It seems that it is confirmed by others that [Rendering] tab settings work well in reducing pop-ins. Now could anyone else please try the Input and Kinect settings and let me know if it improves the camera stutter problem? Just back-up your user.settings.ini file to somewhere else and change a few lines, I need your feedbacks guys.
- Status
It seems that it is confirmed by others that [Rendering] tab settings work well in reducing pop-ins. Now could anyone else please try the Input and Kinect settings and let me know if it improves the camera stutter problem? Just back-up your user.settings.ini file to somewhere else and change a few lines, I need your feedbacks guys.
Maybe if you have higher fpses worsen things, i don't know
I fyou don't mind, try to limit your fps to 30 with a third party software,just for testing, and see if it feels still stuttery.
I'm limited at 35 fps, and is smooth for me, that's why i'm asking to do this little test.
But is also true not all has benefit from some settings, and they can also worsen things
The first thing I am doing is creating a visual guide which demonstrates just how the cascade system works, how objects are assigned to only render in certain cascades, and a visual representation of what changing each cascade level does. I'm doing this in only two dimensions though, because trying to do it in 3 visually will be too confusing.
Anyway, this guide will take some time to complete, so just hang in there.
Thank you very much for taking the time to explain these things to us, jonwd7! Being a PC gamer means that there is always something new to learn about the way both our games and our machines work under the hood, so I'm personally very excited to learn about the intricacies of the REDengine. Only by understanding it, can we hope to find the settings and tweaks that give the best performance/quality ratio!
Thank you very much for sharing your experience with us!
I did see this particular tweak on the Witcher subreddit, but at the time I thought not to mention it because of conflicting reports regarding its in-game performance. I will personally give it a try and see for myself if it helps in any way, then report back with my results!
First of all, thank you very much for sharing these tweaks with us, Finnbhennach, I really appreciate it! :cheers2:
As instructed, I disabled all of the console gestures and kinect from the user.settings and I did sort of feel an improvement with the mouse and keyboard controls, but I'm not exactly certain it wasn't a placebo all along. Still, I do not see any benefit in keeping all of these variables on true, so I would suggest everyone disable them just because we have no use for them on PC!
I am afraid that is always the problem with unofficial tweaks. Not all of them will work for everyone and some tweaks are quite harder to benchmark than others. That being said, I will always try to keep the OP as free from "snake-oil" tweaks as much as possible and should any of the ones already in there get proven not to work, I will update them or remove them entirely. No point wasting that 40,000 character limit on stuff that doesn't work, or worse, breaks the game even further!
Since we're on the subject, what do you guys think of the TextureStreamingHeadsDistanceLimit and TextureStreamingCharacterDistanceLimit tweaks, should we include them in the OP as a solution to NPC pop-in?
Last edited:
@essenthy
Great work man!
I'm no modder so bear with me if I sound stupid
From your comments (in video and in post) I understood the only thing that is stil broken is novigrad skybox?
you said it works in skellige and you fixed it in velen so does this mean it works with every weather?
And do velen and novigrad really have different skyboxes, I mean what happens if you just walk from velen to novigrad? There are no loading screen so when does it switch skyboxes?
EDIT: ok I sounded stupid, mission accomplished...
so if I now understood something skybox itself isn't broken but it's about getting those weather effects to work with the new lighting, still how (where) does it break if you just walk from velen to novigrad?
Anyway, keep up good work :hatsoff: and hopefully you could soon provide tutorial for some playable setup (doesn't have to even work everywhere, just velen and skellige would be awesome)
Great work man!
I'm no modder so bear with me if I sound stupid
From your comments (in video and in post) I understood the only thing that is stil broken is novigrad skybox?
you said it works in skellige and you fixed it in velen so does this mean it works with every weather?
And do velen and novigrad really have different skyboxes, I mean what happens if you just walk from velen to novigrad? There are no loading screen so when does it switch skyboxes?
EDIT: ok I sounded stupid, mission accomplished...
so if I now understood something skybox itself isn't broken but it's about getting those weather effects to work with the new lighting, still how (where) does it break if you just walk from velen to novigrad?
