Look at how good Oblivion looks after all those tweaks/mods implemented - A must-see

[Nda]

yep, the first scene looked too bright and the second too dark. I use 2405, dont say that my monitor is too dark heh.
Please use the same image for the second shot or redo the shot again.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
You didn't think of saving the game at one point, taking the screenshot, then applying the tweaks and reloading the save?

No?

(It's too dark)

Hey, if you're that picky, go do it yourself, I'm not here to service you.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Sable

Originally posted by: Frackal
I did the grass reduction tweak (it is present in the screenshot though)... I am playing in 12-15fps heaven, but it looks so good I dont care. Its not that jerky except for fighting, which is bad

So not even slightly playable but looks pretty. Why not just "play" 3dMark?

(too dark to see anything here as well)

It's playable. You guys are so f0cking whiny

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Nda
yep, the first scene looked too bright and the second too dark. I use 2405, dont say that my monitor is too dark heh.
Please use the same image for the second shot or redo the shot again.

Yeah but you should still be able to see the immense difference in richness and shadows. The shadows were essentially entirely washed out on the default brightness. 2005fpw is a bright monitor

 

[Nanobaud]

I did a histogram on your "after" image. Mean pixel value was about 22.3 (of 256), median was 15, and less than 3% of the pixels are brighter than 100/256. Monitor brightness not withstanding, the jpg file you posted was way too dark. If that's representative of your original image, you're missing out on a big chunk of your dynamic range.

nBd

 

[Boogak]

Not to be a nitpicker like everyone else, but it's hard to say how big a difference those tweaks made if it's a totally different scene. The first scene it looks like you're looking up at the sky in a wide open meadow, so the engine might render it brighter due to HDR. The 2nd scene is in a heavily wooded forest and what looks like a different time of day, so again the engine might be rendering the lighting differently.

 

[professor1942]

You can actually play at 12-15 fps? I would have an aneurism after about 2 minutes. Anything under about 28 is unbearable IMO.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Nanobaud
I did a histogram on your "after" image. Mean pixel value was about 22.3 (of 256), median was 15, and less than 3% of the pixels are brighter than 100/256. Monitor brightness not withstanding, the jpg file you posted was way too dark. If that's representative of your original image, you're missing out on a big chunk of your dynamic range.

nBd

The JPG is darker than the original. I'll turn the brightness up a tad. It was lalso cloudy out at that time

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: professor1942
You can actually play at 12-15 fps? I would have an aneurism after about 2 minutes. Anything under about 28 is unbearable IMO.

Yeah, its around 20 in many parts. Now, in the towns or inside of course it shoots way up

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Boogak
Not to be a nitpicker like everyone else, but it's hard to say how big a difference those tweaks made if it's a totally different scene. The first scene it looks like you're looking up at the sky in a wide open meadow, so the engine might render it brighter due to HDR. The 2nd scene is in a heavily wooded forest and what looks like a different time of day, so again the engine might be rendering the lighting differently.

True. Let me just say subjectively then, that the difference is outrageous. A large part was that the shadows were either not being rendered correctly (maybe GPU driver change?) and/or tweaks/brightness turned down etc... but it went from disappointing to utterly amazing

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: amheck
Did you use a specific tweek guide, or just random stuff you found around. I'm thinking about finally picking up the game and wondering where to start with all that.

The tweakguide from the AnandT article plus another one here:

http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/article.asp?SCID=27&CIID=36546&p=3

 

[RobertR1]

It's very hard to validate without matching screen shots, sorry.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
You didn't think of saving the game at one point, taking the screenshot, then applying the tweaks and reloading the save?

No?

(It's too dark)

Hey, if you're that picky, go do it yourself, I'm not here to service you.

He has a point. Different screens dont do anything for image quality comparisons. Dont be upset that he brought up common sense to you. One is dark, one is light. One has water, the other doesnt. One has lots of trees, the other doesnts, etc. They are not even close to being similar. Thus, making a comparison pointless.

Your effort is appreciated, but its not very usefull at all.

