MDeckman

been through all of it and still working the same game i started when i started skyrim over a year ago. I used skyrim save game cleaner found here on nexus, as well as papyrus script scalpel or something to that effect.) Both have saved my game and save file. Now i'm fine tuning my system to make skyrim work better. though on a note about the memory thing, when the system RAM fills up, windows will automatically start paging the information, and this usually causes papyrus to go wonky and CTD.

You may be running out of RAM. I'm going to give a rough estimation of RAM layout. Windows 32 bit will likely take about 400 to 500 MB of RAM. Another 50 to 100 MB for hardware itself, which is used before Windows. Skyrim will use anywhere from 800MB to 3.2 GB. By default, windows configures it's paging file to roughly the same size as the total RAM in a system. the general rule of thumb that i've used is minimum paging file size is 1.5x the total amount of RAM, maximum is 3x the total amount of RAM. So my guess is that your computer is lacking the resources. Papyrus is probably getting hammered with the swapping of information back and forth between the paging file and your ram and when it crashes, the game obviously does. However, this is my immediate take on it, so i could be wrong.

In accordance with the pinned how to ask for help topic: Short Description: Immediately after loading, be it save or travel or entering/exiting a location, my game lags terribly for up to 15 seconds. Nothing will move. Sound comes through, animation is frozen. I keep my task manager open to view it if it does become not responsive. It also Lags here and there, briefly, for a few frames as they drop to 5-10. Current computer: Core 2 Quad @ 2.4 Ghz. (kentsfield Q6600) 16 GB of RAM in 4 sticks, dual channel GeForce 650 Ti, 2 GB, 941 mhz, 768 cores. Gigabyte motherboard 500 GB harddrive with 318 Free. The computer is from 2008, custom build and upgraded since then (several times). Game Location: C:\Program Files\The Elder Scrolls V Skyrim PORTABLE Game version: 1.9.32.0.8 DLC: Dawnguard, Dragonborn, Hearthfire. NMM is used. SKSE is used, 1.7.1 Boss was used, switched to LOOT. Tes5Edit is used. Mod list from LOOT. it's rather long. More detail: I currently alter Papyrus settings (memory) to help accommodate for the massive amount of textures i'm using. However, if i increase my budgets too much, the game goes to "not responding". If they aren't high enough, it CTDs. This happens often when fast traveling, usually around Whiterun or any major city, or entering any major area that has tons of textures to load. I do not alter anything else except for the tint resolution so that my custom war paints have their desired level of detail. I'm going to be playing around to see what does and doesn't help. I'm welcoming all suggestions and advice. My desired goal is to get back to 60 FPS and have High, HIgh, Ultra and Ultra settings in place. Render distance isn't important to me, though it would be a nice bonus. I have tuned and do so regularly and I've already disabled all background programs or set them do activate when i'm not around. I have also decreased the level of detail a bit since i do use the high resolution textures from bethesda. This seems to have helped, but not much. My computer also lags terribly when spinning around rapidly or battle scenes. It used to not do this at all, but now, I can't get it to stop. I have a limiter installed to keep it at 30 fps. I'd like to keep it there or go higher, as it seems to have cut down the lag a little. My advanced thanks. Edit: with more testing and trouble shooting that i've done myself, I've been able to decrease the lag a bit by giving papyrus more room to breath. though i still can't navigate the forge with the scroll wheel or it ctds. Edit 2: it was the high resolution packs.

Thank you bben46. very insightful as I'm going to be hopefully posting a help topic (if i don't figure it out first)

I know this thread is old and i found it after a google search looking for ways to increase skyrim performance, but seriously, you can't play at 40 fps? Your eyes can't physically tell a difference between 25 and 40 fps. We conceive motion at around 12-15. 8 frames does hurt. I've been there and done that.

That is what i'm currently doing. I'm finding that LOOT handling everything far better than BOSS because of the way it organizes mods. I've already made costume changes to the load order- about 4 i think. it seems to be working. However, I've still got CTD, not responding and Lag issues to work out...

