Thanks decreases SSAO filter times from 0.0014 to 0.0004ENBSeries wrote:electricsheep26354
3
TES Skyrim 0.245
Forum rules
new topics are not allowed in this subsection, only replies.
new topics are not allowed in this subsection, only replies.
- Author
- Message
-
Offline
- *blah-blah-blah maniac*
- Posts: 618
- Joined: 18 Jul 2013, 13:08
- Location: UK
Re: TES Skyrim 0.245
-
Offline
- *blah-blah-blah maniac*
- Posts: 1509
- Joined: 20 Mar 2012, 08:37
Re: TES Skyrim 0.245
@Boris
do i understand right it is Adaptive now ?
do i understand right it is Adaptive now ?
_________________
85% of graphics research is about who can finally make Sponza look good.
Jasper Bekkers EA/DICE
Perfection is the greatest enemy of photorealism.
Jorge Jimenez Activision Blizzard
-
Offline
- *sensei*
- Posts: 329
- Joined: 02 Feb 2013, 22:02
- Location: Austria
Re: TES Skyrim 0.245
Strange, I'll do some testing.ENBSeries wrote: kaffeekranz
I don't have any ideas what could be wrong on your side, 4 times slower can be only for old videocards of dx10 generation with not much arithmetic units. May be someone else will share comparison results?
In the meantime, electricsheep, Oyama, you guys want to do me a favour and run a profiler comparison for SSAO between v0.244 and v0.245? Pretty please?
_________________
RTX 2080 Ti
RTX 2080 Ti
-
Offline
- *master*
- Posts: 101
- Joined: 30 Jun 2013, 20:28
Re: TES Skyrim 0.245
Love the added supersampling - the game is more sharp/beautiful then ever.
All other settings being equal, supersampling costs me c. 3 FPS at the entrance to Whiterun (29.5 - 26.5), but as I can tone down the filter quality (29.5 @ 3 and 27.5 @ -1, w/o supersampling), the difference is just 1 FPS in practice. Totally worth it.
All other settings being equal, supersampling costs me c. 3 FPS at the entrance to Whiterun (29.5 - 26.5), but as I can tone down the filter quality (29.5 @ 3 and 27.5 @ -1, w/o supersampling), the difference is just 1 FPS in practice. Totally worth it.
_________________
Intel i7-2700K @ 3.5Ghz | Win 8.1 64-bit | Crucial SSD 256GB | Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB | Crucial DDR3 1333MHz 8GB | XFX AMD Radeon R9 380 4GB | AOC D2757 27" @ 1920 x 1080
Intel i7-2700K @ 3.5Ghz | Win 8.1 64-bit | Crucial SSD 256GB | Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB | Crucial DDR3 1333MHz 8GB | XFX AMD Radeon R9 380 4GB | AOC D2757 27" @ 1920 x 1080
-
Offline
- *blah-blah-blah maniac*
- Posts: 1498
- Joined: 31 Mar 2012, 15:06
- Location: France
Re: TES Skyrim 0.245
Arkngt
What scales are you running ?
kaffeekranz
As soon as back on PC
What scales are you running ?
kaffeekranz
As soon as back on PC
_________________
Lian Li PC011 Dynamic, Corsair AX 1500i PSU, i9 10850K @5.0 Ghz, Aorus Z490 Ultra, RTX3090 MSI Gaming X Trio, 32GB Corsair Vengeance Pro RGB RAM@3600, Corsair MP600 1TB NVME System Drive, 10 TB Storage, W10 Pro 64, Custom Hard Tubing Watercooling Loop
Lian Li PC011 Dynamic, Corsair AX 1500i PSU, i9 10850K @5.0 Ghz, Aorus Z490 Ultra, RTX3090 MSI Gaming X Trio, 32GB Corsair Vengeance Pro RGB RAM@3600, Corsair MP600 1TB NVME System Drive, 10 TB Storage, W10 Pro 64, Custom Hard Tubing Watercooling Loop
-
Offline
- *blah-blah-blah maniac*
- Posts: 17559
- Joined: 27 Dec 2011, 08:53
- Location: Rather not to say
Re: TES Skyrim 0.245
EDIT: no, false alarm, it's for proper computations of ssil vectors in debug version only.