Anyway, keep up good work :hatsoff: and hopefully you could soon provide tutorial for some playable setup (doesn't have to even work everywhere, just velen and skellige would be awesome)
Last edited:
Well they worth a try, you can always roll back if they worsen things. And yeah i should have said working for me, my bad
,and i though sharing this would give the possibility also for others for potential benefits. i wanted him to do a test because i suspect mid-low specs like mine, will benefit more of this tweak. Would help also if the users would put their configs as signature.
Just suggestions/proposals, no one is compelled to do so.
I don't think is right to just delete the tweaks that mainly do not work for the people on this forum.
I think they should be left there, so everyone can try, and don't miss the opportunity for a potential benefit
Last edited:
no it dosnt work for everyweather, for example it cant work with raining weather as it will make the sky blue and that dosnt make sense
, anything that dosnt involve a covered dark sky will work basically, some of that lighting is already applied to blizzard weather so no need to touch that as for novigrad i dont know why it overblown that much , there might a csv file that am missing somewhere or something else, when you walk from novigrad and go further to velen, the further you go the less overblown the sky is, you can see that in the first two scenes in the video, i got there by horse riding from novigrad, also the main problem is that novigrad and velen seems to share the same csv table
actually ther's no mention of velen in the files, velen seems to be mentioned as novigrad
also you shouldnt need a tutorial to use this if i manage to make a proper working weather csv table, its just a matter of replacing one single file, thats it, it still very hacky and not polished at all, if we had redkit it would have been way more easier, i wish CDPR will implement some of this themselves
Last edited:
Well they worth a try, you can always roll back if they worsen things. And yeah i should have said working for me, my bad
i wanted him to do a test because i suspect mid-low specs like mine, will benefit more of this tweak. Would help also if the users would put their configs as signature.
Just suggestions/proposals, no one is compelled to do so.
I don't think is right to just delete the tweaks that mainly do not work for the people on this forum.
I think they should be left there, so everyone can try, and don't miss the opportunity for a potential benefit
Of course, everyone here can test any tweak they like and see if it improves things or not. That's not what I meant actually!
What I was referring to is including tweaks in the OP that have been proven wrong/not to work by a lot of people who tried them out. I would personally have included absolutely every tweak everyone here came across, but I can only put so much stuff in the OP before I get the dreaded "40,000 character limit exceeded" error. :-
I actually haven't encountered this limitation on either the Thief or Dragon Age: Inquisition forums and I couldn't even reserve some more space here in a second post after I initially created the thread because it just updated my opening post!
no it dosnt work for everyweather, for example it cant work with raining weather as it will make the sky blue and that dosnt make sense
as for novigrad i dont know why it overblown that much , there might a csv file that am missing somewhere or something else, when you walk from novigrad and go further to velen, the further you go the less overblown the sky is, you can see that in the first two scenes in the video, i got there by horse riding from novigrad, also the main problem is that novigrad and velen seems to share the same csv table
actually ther's no mention of velen in the files, velen seems to be mentioned as novigrad
also you shouldnt need a tutorial to use this if i manage to make a proper working weather csv table, its just a matter of replacing one single file, thats it, it still very hacky and not polished at all, if we had redkit it would have been way more easier, i wish CDPR will implement some of this themselves
Thank you ever so much for your great work and effort, essenthy! I watched your YouTube videos and your mod looks extremely promising! :thumbsup:
Please continue to share your progress with us should you find the time, I know a lot of people here and on NeoGAF would be very excited if your mod got released!
Last edited:
This isn't true at all. I just tested it.
Ultra Preset (1/1/1.5/1.5)
Custom (1/1/4/4)
Custom (1/4/4/4)
So, the '0' cascade remains unchanged.
Edited to add:
Now, let's change the '0' cascade scale:
Custom (4/4/4/4)
This is the first time the foreground shadows have changed in any of the photos. Notice some aliasing in the shadow in the foreground.
So, when you said this:
it's just plain wrong. Increasing the scale of Cascade 1/2/3 does not affect the resolution or distance of Cascade 0 whatsoever.
----
Also, technologically speaking it doesn't make sense to literally render them into the same texture. And given that the dithering effect that occurs between cascade transitions is clearly done during the stage where the shadows are composited into the scene (the dithering is in screenspace), this tells me that each shadow is in its own texture.
There *may* be one larger atlas or something, but I really doubt it. It likely just has a list of the textures for each cascade. What the system likely does is base the resolution of each cascade off of the CascadeShadowmapSize in the INI. So something like:
3072 = 0 size
1536 = 1 size
768 = 2 size
384 = 3 size.