I honestly have to agree. Today I was helping a friend mod his copy of Skyrim and he used LOOT to sort everything. This was the result: http://cloud-4.steampowered.com/ugc/45351519723340862/E8EE35D7832A3CA9F6B3FEBD65CC92039BB2A1D2/ Edit: and no that was not caused by a graphics card problem :tongue: What...what is that? Is that even skyrim? lol. It's a toss up for me. It also seems i can flood LOOT with more installed mods at once than BOSS. BOSS seems to choke on like 15 mods being installed at once (i had to reinstall, so i tried like 15 and it just couldn't sort them properly and the game CTDed. LOOT took like 30 and sorted without problem and the game ran) What mods do you find are most out of order on your LOOT vs BOSS installation and do you build a bashpatch? I have found both work fine for me but I've been moving to LOOT more than BOSS I've had to tweek a couple of items, but had to with BOSS as well due to unrecognized mods. I concur with the unrecognized mods. LOOT seems to have far less of those than BOSS and i've got about 30 or so out of my 160 count. the UFO mods and Werewolf mods were significantly out of order..it had the patchs for UFO before the main mod. And the last time I used a bash patch, I got the purple for missing textures and BOSS wouldn't allow me to install any mods if i didn't have it selected. That required me, along with a few other problems, to do a completely reinstall. It seems every time I use a bash patch, my game goes down the toilet. and google searchs have not yeilded any concrete fixes. So i guess the end result is that BOSS has a trusted foundation while LOOT is being the new convert. It's a shame that BOSS needs manual updating while LOOT uses a more dynamic approach. I'm currently using LOOT and finding it's actually easier and more convienant than BOSS. But i think the kicker is knowing how to use each properly and most effectively, which i thought as I posted the first post in this thread. I"m also enjoying the numerous responses that are coming into this thread. Please continue.

The last update that I found was May 6th of this year. It's about 2 months out of date with today. Was this the last update?

There is probably an old thread about this and i'm recently looking into LOOT. I know that BOSS operates on a userlist that is manually maintained and LOOT inspects the mods and what they do to order them (volunteer feed back improves this), aka, i've read up on them briefly. However, my question is this: what do you prefer and is there a general preference for one or the other? Which would technically be better or which one should I be using? I prefer Boss as i've come to know it a bit better than Loot, but I know that LOOT has a technical advantage over BOSS, but isn't perfect. I ask because I've noticed some dramatic differences in my load order and some of the mods that I use have explicit load orders and LOOT doesn't necessarily recognize this (aka, Seranaholic has to be loaded after all serana textures[fangs, etc], otherwise it gets overwritten). My apologies if this is in the wrong thread...and i'm honestly surprised my login information worked, considering I've never used this part of the site.

Given the transparency that you're providing and the efforts that you're making to ensure security, safety and reliability, take as much time as you need to get what you've planned done.

Glad I was away for the weekend when this happened. I like this one though "Question: Why didn't you just buy more servers when the Steam sale started and it became apparent the load was too much? The file servers we need can't just be requisitioned overnight. They need to be ordered, delivered, plugged in and have all the firmware and updates applied before we can even get the entire file database copied on to the drives. That takes time, more time that the Steam sale was going to last."" It takes me 8 full hours or more to reformat my computer and get everything up and running correctly, with all software reinstalled. It probably takes several days for a server. ----------------------------------------------------- and from what i can understand from wikipedia is a CDN is a server distribution system that is RAIDed across several data centers with resources that are in a completely different league than a dedicated server system. However, I don't have the time currently to look into what it is exactly, so i'm guessing i'm only half right (and it's before 6am right now).

In response to post #15727915. #15732745, #15737375, #15752755, #15755325 are all replies on the same post. Even if they download 1 image at a time, upon request? How big are the files people are uploading? A megabyte or two? The user's cache volatility and relability doesn't come into play since it's not something that should concern the Nexus's ability to operate. It's merely there for you to dump info in and if their browser or internet connection screws with the data, then that's on them. Some people have their cache turned off, the whole part where their cache is unreliable and volatile is null. I do have an idea that would be a win win for the feature, but I'm assuming you and your team have already thought of it and said it was "highly inefficient".

Ok, I tried to edit a post and add a post for troubleshooting a mod on another page and I've come into an inconvenient issue. When I edit a post, i have to reload the page to see the changes. Before, like 3 days ago, i could simply edit the reply and the change would be there instantly- no reloading required. I've cleared my cache multiple times and restarted my browser. So it's not on my end.

