Skyrim Creation Kit and Free High-Res Texture Pack Out

yea just played a little who ever took the screen shots posted fails game looks MUCH Better
 
neokeelo said:
um, have you guys ever used this? Skyrim HD by Nexus. How does the one on Steam compare?
I really like this one, it is being updated all the time.
http://skyrim.nexusmods.com/downloads/file.php?id=607
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's good. I used a mix of that and Skyrim Realistic Overhaul for most of the world textures. Vurts Skyrim Flora overhaul, Lush Grass and Lush Trees for the shrubbery (NI!) Beautiful Whiterun for Whiterun and Bumpy Towns for the rest (just better bump maps). Better Females by Bella, CBBE Slim and XCE for the character models plus a shitload of others for everything else.

I'm trying to find some comparison screen shots I took but like a dumbass I accidentally deleted my screenshot folder when I uninstalled Skyrim the other day.
 
Cool that Bethesda is releasing better textures - but they still don't even begin to compare to the modding community's offerings.
 
I just updated Skyrim and got the creation kit and HighRes texture pack and I can't use it D: I have 6GB RAM, but these 2 GTX 295s just can't handle the textures even at only 1680x1050. It looked good for the couple of 5fps burst I got. The creation kit is crashing on me like mad, but It might be a result of said computer not liking something with it.
 
Well I've been re-playing Skyrim since patch 1.4 came out and added alot of extras like Skyrim HD texture pack available on Skyrimnexus.com plus some 8k water textures and 4k clothes & other stuff and even 2k textures for mountains (all of that overwrites some of the SkyrimHD pack). The Vram consumption is abit over 2GB and my 7970 handles it great (with Vsync on of course) on 1900x1200.

I have seen some screen shots of this free high-res pack from Steam and they dont look that great compared to what you can fix by download alot of custom texture packs. Not to mention that the most important missing part of this game is the ambience which you can fix at your own taste by downloading the ENB series mod with FXAA post-proccesing and then try alot of profiles till you find one you like (that takes some time).
 
Oh I forgot to add that my HD5870 which I replaced recently (with 1GB VRAM) could perfectly handle SkyrimHD plus the Flaura Overhaul texture pack plus 4k water texture pack on 1600x900 with Skyrim v1.3
 
I agree with several other people here. The third party packs look MUCH better.
 
hmm... tried the high res pack where i was saved: in whiterun in some crypt with a couple of skeletons in it (not played much yet). there is a carpet and a table not far in. i see some improvement on the wood of the table and the floor (like in the screenshots posted by others). it does look better, but i would probaby not notice it i didn't know about the high res pack and someone showed me that place. the carpet still has the exact same texture as before.

it's nice that they are responding to fan complaints of the pc community, but this was time not so well used by bethesda. hopefully, they come up with a really high res texture pack. haven't tried it in the open world yet because i got no time to play atm, but as i said it's better than nothing.
 
stop!theradio said:
Cool that Bethesda is releasing better textures - but they still don't even begin to compare to the modding community's offerings.
Click to expand...

This is probably more for the majority of users who don't have the hardware to take advantage of those larger leap offered by the modders. Like me for example:p My GTX 295 limited VRAM means that 4x textures would be impossible without performance hit. At present, its already utilizing about 600-700 MB.
 
Stupid question #1- Do you have to run the game at Ultra settings to notice?
 
OK, how do we revert back to before this patch? I've got slideshows in the cities now, and ram usage up to 5 of my 6 gigs (from about 3 before). My E8400 and 5870's can't handle this evidently. Was much better before, and I really don't notice that much difference.
 
kooda said:
OK, how do we revert back to before this patch? I've got slideshows in the cities now, and ram usage up to 5 of my 6 gigs (from about 3 before). My E8400 and 5870's can't handle this evidently. Was much better before, and I really don't notice that much difference.
Click to expand...
You can uncheck or delete them under Data Files.
 
Oh well, it was nice of Bethesa to try and make better textures -- even if -- community textures are at a much better point. I think if Bethesa had released these textures day-1, Skyrim would have gotten better PC reviews. At this point though, I don't think anyone is going to go and re-review Skyrim 1.4 patch /w these textures and up the graphics score by 0.5 points out of 10.

I guess maybe Bethesda scored some points with gamers in terms of 'showing they care' about 'us pc gamers'?

