TES Skyrim 0.315

[ENBSeries]

fNearDistance=0.001 works with ssao properly. But as 3d programmer i need to say it's very lame to set such values for near clipping plane and i will never support such small distances by compatibility.

[ENBSeries]

Maybe it worth to make sun rays like underwater rays? I refused earlier because shadows are not casting from sun direction, but now tested SSE and it have unfixed same problem and users totally fine to have wrong sun rays there.

EDIT: nevermind, i forgot that have no solution to very intense areas which makes everything look foggy when rays intensity high enough to be noticable. They only fit to foggy weather, it's wasting performance for something you barely see. I see no point to do same yellow everything like in SSE or Fallout 4. You can test yourself, there are pools in Whiterun when going to jarl, use tfc command there when underwater with shadows enabled for [UNDERWATER] and fly away to area below water levels of that pools, so you can see how rays barely visible if intensity not high enough (to have very little range around camera for them as partial solution is not impressive looking).
https://imgur.com/a/hEKDj

[n555]

I tested again, you are right SSAO still works with low nearclip, but I didn't notice it before because it only works on nearby objects, the SSAO on distant objects like mountains disappears. Seems normal then, I know things like that can happen with weird nearclip values (like I said, I only use for special zoom toggle so I can get really close to objects, not for regular gameplay).

What parts of the screen is the Edge AA not applied to? Do you mean it's applied before other effects instead of at the end?


Also, does anyone know anything about the bogus Windows low on virtual memory popup message that shows if memory fills up too much? After I upgraded to 11GB VRAM graphics card, I installed lots of textures, game now uses around 9 to 10 GB VRAM, max I've seen is 10.5 GB in the Open Cities. But Windows would keep popping up this bogus message that interrupted and minimized my game, saying basically "please close Skyrim program to free up memory". But game was actually fine and didn't crash, so it's a pointless warning. At the time I had 16GB RAM + 11GB VRAM + fixed 2GB page file. I fixed the issue by setting pagefile back to system-managed, so now it's over 20GB and wasting huge space on my SSD. I checked page file usage during Skyrim and it's always 0% usage, page file is never touched of course. I think maybe that Windows warning message is hard coded to pop up if your virtual memory usage is over some set percentage, like 70% or something, and increasing the page file size has tricked Windows, since with a bigger page file now virtual memory usage is only like 40% or something. In the last month I've never seen that message again and Skyrim is perfectly stable, but I don't really want to waste 20+ GB of SSD space on a page file that's never used so I'd be really interested to know if anyone knows of a way to disable that warning message somehow (Windows 7).

[ENBSeries]

That message always occur on winxp+ if swap file set to fixed size of any kind small by imagination of os. But seems in win10 everything is worse and more annoying. Free memory could be used for file caching, thats why it report no memory. And put swap on ssd is very bad idea.
EdgeAA is applied to visible edges of objects mostly. Why to ask instead of to take screenshots and compare?

[n555]

I did take screenshots to compare, they look very similar but Edge AA is maybe a little less aggressive than FXAA in terms of blur. I just wanted to know the technical difference.

Early generation SSDs had very limited lifetime for writes but modern SSDs have excellent long term write endurance (100 - 400 TB) so it's not a problem. Besides, the swap file isn't actually used anyway on my system with 16GB RAM, i checked with monitoring software and page file usage is always 0% sometimes 0.6% or so. But Windows OS and some old programs don't like if page file doesn't exist or is too small, even if they are not even using it. I originally set page file to auto expand to larger size if necessary using Windows settings, and it never does. I think Windows 7 might use very stupid logic for how much page file size it thinks you need, because I have dual boot Win7 and Win10 on this system and Win7 auto size for page file sets it to like 26GB but Win10 on the same hardware auto sizes it to only 4GB.

[ENBSeries]

I suggest you to read how SSD disks die (i have one dead too). It's all fairytales of marketologists, size of disk not decreased much, they just stop work, i never seen anybody who had SSD with reduced size even to half of it's original. And modern SSD are 3-4 bits per cell, which can't be as good as 1-2 bits (having 2 bits from Samsung, overpriced).

[n555]

I know how SSDs can die, and I own over 20 SSDs. HDDs die far more often than SSDs. Only Samsung regular EVO models use 3 bits per cell, Samsung PRO model SSDs use 2 bits per cell and have a 10 year warranty, and other manufacturer's all have 2 bit per cell models too (yes all SSDs are overpriced, because of industry NAND and DRAM shortage right now). If it dies just contact warranty dept and they send you a new one, it's no big deal if you have automated drive image backups. But anyway this is getting off topic now...

[ENBSeries]

I don't have any HDD died in entire life and all mine don't have any single bad block with over 40k hours running, while they are usual desktop drives choosed properly. No SSD will live so long and nice from existing ones. Statistics of google and other big companies is wrong cause they run HDDs in servers, which means bad temperatures always, not less than 40 degrees for each drive (mine rich such temperature only when i put them away from case for backups). HDD can't die faster than SSD if put in properly cooled case, good psu, no kicking, vendor don't make tricks like WD do with degradation of pcb cause of axid in solder (have it, but still works after some cleaning procedure when electronics started to fail). Magnetic storage will be always better than flash based, it's pure physical fact, write data to it, put on the shelf and after 100 years it will be there working. And they are much simpler for data restoration on fail (not everybody can have raid by many reasons). The problem is in vendors, no good any more HDD on the market. No idea what you do with 20 SSD, definetly not for storing some information for future and not for any serious tasks critical to errors.
Everybody happy these days using low quality software crashing all the time and consuming crazy amount of memory and performance for no reason, no rock solid hardware like it was in past, all people addicted to modern features by ignoring the most important factors.

[n555]

I've never had any HDD die either, nor had any SSD die. Over my life I've probably owned over 100 HDDs in different devices and standalone, and over 20 SSDs, none of them died. You are right about temperatures and review methods, most of my important HDDs in deskops run at temperatures of 25 to 35 deg. As for 20 SSDs, I put SSDs in everything, there are many desktops, laptops, game consoles, etc. in the house. HDDs are terrible performance and make annoying loud noise (and are bad for laptops, heat generation, vibration, lower battery life) and I run silent PCs with quality parts, can't tolerate loud HDDs and cheap loud fans, etc. HDDs are better for long term storage, archiving, backups, etc. of course so I use them for file servers etc. But I would never run live OS on HDD anymore. Of course my important data is on HDD, but I don't need my Windows install to exist in 100 years (it's image backup regularly to HDD anyway), I need it to be fast and quiet.

[ENBSeries]

Oh. Then its good.