In response to post #15727915. #15732745, #15737375 are all replies on the same post. I can see where you're coming from, but why aren't you trying to take advantage of the user's cache? Ample storage and immediate access...

In response to post #15564410. I'd have to say that even if malwarebytes fails, I wouldn't ever use MSE as the back up A/V. I'd be more tempted to use another such as Avast, Avira, AVG or even Kerspery...however you spell that last one. However, I'm also saying this from my own negative experience with using MSE. and how do you post that "in response to post # xxxxxxx". I can quote, but i can't figure that one out. I read through the help topic.. i'm more looking for actual forum code aka BB code and simple HTML.

In response to post #15706280. #15706635 is also a reply to the same post. download malwarebytes anti malware and scan with that. it's free and *extremely* effective.

I've got an issue that's been around for about 6-8 months. When I first started browsing the mods, i could use the arrow keys to switch back and forth between the images and after the first three, it continued onwards in the gallery. Now, if I click an image and use the arrow keys from the gallery, it restarts to the first image and doesn't do anything if I press the arrow keys. It was a nifty feature that I *really* liked. Can we bring that back? I doubt it's a problem with my browser's cache as I do clean it out, and i doubt it's a problem with my browser in general (i haven't used IE in...god...years... Don't have chrome or safari.)

In response to post #15495505. #15499140, #15501015 are all replies on the same post. They were also using 10 year old apachii security software that anybody with a bachelors degree in computer security and a few years of experience could break through. What really made matters worse was when the D.o.H. and FBI stepped in and took over the investigation.

In response to post #15508475. "Thank god I still use an antivirus." You should *always* use an Antivirus and Firewall. I don't know why you wouldn't.

The fact that you're being this open with the security issues is amazing. You've just released at least 5 pages of security issues and explanations while most world wide companies release two paragraphs for a security breach and move on. Kudos to you and your team.

