Fallout 4's 58GB High-Resolution Texture Pack Is out Now on PC

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
On Youtube I am seeing comments that the recommended specs can be very important as to whether you will see a difference. I'm running a 1070 and I maybe have just wasted some time and bandwidth this morning for files that my system will simply not even try and display.
 

tungt88

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
2,096
Really? I have it loaded but I have the "Resurection" mod running and I don't think I can appreciate all the detail cause that mod is covering so much up. Your saying there isn't anything to appreciate to begin with?

Is it more for 2K and 4K support maybe?

I would say more for 4K support.

Running the mod on my 4K rig, it actually makes a pretty noticeable difference, over 42" of screen real estate. Having started a new game and just left Vault 111, the forest looks, overall, much prettier and more detailed. If you focus on individual items with text, like newspapers, and the labels of cig boxes/alcohol, the text is smooth and quite readable. Of course, there are a noticeable number of textures that didn't get the High-Resolution (from what I understand, 4K native textures) treatment, but as large as that number is, it pales in comparison to the vast amounts of textures that Bethesda worked on. Looks like a pretty decent pack so far, and a lot better than I was expecting (dreading, really). Even gives me some hope that the next major Fallout game (another 5 year development cycle?) will roughly match (hopefully, even surpass) the original Crysis/Crysis Warhead graphic levels (those decade-old games, even by today's standards, are very pretty, especially in 4K).

FPS is in the 40-84 range for me (unfortunately I don't have either G-Sync or FreeSync), mostly avg. around 53-58. (My rig details are in my sig)

I heartily agree with those that suggested this pack is really for the high 2K+ (think 3440x1440) to 4K gamers with a large (34" or more) screen size. The details and overall effect would be missed on a regular-to-low 2K resolution (think 2560x1440 or less) TV/monitor with 28" or smaller screen size.

Fun side fact: Fallout 4 on Ultra everything looks better in the screenshots than it does in-game, while Crysis 3 on Ultra everything looks a LOT better in game than the screenshots.

Man, what a future Fallout game would look like with Crysis 3-level graphics ... :D
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
888
I figure I'll try this out when I finally upgrade. My GTX 970 has the power just fine, it's the memory that is lacking for these newer games and their higher resolution textures.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
I figure I'll try this out when I finally upgrade. My GTX 970 has the power just fine, it's the memory that is lacking for these newer games and their higher resolution textures.

I think it's less a processing power issue and more a memory issue.

My 1070 has the 8GB of memory but most 970s are 4GB cards right?
 

Xrave

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 29, 2004
Messages
7,477
Anyone here have any first hand experience with it yet?
 

daglesj

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
5,456
Okay on my rig I can see a slight difference...if I look for it.

In general play the difference is negligible for 1080p.

No performance issues.

(5820k @4GHz/16gb DDR4 3000/ RX480 8GB)
 
Last edited:

{NG}Fidel

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
6,286
Okay on my rig I can see a slight difference...if I look for it.

In general play the difference is negligible for 1080p.

No performance issues.
Disappointing if true. I'll have to load it up myself and see.
 

whateverer

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 2, 2016
Messages
1,414
Yeah, too bad it's almost a year after I uninstalled the game out of boredom. They completely broke VATS, while not improving the FPS feel of the game at all. Then the poor 4-way conversation engine didn't do anything to help the shit plot. Just felt like I was fighting every step of the way to find some excuse to keep playing, but ended-up empty-handed.

Doom was a much better FPS game, and that's why it's still installed 8 months after I bought it. Both games have rather terrible plot, but I can forgive one if it has the MECHANICS down.

I can't even bother to download this texture pack. Let it rot.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
33,414
Yeah, that is pretty subtle.

Maybe it would be more noticeable at a higher resolution?

I'm goign to ahve to download the textures and compare for myself. 56GB? Should take just under and hour.