Edited to add:
It's important to realize that changing the cascade distance scales do nothing to affect the resolution of their shadow map texture. Regardless of scale, in the example above, if you assume that CascadeShadowmapSize=3072 means that Cascade 3 gets a 384x384 texture, it will always get this size no matter the distance you tell it to scale to.
Not the "most" per se. You want cascades 2 and 3 to take up the largest actual distance. As in, miles away from the camera.
Also, since many small objects are only flagged to render in the 0 cascade, you are exponentially increasing the cost of rendering the 0 cascade's shadow map each time you double it. Because that many more objects are being rendered into the 0 cascade's shadow map.
This seems wrong to me. The distance from the camera to the 0<->1 transition is a lot smaller than the distance between the 0<->1 and 1<->2 transitions. At least as far as I can measure by eye. I mean, the point of cascades is to have each cover a slightly larger area than the next. But I dunno, it's hard to debug the cascade transitions so I can't be sure.
What I'm saying is that I'd assume if cascade 0 is 10 meters deep, then cascade 1 might be 20, cascade 2 might be 80, cascade 3 might be 160. But that is still only 270m and that doesn't seem deep enough to me.
-----
So, I stopped reading after noticing that your predicating points seem to be wrong. If all the math and stuff is based on these predications, I don't want to spend a long time quoting each part and discussing it. I'd rather hear back from you about why you stated these things to begin with, as experimentally they are not true.
TL;DR - Increasing the scale of a cascade only affects that cascade.
----
Edit: OK, so after glancing over the rest of your post, it seems to me that you are misunderstanding the point of CascadeShadowDistanceScale entirely. I'm getting the feeling that you think that it's increasing the resolution of that cascade, when it's not. It's increasing the distance over which that cascade stretches.
Changing the CascadeShadowDistanceScale for any cascade leaves the total size of that texture for that shadow map unchanged. What it does is render a greater area of the game into that texture. Thus increasing CascadeShadowDistanceScale = decrease in apparent resolution. Decreasing the scale = increase in apparent resolution, but you get higher resolution over a smaller area.
Sorry to dissapoint you but im not the one who wrong.
First thing you dont realise - there is no generic way of implementing cascade shadows, each developer in each engine does it different way, and i explained how its done in witcher 3 based on observation of real time changes of cascade shadow settings, but you sort of trying to tell how generic cascade shadow should work. In some games each cascade stored in separate texture, in witcher it seems to be stored in one texture, i have no other explanation of why whenever i bump last cascades too high, my first cascade getting obviously low res.
This actually makes sense since using one texture for all is cheaper and it does not breaks cascade point, because even using less area of single texture stretched over bigger area in game still gives performance boost - less shadow cascade texels over same area = bigger performance, plus usage of reduced size of shadow map gives quite a boost comparing to full square texture for each cascade. And whole point of cascade shadows it to make shadows cheaper and yet more detailed by using higher resolution close and lower resolution cascade at distance, merging them into one texture perfectly match the point.
Your assumption about "fixed size" like this
3072 = 0 size
1536 = 1 size
768 = 2 size
384 = 3 size.
have absolutely no proving ground based on observation of actual game behavior, its just a random guess not relate to this exact game! I dont do random guessing, i observe and trying to interpreter observation most logical way, it may be not 100% correct, since sometime when obeservation is correct interpretation of observation may be wrong at some points, tha thats way more correct than just doing random guesses. Explain, where did you get those numbers? Why you think next cascade is always twice lower than previous ? Why not quad size? Why not minus 512? Why not same size for each cascade (i saw some games where each cascade has same size, which was compensating covering of bigger area)?
Second thing you dont realise - you dont notice changes of shadow resolution on your screenshot, but i do. Its not very noticeable yet, since you have not used big diifference in values and big overall distance, but there is a difference if you will look careful and this difference pretty much proves m
Third thing you dont realise -the way you test shadow cascades it totally wrong! Angle you used does not clearly show shadows crispness, distance between camara and objects not really big. Settings does not differ much, shadow resolution and quallity probably high enough to filter out difference with minor changes, plus its only one place of many, and shadows behave different in different places. You have to rotate camera and give more direct angel, move and see various places. should set medium resolution and dof more stuff like that to notice difference and how it behaves.
