Fallout 4 0.283 ENBoost

[Xilandro]

They must have known this, would have been smart to set the shadow distance dynamically depending on the amount of drawcalls on specific cpu's, if that's even possible.

I'm sure it's possible. Even more, when CK is out, and if there is a way to get drawcalls through scripts (maybe F4SE plugin extension with ENB's draw calls request function) - it can be done via mod.
Something like

if iFPS < 60
if GetDrawCalls > 5000
setinisetting "fShadowDistance:display" 5000
elseif GetDrawCalls < 5000
setinisetting "fShadowDistance:display" 4000
elseif GetDrawCalls < 3000
messageex "Buy new rig, bro, this shit aint work"
endif
elseif iFPS > 60
setinisetting "fShadowDistance:display" 10000
endif
and so on

But patch by Bethesda would be better for sure.

[Marcurios]

LOL "Buy new rig, bro, this shit aint work"

If it gets done, we could build a loop that decrements shadowdistance, no need for if else.

[Xilandro]

LOL "Buy new rig, bro, this shit aint work"

If it gets done, we could build a loop that decrements shadowdistance, no need for if else.

Yeah, loop is also an option. We just need to make sure script doesn't spam setinisetting per frame, make it avoid lagspikes and other unrelated fps drops. Good stuff can be made. But ofc it depends on F4SE + drawcalls function.
But the more I think about it - we can just use frame time (not fps) without drawcalls at all. Like "set t to GetSecondsPassed" or papyrus counterpart of this thing, if possible) and decrement shadowdistance until t is at some value that represents 60+ fps. And we need only CK for it

[Marcurios]

Yep, that would probably be best indeed, then people can set the desired graphical settings, and the script will regulate shadow distance to get the desired framerate.

And indeed a loop might cause unwanted performance problems if done wrong.

Just have to put a if/endif around the loop so it only works if the desired framerate is not met.

[FiftyTifty]

The fault doesn't lie with the programmers, it lies with the artists, no? Not using texture atlases would be a big culprit 'ere.

Of course, this game was made for the consoles; they have low level APIs, much like Mantle/Vulkan/D3D12, where draw calls are pretty much a non-issue until the ~200,000 mark. Far as I know, anyhow.

This game REALLY needs a patch for the low level APIs, but...It's Bethesda. We won't get a patch unless everybody flips their shit, and even then it ain't likely.

[Xilandro]

Yep, that would probably be best indeed, then people can set the desired graphical settings, and the script will regulate shadow distance to get the desired framerate.

And indeed a loop might cause unwanted performance problems if done wrong.

Just have to put a if/endif around the loop so it only works if the desired framerate is not met.

Once I get my hands on CK and problem won't be fixed until then - I'll try to find a way to get FPS value out of it or frame time. Because I can't find anything in papyrus that could return damn frames. In previous fallout games there was good ol GetSecondsPassed (it returned length of a frame, not a seconds). In Skyrim - nope, nothing like that at all. I'm in frustration, lol. Bad thing - getting fps in script was based on that function.

Code: Select all

		let t := GetSecondsPassed
		if t > 0 ;prevents division by zero
			let iFPS := 1 / t
		endif

The fault doesn't lie with the programmers, it lies with the artists, no? Not using texture atlases would be a big culprit 'ere.

Of course, this game was made for the consoles; they have low level APIs, much like Mantle/Vulkan/D3D12, where draw calls are pretty much a non-issue until the ~200,000 mark. Far as I know, anyhow.

This game REALLY needs a patch for the low level APIs, but...It's Bethesda. We won't get a patch unless everybody flips their shit, and even then it ain't likely.

Artists just make assets, and only by template they got from game engine programmers.
Wha? Consoles can handle draw calls without any issues? Wtf... Why the hell PCs don't have those low level APIs yet? o_O

[rev6]

Wha? Consoles can handle draw calls without any issues? Wtf... Why the hell PCs don't have those low level APIs yet? o_O

Probably out of difficulty creating such an API that supports such vast array of hardware and/or not really needing it as much as we do now. Hardware is getting more and more powerful, high level API's such as DX11 for example are the limiting factor.
Consoles are a single set of components that never change substantially through their life cycle so I guess it's much easier to create the API for them.

Now we have Metal, Mantle, DX12, soon Vulkan. It's all good news for PC gamers. The only issue I see with the transition to DX12 is it being limited to Windows 10 only, which people have strong opinions about already without even using it, a bit like Windows 8.

Completely off-topic I know, but I was thinking how great Fallout 4 would perform with DX12 with these drawcall spikes.

[Marcurios]

@Xilandro, Oh ?
I didn't know that, thought GetSecondsPassed was actually microseconds.
Why they remove stuff like that is beyond my scope of understanding, i can understand adding functions, not removing them especially if they can come in handy.

Yeah consoles have a better architecture and API, they handle drawcalls better then PC cpu does.
It's a shame that Beth didn't wait a year longer to release FO4 with DX12, then the drawcall issues could have been avoided.
I have to see it in action first, but supposedly DX12 can handle up to 600k drawcalls, 6 times more then DX11.
Ofcourse in real life it will never work as perfect as they say, but it will provide a huge improvement nevertheless for multicore cpu's,
especially the crappy AMD cpu's

But ofcourse the console gaming market is more lucrative, seems that a lot of devs don't like the PC anymore.
Atleast that what i understand when i search the net, i might be completely wrong though, as always.

[Xilandro]

@Xilandro, Oh ?
I didn't know that, thought GetSecondsPassed was actually microseconds.
Why they remove stuff like that is beyond my scope of understanding, i can understand adding functions, not removing them especially if they can come in handy.

Haha yeah I thought the same. But it was a nice surprise, very useful if you need FPS correction for your scripts.
They removed it because it was pretty obsolete and used mostly for timers. Now they have different set of functions for timer (Wait), and it's kinda useless, and rumor is - it sets ALL scripts to wait for set amount of time =D I hope it's just a rumor. Fk Bugthesda if it's not.

@ Marcurios & rev6
Thanks for the explanation guys! Well, it's a real shame good stuff took so long to be developed...
Anyways, I'll stop offtop the hell out of this topic, don't want provoke Boris )

[Marcurios]

YW, i'm bugging out too, don't want to be spanked by Boris.