 

[Polish3d]

Well, let it just be a subjective endorsement then for the tweaks, texture mods, and fiddling with your brightness control... for those who can see both pics clearly, there ought to be at least some sense of the difference. It's definitely not a uniquely bad screenshot vs. a uniquely good one.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
I'm thoroughly unimpressed. The picture is too dark and definately doesn't look like anything special. You need to come up with a better example than that.

Or you need a better monitor.

 

[CKTurbo128]

Nice graphics. However, you should take screenshots of the same area, to highlight the difference. The screenshots in the first post are showing completely two different areas (ruined fort in the meadow & a forest with stream). Something like this:

Before (Normal LOD Texture): http://img328.imageshack.us/my.php?image=oblivionnormalmapmod7pr.jpg
After (CaptNKill's LOD Texture): http://img81.imageshack.us/my.php?image=oblivioncaptnkillstextures29fb.jpg

These shots are from NVNews, where CaptNKill highlighted the graphical difference between the original and modified LOD textures.

 

[nycdude]

Originally posted by: RobertR1
It's very hard to validate without matching screen shots, sorry.

what he said

 

[alpha88]

You can actually play at 12-15 fps? I would have an aneurism after about 2 minutes. Anything under about 28 is unbearable IMO.

In pretty much any other game, I need 60FPS to be happy.

I'm totally serious when I say that oblivion is very playable at 20fps. It isn't a fast paced game and it doesn't flicker like a FPS would at 20fps.

 

[mooncancook]

The ATI HDR+AA patch makes the biggest difference for me at 1650x1080

 

[darkswordsman17]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Sable

Originally posted by: Frackal
I did the grass reduction tweak (it is present in the screenshot though)... I am playing in 12-15fps heaven, but it looks so good I dont care. Its not that jerky except for fighting, which is bad

So not even slightly playable but looks pretty. Why not just "play" 3dMark?

(too dark to see anything here as well)

It's playable. You guys are so f0cking whiny

You post this in the video forum and then complain about people being whiny?

Thats all the video forum is, people whining about how something doesn't look as good as something else.

The fact is, as has been echoed repeatedly in this thread, your pictures offer no chance to do a valid comparison. No need to get mad that people are telling you this since its obvious this is true. Your thought was nice, but the execution is lacking, making what you were trying to do (be helpful by showing the differences), pointless, since we don't know what the real difference is.

 

[BW86]

cant see anything in the after pic.

the before and after shots should be the same location...

 

[fierydemise]

Echoing the complaints, I can't see the second pick at all

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Sable

Originally posted by: Frackal
I did the grass reduction tweak (it is present in the screenshot though)... I am playing in 12-15fps heaven, but it looks so good I dont care. Its not that jerky except for fighting, which is bad

So not even slightly playable but looks pretty. Why not just "play" 3dMark?

(too dark to see anything here as well)

It's playable. You guys are so f0cking whiny

You post this in the video forum and then complain about people being whiny?

Thats all the video forum is, people whining about how something doesn't look as good as something else.

The fact is, as has been echoed repeatedly in this thread, your pictures offer no chance to do a valid comparison. No need to get mad that people are telling you this since its obvious this is true. Your thought was nice, but the execution is lacking, making what you were trying to do (be helpful by showing the differences), pointless, since we don't know what the real difference is.

Let's say this has already been resolved, go look on the first and second pages. I don't think arguing with me about it further is going to change the screenshots. I already answered and said "if not an objective comparison, just take it as a subjective review of the mods and tweaks."

And yes, many people around here like to bithc just for the sake of it

 

[coldpower27]

Oh well, then can anyone else in this thread post screenshots normalizing as many constants as possible, I typically don't glean much useful information if so many factors are different.

Totally different areas, the first picture looks like a sunny day in a nice hill looking at a cave and the second one looks like an overcast day in a forest with a pond...

Typically common sesne dictates that when doing before and after shots to highlights differences you don't introduce further variables, that mask the data you wish to convey.

To me this is analagous to this.

Comparing an Athlon 4000+ on a freshly installed version of Linux vs an Athlon 64 3200+ on an old install of Windows.

 

[Zebo]

What kind of a/b test features different sceens?

Get it together frakel.