Jump to content

Texture Option Question


dennis20014

Recommended Posts

I use this 'texture optimizer' to compress the 1k texture pack (I use the lite version of the popular 2k) as my 560ti only has 1GB of ram. I actually use it to compress all textures ,on the minimum (safe) setting.

 

However, I still get crashes from time to time, even with the various tweaks to ini's and adjusting various settings in the launcher options.

 

I recently learned about the 3.1GB ctd error as most of us have, and I have come to find out through the performance monitor that this is USUALLY (out of most of my tests) the reason for crashing.

 

Now it is is my understanding, that textures in skyrim are loaded into RAM (not VRAM) is this correct?

 

I'm pretty sure it is, as I see my RAM usage decrease by at least 10% (more) even when going from High to medium in the launcher options. This is even with textures compressed already.

 

So here is my big question, going forward assuming everything I have said is right.

 

With the quality even lower on medium, would it be better to reinstall the texture packs, then just play on the medium setting? Or would it be better (for those who use that linked utility I wrote about) to pick a higher setting? Within the program I mean (medium compress as opposed to minimum that I use now)

 

Cause it does indeed compress textures without much quality loss, but I'm trying to find out if it would make more sense to just pick a higher setting on that, than playing on medium. Because it (the quality loss ) is quite noticeable when going from high to medium, than it is with just the textures compressed and staying on high.

 

Okay sorry that was long, but I hope someone understands what I am asking! haha

Edited by dennis20014
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ummm if you reach 3.1GB RAM usage using 1K textures something else is wrong.

 

I use 2K and 4K textures (mostly 2K) and am not reaching 3.1GB limit.... and if you check my screenshots you'll see my game is really heavily modded...

 

What kind of tweaks have you done to your ini's (skyrim.ini / skyrimprefs.ini)

 

 

 

  Quote

 

Now it is is my understanding, that textures in skyrim are loaded into RAM (not VRAM) is this correct?

 

Wrong.... sorta... Textures are loaded into VRAM and due to Skyrim being DirectX9 it will mirror them into your RAM... but not everything. It only mirrors the textures but it will not mirror things your card does internally, like AA, which also takes up VRAM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 8/1/2013 at 10:12 PM, prod80 said:

ummm if you reach 3.1GB RAM usage using 1K textures something else is wrong.

 

I use 2K and 4K textures (mostly 2K) and am not reaching 3.1GB limit.... and if you check my screenshots you'll see my game is really heavily modded...

 

What kind of tweaks have you done to your ini's (skyrim.ini / skyrimprefs.ini)

 

 

 

  Quote

 

Now it is is my understanding, that textures in skyrim are loaded into RAM (not VRAM) is this correct?

 

Wrong.... sorta... Textures are loaded into VRAM and due to Skyrim being DirectX9 it will mirror them into your RAM... but not everything. It only mirrors the textures but it will not mirror things your card does internally, like AA, which also takes up VRAM.

 

 

Ah yeah right, I guess that makes more sense lol. I thought it odd if it was the case. Here are both of what my ini's are. Let me know if anything is outdated or of no use! :)

 

 

Skyrim INI

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

Skyrim Pref INI

  Reveal hidden contents

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try copy over this skyrim.ini

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

Make sure you correct tehse in SkyrimPrefs.ini...

 

fMeshLODLevel2FadeDist=1e+007
fMeshLODLevel1FadeDist=1e+007
You have a lot of custom stuff in both files, you might wanna consider trying with the default files (rename both files and launch skyrim launcher to rebuild them)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay thanks for the information, I will test things out and let you know how it goes.

 

I will note, since using the ENBoost files, I have had less crashing. Does anyone use or recomment the ATTK program still? I remember it was big a few months back but I wasn't too sure if it was really that great or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the quick responses! I haven't crashed in about an hour and a half (except my unexplained lockup I have always gotten in a certain area right by riverwood). Otherwise it was fine this whole time.

 

And yeah I really feel like ATTK doesn't do a dang thing, then or now.

 

The enbbooster seems to work well, at least if I want to use an ENB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not so sure about enboost ... you know, 32bit programs can use 4gb of virtual address space, no matter where this is located on the system (physical ram, virtual memory, vram, whatever is used)... what enboost seems to do is move memory from physical ram into video ram.. but this does not reduce the total amount virtual address space used.

 

game will still crash at the same limit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...