Alright,

So I used a very non-scientific method. I went down my list of save games and based on the preview image loaded ones that looked interesting (in retrospect, the second image is probably not useful due to distance, but whatev)

I don't know how to do the fancy slider comparison, so this will have to do: (For all images, click for larger)



Image 1 Standard Textures:





Image 1 High Res Textures:





Image 2 Standard Textures:





Image 2 High Res Textures:





Image 3 Standard Textures:





Image 3 High Res Textures:





So I put the full resolution versions in a folder and used the windows image viewer to step back and forth between them in full screen, and I'm not convinced I could correctly identify if I am looking at a high res texture image or a standard texture image if randomly tested in an A/B test. Only cycling back and forth between the two side by side, and I tell that there is a slightly better sharpness and slightly better bump mapping in the higher res textures.

In image 1, the textures on the rusting vehicles look ever so slightly sharper, and you get a better feel for depth (is this bump mapping?) where it may be rusted through on the hood of the car. Ground textures look the tiniest bit sharper too.

The least difference is probably in image 2, where the rust/growth is a little larger on the green cisterns in the high res pack, but otherwise they look the same. (In retrospect I should have known this. The long distance will pop it into lower res textures anyway)

I thought that the biggest improvement would be in image three, but to me, the higher res textures actually look worse here, especially if you look at the wet reflections off of the brick walls. Closer up, the stone wall looks a little sharper with the higher res textures, but damn is it subtle.

I guess my conclusion is, there is much much more to making a game look better than simply providing higher res textures.
 

Burticus

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
4,576
Still waiting on the GOTY of this for $20. The base game has been cheaper than that. I played this for about 2 weeks on PS4 and said "Meh" and "stupid settlements"
 

ChoGGi

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
1,713
Wow, they're still trying to get $80 (CAD) for the base game on Steam :) I figured they would've reduced that by now.
 

Nanogrip

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 4, 2016
Messages
449
So...what would you guys recommend over this 58gb high resolution pack..? Jesus 58gb...
 

Brent_Justice

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2000
Messages
17,755
I am seeing some big, some minor, differences in textures using the new texture pack. If you are not seeing any changes in your screenshots, I have noted a quirk.

The first quirk, it takes some time for the new art assets to load, and this may depend on your HDD. I have noticed that it can take about 10 seconds for the new art assets to load when you load a saved game, or load a new location in the game. In fact some have taken as long as 15 seconds to load it all in for me. If you take your screenshot immediately upon loading, you will not be capturing the high res texture, only the previous game texture. You must wait 10-15 seconds to be safe, before taking your screenshot. In this way all the assets load in and the level of detail sets itself correctly as well. So if you are taking screenshots to look at differences, wait 15 seconds before taking your screenshot. And this is on an SSD mind you, it could take longer on a spinning disk.

Second, make sure you are viewing textures closer up. The whole idea of high res textures is greater detail, when closer. If you are taking screenshots of vast view distances or textures far away the all that is happening is the natural level of detail is lowering detail on distant objects and textures like its supposed to do, so you are not at all capturing the high res texture. You must be close to the texture, where hte level of detail has not lowered quality.

Use these tips when taking screenshots and looking for high res texture differences in the game, I have over 100 screenshots right now that show a difference with the high res textures, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
 

Krenum

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
18,633
Ugh, I guess I'll install it once again and see how badly it cripples my 980 for shits & giggles.
 

thesmokingman

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
6,617
This doesn't look like the greatest balance/reward for the space, cost, looks, and load time.
 

Brent_Justice

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2000
Messages
17,755
This doesn't look like the greatest balance/reward for the space, cost, looks, and load time.

It's free. All you need is the HDD space. So for cost, the impact is minimal.

It does add and improve upon the graphics in the game.

I think it is a positive added experience, for free.

I encourage game developers to create free high resolution textures for games on the PC. This is a move I want to see more of. We don't see it enough, and it shows what is capable on the PC vs. Console. I want more game developers to provide free high res texture packs for games.