I've found "bug" in latest ssao/ssil optimizations, indirect lighting is twice lower than in previous versions. Will do fix as only finish other changes to this code.
I've found "bug" in latest ssao/ssil optimizations, indirect lighting is twice lower than in previous versions. Will do fix as only finish other changes to this code.
_________________
i9-9900k, 64Gb RAM, RTX 3060 12Gb, Win7
i9-9900k, 64Gb RAM, RTX 3060 12Gb, Win7
-
Offline
- *blah-blah-blah maniac*
- Posts: 618
- Joined: 18 Jul 2013, 13:08
- Location: UK
Re: TES Skyrim 0.245
SSAO times (setting as per my previous post but SSAO filter quality set to 3)kaffeekranz wrote:Strange, I'll do some testing.ENBSeries wrote: kaffeekranz
I don't have any ideas what could be wrong on your side, 4 times slower can be only for old videocards of dx10 generation with not much arithmetic units. May be someone else will share comparison results?
In the meantime, electricsheep, Oyama, you guys want to do me a favour and run a profiler comparison for SSAO between v0.244 and v0.245? Pretty please?
0.244 = 0.0065
0.245 = 0.0130 (with supersampling enabled)
-
Offline
- *blah-blah-blah maniac*
- Posts: 17559
- Joined: 27 Dec 2011, 08:53
- Location: Rather not to say
Re: TES Skyrim 0.245
Ignore my previous post, it's not a bug.
_________________
i9-9900k, 64Gb RAM, RTX 3060 12Gb, Win7
i9-9900k, 64Gb RAM, RTX 3060 12Gb, Win7
-
Offline
- *master*
- Posts: 101
- Joined: 30 Jun 2013, 20:28
Re: TES Skyrim 0.245
[SSAO_SSIL]Oyama wrote:Arkngt
What scales are you running ?
EnableSupersampling=true
UseIndirectLighting=true
UseComplexIndirectLighting=true
UseComplexAmbientOcclusion=true
UseAmbientIndirectLighting=false
SamplingQuality=-1
SamplingPrecision=1
SamplingRange=0.28
FadeFogRange=16.0
SizeScale=1.0
SourceTexturesScale=1.0
FilterQuality=3
FilterType=0
AOAmount=0.83
AOAmountInterior=0.82
ILAmount=2.71
ILAmountInterior=2.69
AOMixingType=2
AOMixingTypeInterior=2
AOIntensity=0.78
AOIntensityInterior=0.80
AOType=0
UseOldType=false
EnableDenoiser=false
BTW, how do you guys check the SSAO filter times?
EDIT: Found it - and it's twice as slow for me as well. 0.0045 w/o Supersampling, 0.0082 with it.
Last edited by Arkngt on 13 Jan 2014, 07:48, edited 2 times in total.
_________________
Intel i7-2700K @ 3.5Ghz | Win 8.1 64-bit | Crucial SSD 256GB | Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB | Crucial DDR3 1333MHz 8GB | XFX AMD Radeon R9 380 4GB | AOC D2757 27" @ 1920 x 1080
Intel i7-2700K @ 3.5Ghz | Win 8.1 64-bit | Crucial SSD 256GB | Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB | Crucial DDR3 1333MHz 8GB | XFX AMD Radeon R9 380 4GB | AOC D2757 27" @ 1920 x 1080
-
Offline
- *sensei*
- Posts: 329
- Joined: 02 Feb 2013, 22:02
- Location: Austria
Re: TES Skyrim 0.245
Thanks man.electricsheep26354 wrote: 0.244 = 0.0065
0.245 = 0.0130 (with supersampling enabled)
Yes, of course I meant to say 'no supersampling' vs 'with supersampling', so thanks for understanding my 'just woke up'-gibberish.
And a thanks to you.Oyama wrote: kaffeekranz
As soon as back on PC
But if your results are going to be in line with electricsheep's then I'm out of ideas.. using older driver's (although I didn't even try the new problematic ones) didn't change anything, so I'll test Boris' standard config later on.
_________________
RTX 2080 Ti
RTX 2080 Ti