In response to post #15481740. #15482485 is also a reply to the same post. Ok, ok, relax thehorn2000. (I will admit now that i don't know all the inner workings of skyrim itself, but when it comes to computers, that's a different story. Also, I tried to keep this as calm as possible. If you learn something form this, awesome, if not, just ignore it afterwards. And my biggest apology is to other users for having to deal with this 3 page long post) First the adsl2+ issue: well, that's you're own fault for playing on servers on the opposite side of the country. Secondly, if you're having that much of an issue connection, I'd recommend you get PeerBlock. That will help with your ping-time as it cuts out all the bouncing your computer is probably doing right now to play those games. I can guarantee you that you're probably bouncing off a few corporate servers, a government server or two and probably a foreign country server just to see this text. Peerblock will eliminate that pinging. Trust me, it did for me. Second issue is Nod32: agreed. Third issue of the minimum playable fps: you mentioned system resources... and you also mentioned your system specs. You stated "normal rig" and "five years old". I don't want to make you look uninformed, but maybe you should take the time to research what's actually inside your machine. Putting 2600-k inte CPU into google immediately gets me the specs for the intel Core i7 processor, the 2600l model, which has 4 cores, hyper threading (which gives you 8 threads), operating at 3.4 ghz. You're coupling this processor, which i'd like to have in my own system, with dual channel 4 GB sticks. 8 GB of RAM with 8 threads @ 3.4 GHz, that's above a 'normal' system. And to mention, that 2600k from intel, was released in the first quarter of 2011. that processor is 3 years old. It's "expected discontinuance" was q1 of 2013. Now, you don't exactly give the model number of the AMD card, but you said it was a 1 GB, which was outdated by 2 generations. I can only guess that it had a clock speed between 500 mhz and 1 ghz? You're hard drive is negligable. My system is from 2008. It has a Kentsfiled Q6600 Core 2 Quad operating at 2.4 Ghz (no hyperthreading btw). 16 GB of RAM. GeForce GTX 650 Ti 2GB VRAM with 768 CUDA cores working at 941 mhz. Fourth issue of skyrim being 50 GB: so? Mine was at 37 GB at one time. what's your point? Most of my mods are the same as yours, graphics and environmental. 2k textures? I had 4k textures in my system, i got rid of them because it was overkill. I couldn't physically see the detail in them unless right up next to the monitor, admiring the detail. And you say you're FPS is at 80 with vysnc. I hope you realize that vysnc stands for vertical synchronization and forcibly synchrocnizes your vertical refresh rate with your MONITOR. So unless you've got some really tricked out monitor, you're stuck with 59/60, possibly 90, 120, 160, 240, and lastly 320, which is usually only found in HIGH END monitors. And since you said east coast (technically said from 'far east' and and servers on 'far west'), means you bought your monitor in the USA, which gives it a high possibility of 59/60 hz. So the 80 fps you indicate gives you an extremely high possibility of 'screen tearing'. You also indicate that you use every 'extreme' tweak possible to help push the graphics to the 11,000 distance limit, you can't physically see that from your monitor, so there is absolutely no point in doing that. Even with the 'tridef 3d' software, there's no point. You couldn't even see that distance if you walked outside and looked at a field. And since you neglected to mention your video card model, i can't confirm or deny your 3d capabilities. My video card can't even do 3D and it's only a generation old. Then again, 3D graphics gives me migraines and i refuse to watch anything 3D. fifth issue of system resources, AVG and CTD on startup: Tridef 3d is going to put a more stressful burden on your system than AVG would do, even when its scanning. Why, because Tridef 3D not only has to process the game's information, but it has to send that to the video card for processing. So your card is not only processing the game's Original graphics, but 3D graphics when can and usually is more GPU intensive than 2D. And here is where you're going to understand the limitations of skyrim. Skyrim is 32 bit application. It cannot, by design, use more than 2 GB. Using the 4 GB trick, skyrim will not use more than 3.7 GB of RAM. ENB vision will use a bit, so i'm saying it's going to be using around 5 GB of RAM, coupled with the 1.7 GB that windows 7 ultimate 64 bit will use, that leaves you with about a Gig left. I don't use ENB because i don't see a difference, so i don't need to worry about the greater than 8 GB of use-age like you do. That's what's also probably CTDing your game, skyrim and ENB is requiring more system resources than what's available, and processing the hard drive as RAM is going to kill any performance. Increasing your system resources from 8 GB to 16 or even 32 will significantly help in this regard. But this could mean an entire motherboard swap out. Unless Skyrim is being that demanding and using ALL 8 threads of 3.4 Ghz, skyrim shouldn't crash (that's 27.2 GFLOPs of processing, I've got 9.6 and i don't have issue). If skyrim crashes because your antivirus starts, you have a tweak in there that is HURTING your game play. Let me give you an example: I can the ENTIRE adobe master creative suite open, have nexus open, firefox, a dozen word documents, itunes going (which now adays needs two cores running) and my skyrim won't crash. I say this because other applications are demanding processing power and skyrim needs processing power, but if it's being diverted elsewhere, skyrim has to wait. I don't have issue, so skyrim isn't that resource hungry. I have papyrus tweaks that put more of a load on the machine to help skyrim run better, but I also don't run any process hungry applications in the background, leaving my entire quad for skyrim. Tell me why yours crashes, other than AVG. Skyrim crashes for a few reasons: messed up mod, messed up tweak, missing mod but have the patch installed or broken game. If it CTDs after the bethesda logo and you aren't missing patches or mods, etc, then you're demanding more than what papyrus can handle. I'd be extremely surprised if you're skyrim is asking more than 8 GB of ram of resources, like i mentioned in the paragraph above. With everything you've said and all that i've read about your system, i doubt you can get 10 hours of gaming without a crash. A process or service will kick in and suck up that 'precious extra' processing power. Skyrim's programming isn't perfect, and even with all the patches and no mods to change scripting, it will crash. And with your supposed 500 mods you mentioned: do you run nexus mod manager or a different one? Careful with this answer, because if you answer wrong, I'll call BS faster than you can breath. Sixth issue "no ofcourse not,i drop it to connect to rather safe game servers": that doesn't mean the players aren't "unknown." I wasn't talking servers, i was talking players. Big difference. And do you know what pings are even done in? Unless you are aware of yourself being 1/1000th of a second faster than the other person, a few milliseconds isn't going to hurt. And btw, computers think in nanoseconds, that's 1 millionth of a second. You're ping time is involved with your signal going from point B (your house network) to point B (the server of which you're playing on). The servers in between your gaming server and your computer (i can guarantee it hits at least 6 different servers, each of those giving a 2 to 5 ms delay.) I can tell you now for a fact that if i do a tracert through CMD for google.com, I have a 18 to 20 ms ping time. so your ping time isn't relevant to your computer processing speed. It's based on network speeds between your computer and the destination. Getting Peerblock will help this issue. And you said that the difference is visible with antivirus on and off. It takes your system about 10 nano seconds to scan that signal going out. That's 1/100th of a ms. 7th and final issue: you said any 'experienced' gamer would shut off their antivirus. No, an experienced gamer would know the specs of their system and would optimize their system for SPEED and not EYE CANDY. If you wanted speed and eye candy, you would have a MUCH better video card than that AMD with 1 GB (i'm guessing it's not as good as my current one) my previous GeForce GT 240 was able to run skyrim well enough. An experienced gamer would know how to keep himself safe from attack while gaming. In order for you to get that 'extra' advantage that you're currently looking for, you'd realize that you'd need to drop the eye candy so that the video card wouldn't have to work so hard to get you the next few milliseconds of game so that you can take a quarter second to react to it.

