Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim teaser trailer

**Frag Maniac** · 02-07-2012, 11:14 PM

Originally Posted by PP Mguire

Skyrim HD Texture pack on Steam now. Looks like 3GB of goodness. Suppose I was right, and it doesn't even appear to be a DX11 overhaul 0_0

Cool, sad though for the maker of the Skyrim HD mod that they released it before he could even begin to complete converting the whole map. I'll have to pass for now though since my GPU doesn't even meet recommended let alone the suggested beyond recommended spec for this pack.

Quite frankly I'm surprised Nvidia still hasn't dropped pricing on the 580 even after release of the 7970, which is kinda kicking it's butt for only slightly more money. Considering you get 33% more VRAM on the7970 though, it's really a wash on price. I may wait and see what Nvidia's 28nm 600 series looks like. The 7970 is tempting, but I still have bad memories of crap ATI drivers over the several years I had their cards.

**PP Mguire** · 02-08-2012, 06:39 AM

Originally Posted by Frag Maniac

Cool, sad though for the maker of the Skyrim HD mod that they released it before he could even begin to complete converting the whole map. I'll have to pass for now though since my GPU doesn't even meet recommended let alone the suggested beyond recommended spec for this pack.

Quite frankly I'm surprised Nvidia still hasn't dropped pricing on the 580 even after release of the 7970, which is kinda kicking it's butt for only slightly more money. Considering you get 33% more VRAM on the7970 though, it's really a wash on price. I may wait and see what Nvidia's 28nm 600 series looks like. The 7970 is tempting, but I still have bad memories of crap ATI drivers over the several years I had their cards.

Some people just don't want AMD right now and will still get a 580. The 580 will drop but only a little once the 600 series kicks out. Cards like the 570 and 560 will tank for people like us.

BTW for anybody on limited connections, the HD pack isn't that great. Go with the smaller better 3rd party texture mods.

**Frag Maniac** · 02-08-2012, 07:52 PM

Originally Posted by PP Mguire

BTW for anybody on limited connections, the HD pack isn't that great. Go with the smaller better 3rd party texture mods.

I've read some people actually prefer the HD mod, and as far as I recall they refer to it as 2k, though I don''t know why. You seem to be implying the dev one is annoying mostly due to download time though. I can see why the full dev pack would be 3GB. The stock game being only 5GB was short on file size to begin with for a game with this large a map. My main concern about any HD mods is that they may not cover all the textures in the game. In fact the one I first read about had only covered two cities at the time I read about it.

**PP Mguire** · 02-10-2012, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by Frag Maniac

I've read some people actually prefer the HD mod, and as far as I recall they refer to it as 2k, though I don''t know why. You seem to be implying the dev one is annoying mostly due to download time though. I can see why the full dev pack would be 3GB. The stock game being only 5GB was short on file size to begin with for a game with this large a map. My main concern about any HD mods is that they may not cover all the textures in the game. In fact the one I first read about had only covered two cities at the time I read about it.

SkyrimHD is far superior in quality to the dev mod with about an 1/8th of the file size. In comparison screenshots the 3GB pack barely makes a noticeable difference compared to vanilla and to me that is a concern considering how large it is. I'm saying go 3rd party because not only do they make a considerable amount of difference but they also are much smaller.

The game was small because newer compression methods. I have 17GB games packed down to standard DVD size.

Here is one comparison of vanilla vs HD.
http://atomhard.99k.org/pub/Skyrim%2...yrim%20HD.html

Here is vanilla compared against HD and SkyrimHD. SkyrimHD is only one of the HD mods out there that make a big impact on quality. I personally have over 2GB of separate mods that just blow Bethesda's crap outa the water.
http://www.reddit.com/r/skyrim/comme...of_the_new_hd/

Personally I'm quite disappointed but I suppose with consolitis I shouldn't have expected much.

**Frag Maniac** · 02-11-2012, 04:27 AM

Do the HD mods cover as many textures in the game as Bethesda's 3GB pack though? Like I said, when I first started playing the game I looked at the Skyrim HD mod, but read that it only covered two cities at that time.

**PP Mguire** · 02-11-2012, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by Frag Maniac

Do the HD mods cover as many textures in the game as Bethesda's 3GB pack though? Like I said, when I first started playing the game I looked at the Skyrim HD mod, but read that it only covered two cities at that time.

Even though the game supposedly covers "all textures" it hardly makes a difference.

The thing with 3rd party is they are constantly updating on a daily basis. Skyrim HD by itself covers tons of textures that actually look GOOD compared to Bethesda's crap.
http://skyrim.nexusmods.com/downloads/file.php?id=607

**Frag Maniac** · 02-11-2012, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by PP Mguire

Skyrim HD by itself covers tons of textures that actually look GOOD compared to Bethesda's crap.

The HD addon is 2000 textures total from what I've read. I don't see how Skyrim HD could be anywhere near that, since it wasn't long ago that it only covered two towns. I'd rather have a pack that covers pretty much everything than see nice textures only here and there.

I'l read up on it again when I get a better GPU then decide, but for now, tons of textures sounds kinda vague.

**PP Mguire** · 02-11-2012, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by Frag Maniac

The HD addon is 2000 textures total from what I've read. I don't see how Skyrim HD could be anywhere near that, since it wasn't long ago that it only covered two towns. I'd rather have a pack that covers pretty much everything than see nice textures only here and there.

I'l read up on it again when I get a better GPU then decide, but for now, tons of textures sounds kinda vague.

Did you not click on the link? They have an extended list of what has been redone. Don't forget these are fans that are updating their stuff constantly. Skyrim STEP (the one I use) is pretty much updated every day.

2000 textures or 1 million textures, the HD patch from Bethesda looks practically no different so I really don't see where you're getting at. Take a look at the screenshot difference. The Skyrim HD mod with the addition of other mods looks 10x better than a 3GB pointless download.

**Frag Maniac** · 02-12-2012, 08:34 PM

Actually no I hadn't clicked on the link, as I thought it was yet another before after shot. However having done so just now I read, "The Mod is 2GB big and replaces 530 textures and normal maps". So the Beth addon is 3GB covering 2000 textures, and this one 2GB covering 530. That means were it to cover the whole game it would actually be 7.5GB. So at the very least the file size argument is rather moot.

I've also not seen before and after examples of the Beth pack to be "practically no different". They take out the blur and reveal detailed textures not visible before in wood grains, rugs, all kinds of things. I've also seen some comparisons of Skyrim HD to Beth's HD pack, and while one shot does show more detailed bump mapping on things such as interior wood walls, some also show more detail in the Beth addon.

So I still feel the 3GB pack covering everything is better, and I disagree that it's barely noticeable. In fact some of it looks better than the 2GB pack as shown below. In fact I would be rather put off when wandering the map if some textures were to look amazing, but 3/4 of them still crap. To me that would just make the stock textures seem even worse, and you'd still have most of the game looking that way.

http://www.neoseeker.com/news/18325-skyrim-high-resolution-texture-pack-vs-skyrim-hd-mod-screenshot-comparison/