot, I feel that having the original high-res source is much better for the art direction.
 
The environment textures in FO4 are ok, so are the weapon and armor models.

PC/NPC models and ESPECIALLY object textures are a joke, they look really flat, dated and got no life in them at all.

On a side note, anyone tested if RAM speed running these textures have similar effects to what was reported before?
 
To be honest seen no performance hits from using this. If anything seems better.
 
jbltecnicspro said:
Wait what? Is this game really that demanding?
Click to expand...

My 980ti and 4770k runs the game like garbage. I don't see dips this low on any other game as long as I'm willing to play with a few settings. That is just not the case with FO4. I don't even know why. The game doesn't even support msaa. I've played Skyrim with SGSSAA. Just very odd to me.
 
BababooeyHTJ said:
My 980ti and 4770k runs the game like garbage. I don't see dips this low on any other game as long as I'm willing to play with a few settings. That is just not the case with FO4. I don't even know why. The game doesn't even support msaa. I've played Skyrim with SGSSAA. Just very odd to me.
Click to expand...
Meaningless without at least the resolution you use.
It plays like perfection on my 980ti at 1080p maxed out with 1440p DSR, and a 6700K @ 4.6GHz.
If you are using the new texture pack and havent got 16GB ram + your swapfile enabled, that wont help.
 
I run at 3440x1440. Still have dropped resolution and in some areas it doesn't help much. Then again I'm only running 1866mhz ram that could have better timings. That helps a lot in this game. You can check old reviews. Even FO3 really benefited from more cpu cache. The engine has different requirements than most.

The game can run great 95% of the time. You hit the right area and its running not much over 30 fps. Kills the immersion.

I still don't get why it runs so much worse than Skyrim. I chased cpu upgrades for a while with FO3 and oblivion. I don't love FO4 enough to do the same.

Edit: I haven't touched FO4 in a long while. Don't have any plans to try the new texture pack. Maybe when I upgrade my pc. I'm a huge fan of FO3 and I don't love FO4 enough to be in a rush.

Edit 2: Same results with both my 3770k rig and 4770k. Like I said not all of the time but hit the right area and framerates just drop for no reason. The [H] benchmarks seem about right and with a cpu with more cache than mine and a good bit more memory bandwith. Its the only game that benefits to that extent from the bandwith.
 
Just a random FYI.

Maybe its a res. cap, maybe just an unusual apsect ratio the engine can't see. On my LGMU97 monitor which supports cinema 4k(4096x2160) the configurator gets pretty wacky with what res. options are available. It defaults to windowed, if I uncheck it, it then shows some unusual resolutions but none as high as the monitor allows. Old school fix is to edit the config text file for the right resolution and set the file to read only. When the main menu first loads it sometimes is off centered but once the game actually starts its all good. Playing at normal 4k(3840x2160) on my tv has no problems.

Overall I think the new pack is nice. Not perfect, but nice. I'd say its still leaps and bounds over the Skyrim pack that came out last year. I haven't really had any significant performance issues. Mostly holds 60fps at all times with occasional minor dips here and there.

My closest complaint is that even with a SSD raid0 load times are noticeable(not horrible but around 5-15 seconds). I tried it on my 1080p setup that still uses a pair of platters in raid0, all SATA III, and it was like a throwback to 8bit cassette drive days, seriously close to a minute. I know this is a minor thing but I thought I'd mention it.
 
Tried it, was unimpressed by the HD Pack. I run at 4K as well with the recommended spec for the pack.
Disappointment IMO, although thanks for trying?
 
{NG}Fidel said:
Tried it, was unimpressed by the HD Pack. I run at 4K as well with the recommended spec for the pack.
Disappointment IMO, although thanks for trying?
Click to expand...

Try combining ReShade with the HD pack @ 4K, and I think you'll be much happier with the results. I know I was -- it was a very noticeable and significant upgrade over "vanilla".
 
Yep.
I use reshade with the UHD pack at 1080p and its not even close.
I stopped playing it months ago because it seemed old but now find it compelling.
The crap textures were putting me off, now they are "much" better.
Currently my favourite game.
 
BababooeyHTJ said:
I run at 3440x1440. Still have dropped resolution and in some areas it doesn't help much. Then again I'm only running 1866mhz ram that could have better timings. That helps a lot in this game. You can check old reviews. Even FO3 really benefited from more cpu cache. The engine has different requirements than most.

The game can run great 95% of the time. You hit the right area and its running not much over 30 fps. Kills the immersion.

I still don't get why it runs so much worse than Skyrim. I chased cpu upgrades for a while with FO3 and oblivion. I don't love FO4 enough to do the same.

Edit: I haven't touched FO4 in a long while. Don't have any plans to try the new texture pack. Maybe when I upgrade my pc. I'm a huge fan of FO3 and I don't love FO4 enough to be in a rush.

Edit 2: Same results with both my 3770k rig and 4770k. Like I said not all of the time but hit the right area and framerates just drop for no reason. The [H] benchmarks seem about right and with a cpu with more cache than mine and a good bit more memory bandwith. Its the only game that benefits to that extent from the bandwith.
Click to expand...

All of Far Harbor, especially the DIMA Memory Mazes run like crap.
Inside cities in Boston runs like crap.
Saugus Ironworks runs like crap.

It's just an awfully coded and terribly optimized game that they knew people would buy because it's Fallout (Guilty).
 
tungt88 said:
Try combining ReShade with the HD pack @ 4K, and I think you'll be much happier with the results. I know I was -- it was a very noticeable and significant upgrade over "vanilla".
Click to expand...
Thanks for the advice man, ill give it a whirl when I have some free time.
 
dook43 said:
Inside cities in Boston runs like crap.
Saugus Ironworks runs like crap.

It's just an awfully coded and terribly optimized game that they knew people would buy because it's Fallout (Guilty).
Click to expand...

Yup, the area around Boston is where I really noticed it. Thats were the dips were consistent and repeatable. On different hardware and os installs. Also where I stopped playing the game.

I've never had such performance issues in a Bethesda game in the past. At least without mods.

I don't know how they're going to make that game an enjoyable experience in vr.
 
I can tell you that Ryzen 1700X at 3.9 with 2666 DDR4 runs it a lot better than my 4770K 4.5/1866 DDR3 did.
 
Do these results mean I should just wait for the next nvidia cards, 2080 or 1180, when gaming at 4k?
 
chimera996 said:
Do these results mean I should just wait for the next nvidia cards, 2080 or 1180, when gaming at 4k?
Click to expand...
Havent got a clue.
Dont know the results you mean, what that means to you, what hardware you have, what your expectation is, how soon you want it, what your budget is ...
 
So FYI with regards to GPU memory usage it appears teh game does use more than 6GB occasionally, which is maybe where the "1080" recommendation comes from. Haven't found any parts in the main game, but in Far Harbour in the town itself I was seeing near 8GB of usage.
 
I've been running with the high-res texture pack since release. While I do notice a difference when stopping and staring I honestly don't see much of a difference when in motion.

Thanks for the review [H].
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top