This behavior should be encouraged.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
31,238
How do you download this? I go to Steam and click the green Download button for the HD Pack, and it just opens the launcher for Fallout 4. Doesn't start a download, doesn't really allow me to do anything. Do you have to install it from within the game?
 

tungt88

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
2,096
Does it show up in the DLC list in the steam client?

Yep, it does. Unclick the check mark and click the check mark for the download to start (will take a while before it actually downloads as it allocates space).
 

SixFootDuo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
5,791
I bought Fallout 4 today for about $15.50. Some cd-key place. Worked perfectly. The download was speedy with my Google Fiber but Install of the HD textures took maybe 10+ minutes on a 7700K @ 5ghz with 3200mh ddr4 on an Intel 512gb NVMe M.2 SSD read 1700MB/s / write 650MB/s

At 4k with HD Textures with ultra settings on most things and making sure v-sync was off, I'm getting close to 60fps using an Asus Strix GTX 1080 @ 1835

For about $37 or so dollars you can get Fallout 4 with all the DLC.
 

JustReason

razor1 is my Lover
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
2,483
Ran fine on my 4gb 290, however I use ENB boost for memory management so that may be why.

BIG ISSUE FOR MOD USERS: Black face bug is back. Although seems hit or miss to who it affects. I got it and many others using mods that change the face in game.

FIX: The hi-rez texture pack DOES NOT uninstall (deselect is a better word) just by un ticking the esm/esp. You have to remove the esm file from your game folder,. (better than completely uninstalling and then having to dl it all again).
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,957
Tried this for about an hour, I think its well worth having and I'm only on 1080p.
Tried it with DSR 1440p + no AA and just TAA + no DSR, both look more polished and detailed.

No major performance issues, it hugs 60fps practically the whole time.
There are occasional stutters - as textures load I think.
At times it uses nearly all the 6GB VRam I have.

Game load first time takes about 1 minute on an oldish hard drive.
New area loading is about 20 seconds.
Loading a save takes that or less.

PC specs
980ti @ stock speed (EVGA ACX2.0+)
6700K @ 4.7GHz
16GB @ 3333MHz CL16

No problems with CPU or GPU maxing out, plenty of headroom.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
29,740
It's free. All you need is the HDD space. So for cost, the impact is minimal.

It does add and improve upon the graphics in the game.

I think it is a positive added experience, for free.

I encourage game developers to create free high resolution textures for games on the PC. This is a move I want to see more of. We don't see it enough, and it shows what is capable on the PC vs. Console. I want more game developers to provide free high res texture packs for games.

This behavior should be encouraged.
The cost in the context of the comment you quoted is bandwidth for those with caps.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
33,414
I am seeing some big, some minor, differences in textures using the new texture pack. If you are not seeing any changes in your screenshots, I have noted a quirk.

The first quirk, it takes some time for the new art assets to load, and this may depend on your HDD. I have noticed that it can take about 10 seconds for the new art assets to load when you load a saved game, or load a new location in the game. In fact some have taken as long as 15 seconds to load it all in for me. If you take your screenshot immediately upon loading, you will not be capturing the high res texture, only the previous game texture. You must wait 10-15 seconds to be safe, before taking your screenshot. In this way all the assets load in and the level of detail sets itself correctly as well. So if you are taking screenshots to look at differences, wait 15 seconds before taking your screenshot. And this is on an SSD mind you, it could take longer on a spinning disk.

Second, make sure you are viewing textures closer up. The whole idea of high res textures is greater detail, when closer. If you are taking screenshots of vast view distances or textures far away the all that is happening is the natural level of detail is lowering detail on distant objects and textures like its supposed to do, so you are not at all capturing the high res texture. You must be close to the texture, where hte level of detail has not lowered quality.