Honestly, with what happened with Oblivion modding, I didn't really expect Bethesda to be able to out-do Oblivion's mod community put to work on Skyrim and I doubt many other people did. Bethesda really just needs to make a great gameplay engine, well optimized, with reasonable graphics and a good storyline/large world. The modders will do the work of making the graphics amazing and expanding gameplay like allowing you to ride on a dragon, etc.
 
This is what I totally hate about games anymore. This should have been part of the game when it came out. But no, they rush the game out for November, make all you suckers "beta" test it for 3 months. I can't buy new games anymore. The bugs and lack of features like these just push me to wait for the GOTY editions. Wait a year, save 30 bucks, and get a less buggy game.
 
elfletcho said:
This is what I totally hate about games anymore. This should have been part of the game when it came out. But no, they rush the game out for November, make all you suckers "beta" test it for 3 months. I can't buy new games anymore. The bugs and lack of features like these just push me to wait for the GOTY editions. Wait a year, save 30 bucks, and get a less buggy game.
Click to expand...

Eh. Maybe, maybe not.

Fallout 3 on release had dozens of memory exceptions and simply shoddy-codding bugs...that were never fixed between retail release and the GOTY edition. The height of hilarity was when the released the first DLC and a patch for the executable....and the patch broke people's entire games, and they withdrew the DLC until they actually tested their code.
 
Of course, couldn't have a texture pack without a half naked woman texture :rolleyes:

Pathetic douchebags. Keep your penises in check, would you :rolleyes:
 
kooda said:
OK, how do we revert back to before this patch? I've got slideshows in the cities now, and ram usage up to 5 of my 6 gigs (from about 3 before). My E8400 and 5870's can't handle this evidently. Was much better before, and I really don't notice that much difference.
Click to expand...

Strange, since the most memory that a 32-bit program can ever access is 4GB. Allocating 5 GB seems unlikely.
 
So Skyrim and Fallout use the same engine, correct?

I'm thinking I could finish Skyrim in about 1hr 45 minutes with a Fat Man Mod...hmm...
 
notarat said:
So Skyrim and Fallout use the same engine, correct?

I'm thinking I could finish Skyrim in about 1hr 45 minutes with a Fat Man Mod...hmm...
Click to expand...

Not quite. Skyrim uses the "Creation engine" (Seems pretty much Gamebryo with a bit of tweaking and a new title :D) and fallout 3/NV/oblivion use Gamebryo. They use the same filetypes and file structure though!
 
bbf said:
Strange, since the most memory that a 32-bit program can ever access is 4GB. Allocating 5 GB seems unlikely.
Click to expand...

since 1.3 Skyrim is has the Large Address Aware flag on
on a 64bit system it should be able to use more
 
After watching the vid I see a marginal change that won't make much of a difference in my enjoyment of the game. Certainly not enough to justify it taking up nearly as much space on my hard drive as the game takes already.
 
Elios said:
since 1.3 Skyrim is has the Large Address Aware flag on
on a 64bit system it should be able to use more
Click to expand...

32bit apps by default only ever get access to 2GB of memory because you can not let a single program address the entire max address space of 4GB. Using LAA only ups you to 4Gb max on 64bit OSs because you still can only address a range of 32bit address regardless of the base offset. The application MUST be compiled as 64bit to address more than 4GB.
 
Zarathustra[H];1038360040 said:
Of course, couldn't have a texture pack without a half naked woman texture :rolleyes:

Pathetic douchebags. Keep your penises in check, would you :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
am I missing something.... or... what?
 
Zarathustra[H];1038360040 said:
Of course, couldn't have a texture pack without a half naked woman texture :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You want me to mod you some half naked male Argonians Zarathustra? I live around a lot of lizards so I'm pretty sure I could get some pretty HD textures for them. :D

I kid, I kid, Zarathrusta, your post just made me think of the alternative which I found funny. I play an awesome dragon character and like to spend my days atop the throat of the world al natural with my Dovah brothers.
 
Installed and played with the Texture pack. I'm enjoying it and it runs great on my system.
 
bbf said:
Strange, since the most memory that a 32-bit program can ever access is 4GB. Allocating 5 GB seems unlikely.
Click to expand...

Which is why I assumed they were talking about the total RAM being used by the system, well that and that they called it "ram usage" which is similar to the title task manager uses for the graph that shows the amount of memory being used by the system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top