In response to post #15482745. Zaldiir - I'm surprised you use Malwarebytes with MSE. Malwarebytes is basically holding up MSE in this case. I did a test in 2012, comparing MSE against AVG free, norton and a few other big names and found that even then, it couldn't automatically see the test virus found here http://www.eicar.org/86-0-Intended-use.html I know it's an old test virus, but if MSE can't see it unless i tell it to scan the file first as compared to AVG not even letting me download the thing, I'd have to say MSE is far worse than AVG. I've also cleaned computers that has MSE on them and found multiple bugs. I'm not saying that MSE is completely bad, i just wouldn't recommend it to anybody. I'd rate it slightly above Norton as you don't have to pay for it, unlike norton.

Thanks for the update and heads up. I've been reading the comments and some people are actually taking their security very seriously, which is a good thing. Others think they are and they aren't 100%. I'm going to share my experience here really quick with what i've found from 2008 till now. Firstly: I've tested AVG, Avira, Avast, Kerspeky, Norton, McAfee and MSE. I tested them against this test virus http://www.eicar.org/86-0-Intended-use.html I tested them in 2008 and again in 2012. Four years is a very long time for the computer realm for viruses. AVG - Not surprisingly as I encountered this behavior before with AVG, it wouldn't let me download it. I couldn't even browse the download page. Once I did finally manage to get the test file downloaded, i couldn't even begin the test as it removed it as soon as it was on the hard drive. Avira - I had to tell it to scan the folder to find it. Avast - I had to tell it to scan the folder to find it. Kerspeky - was only available in 2012 for me and acted like Avast. Norton/McAfee/MSE - I had to do a shell command and have it scan the file explicitly for it to find the test virus. These results were identical in both tests 4 years apart. Now granted, I didn't do a thorough test, but the point of my test was this: if an anti-virus that is up to date with definitions and has been around since the early 2000s, shouldn't it be able to pick up a test virus that's been around since 1995? Others have mentioned online gaming with the firewall: If your firewall is configured correctly (which you should be able to do since we're all adding mods, authoring mods and creating scripts for Skyrim and making all of them run nearly flawlessly, configuring a firewall is child's play) then you shouldn't have to disable it to play an online game. This includes the ping time. A properly configured firewall won't hinder ping time. It never has for me and I've got an internet speed of barely 400 kilobytes per second. Anybody with Norton/McAfee, i suggest you dump it. Every computer I've come across that has had them installed i've had to spend literally hours cleaning. I said i'd keep it short and i'm trying so, with that i'm going to wrap up and say this for emphasis: this is from personal experience and from whom i've shared it with, it's worked wonderfully for. I haven't had an issue with a virus since I put on AVG's firewall and anti-virus. and that was in 2006.

In response to post #15471635. I've got a tool for you to add to your arsenal that's missing. Grab an Anti-root kit tool.

In response to post #15480995. from Norton to AVG. Probably the smartest Anti-virus move you'll ever make. And if you buy a license and configure the firewall right, you'll never have to worry about gaming vs being protected.