Use these tips when taking screenshots and looking for high res texture differences in the game, I have over 100 screenshots right now that show a difference with the high res textures, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Hmm. I'll have to try it again, but wait a bit before snapping the screenshot.
 

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
4,986
A lot of people don't really understand that the larger issue with Bethesda games is not the actual textures, but instead the piss poor static meshes for all the objects in the game.

I don't know exactly what Bethesda does, but I assume they run all their static meshes through an automated script that completely destroys their detail level / polycount for the consoles.

In Skyrim in was far more noticeable, and the ubiquitous static mesh improvement mod was a must have. It's not even that large of a mod, but it makes a huge improvement as the issue with a lot of things is the low detail level of the meshes - not the textures themselves.

I assume Fallout 4 is probably the same way. Especially for things like brick walls, fences, etc.. the more detailed static meshes make a massive improvement.
 

tungt88

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
2,096

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
A lot of people don't really understand that the larger issue with Bethesda games is not the actual textures, but instead the piss poor static meshes for all the objects in the game.

I don't know exactly what Bethesda does, but I assume they run all their static meshes through an automated script that completely destroys their detail level / polycount for the consoles.

In Skyrim in was far more noticeable, and the ubiquitous static mesh improvement mod was a must have. It's not even that large of a mod, but it makes a huge improvement as the issue with a lot of things is the low detail level of the meshes - not the textures themselves.

I assume Fallout 4 is probably the same way. Especially for things like brick walls, fences, etc.. the more detailed static meshes make a massive improvement.

I believe you that the messes make a big difference. In fact I am going to pay closer attention to improvements for meshes that may be available. But I'll reserve the "must have" ruling for after I see for myself. Visual perfection isn't such a huge issue for me.
 

Parja

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
12,645
Here's some more comparisons...

(this one's got framerates and memory usage - spoiler: framerates don't really change, memory usage goes up considerably)
 

JustReason

razor1 is my Lover
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
2,483
A lot of people don't really understand that the larger issue with Bethesda games is not the actual textures, but instead the piss poor static meshes for all the objects in the game.

I don't know exactly what Bethesda does, but I assume they run all their static meshes through an automated script that completely destroys their detail level / polycount for the consoles.

In Skyrim in was far more noticeable, and the ubiquitous static mesh improvement mod was a must have. It's not even that large of a mod, but it makes a huge improvement as the issue with a lot of things is the low detail level of the meshes - not the textures themselves.

I assume Fallout 4 is probably the same way. Especially for things like brick walls, fences, etc.. the more detailed static meshes make a massive improvement.
you're right about Skyrim for sure. The difference between vanilla and my modded Skyrim was night and day. Actually to this day it can still rival alot of current games.

however fallout doesn't seem to be as bad, but I have noticed many of the models look like a crayon was used to draw them. In other words very washed and rounded corners, most things looked painted in rather than life like sharpness. Unfortunately the mod levels as far as hi-rez textures are far lower than what was available for Skyrim.
 

Xrave

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 29, 2004
Messages
7,477
Downloaded it, definitely see a difference on ground and building textures. Took about a min for the new textures to load in, as Brent_Justice mentioned.

Running with no hiccups/slowdowns on a 6600K and a 1070 with default speeds @1080p. Normally I run FAH in the background while playing Fallout4 with no issue, but it's very choppy now with the texture pack installed. Runs nice and smooth with FAH disabled.
 

lilbabycat

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
3,810
Looking at all these screenshots... they increased the texture quality / resolution on all the stuff that were already decent, but ignored all the stuff that needed it the most, like walls, landscape terrain, half the floors. Idiotic. I didn't bother with FO4 so I'm just gonna assume modders already did a better job then bethesda months ago...

And to whoever was arguing for Bethesda not being lazy... Puuhleasssse. There are easily fixed bugs in FO4 that have existed since Oblivion/FO3. Not to mention the old dying engine that they try to sell as new with a layer of higher resolution textures and voice acting.
 
Top