Last thing you dont realise - you can not see changes in real time, but i do. Look at my previous post with EDGE mod i made to tweak everything in game, since you dont have it its harder for you to tweak something and nottice difference imediately, after you quit and restart game you already barely remember details and dont pay attention to them, thats why on quite diffferet shots you dont see any difference. I hope when ill release mod you will see what i observed by doing tweaking in real time in game.
But okey lets take a closer look at your screenshot, and let me point you to what you fail to see:
This is
1,1,1.5.1.5
and this is
1,1,4,4
Cant you see that on second screenshot shadows on building that fall into cascade1 distance become more blured and less detailed? And dont you see, despite filtering and not very good for comparison angle, that shadow edges of cascade 0 changed as well, especially shadow of Geralt? Nope? Ok, let me highlight the difference you dont see with compare tool ( http://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/compare/ usage with best values: >compare -metric AE -fuzz 3% old.jpg new.jpg diff.jpg ) :
Now you see where the difference is? Both cascade 0 and has changed their resolution, but surely, if you will drop camera on a ground, so that angle of ground would be almost 90 degrees relative to camera, you will see nothing different.
There are many more mistakes you did in you post, because you did not reed my post carefuly, but i dont want to spend time on each of your mistakes, i would rather record a video of cascade shadow settings changed in real time in game (keep in my mind, i got a secret weapon - EDGE mod XD ) to show how exactly each cascade behave but it will take some time, because my upload speed if very slow, just 100 kB per second. Dont get me wrong, i too expected this game cascade shadows to behave like in some Unreal Engine, where its done more or less generic way, but what i saw in real time was weird, it did not work like i expected and i gave non generic explanation you pushing around (which in other case in other could be right, but non in this one), but explaination of what i saw.
Also i reed this http://forums.cdprojektred.com/thre...e-PC-version?p=1738985&viewfull=1#post1738985 this post of yours full of mistakes, which i see you still carrying on to out discussion. You still think that cascades kicks in at some fixed distance, i can prove you easy that you totally wrong!
I forgot to mention one thing - when i tested behavior of cascades i did not just play around with default settings, i disabled each cascades one by one and tried game even with only cascade 0, this could be done by using Num Of cascades value by setting it to 1-2-3-4, and this revealed how distance scale works for each cascade.
Anyway, nor you neither i will never give 100% correct answer about actual resolution of each cascade, the only way to tell for sure is to debug frame or dump it and look at what we have at each render target and texture, shame that gedosato only supports D3D9, its frame dump feature would be useful.
Also you post claims that everything i said is "wrong" but yet you claim that you "stopped reading at blah blah" how come that you jump into answering without even reading everything and claim that everything is wrong? I bet you have not even read one sentence from start till end and skipped half of words and lines before you stopped reading. You did not say anything about measurement of distance i did, did not say anything about provable fact (no matter the resolution, lets forget it for a second) that my settings actually improves shadow A LOT, and you kept silence about many more things, whole your post is only based on disagreement about resolution of each cascade, but you trying to make it look like its absolutely wrong, which is wrong thing to tell, until you at leas read each word of my post.
Honestly. you act like you not trying to find the truth, but instead trying to beat the rival with any means, even far fetched ones, like if you was a king of this thread or something, until someone else appeared here with knowledge and tried to share his knowledge to people, and people gave to much red points for this and kinda you started to feel jealous or something like someone taking out your crown.
Man, dont be jealous, no one is king here and the more people with knowledge here - the better, we are all here to help each other to make this game better, not to play "king of hill". Everyone could be wrong about something, i could be wrong, you could be wrong, anyone could be, but lets not fight and act like "im a the only truth, everyone else is false", lets just tweak, test, observe and find out the truth. And i mean real deep testing and real truth, not the far fetched quickie you did there. We are not rivals, we are partners here and we should team up ;-)
So lets just find out how exactly cascade shadows works in this game, just dont forget that implementation of same tech is different for every game and it does not always work like you expect so you should not stick to generic patterns and must adapt you way of thinking to what you actually observe.
I hate those silly limitations
..if it is the case, more tweaks to try in sticky, less comments. Or make a new thread and put the tweaks there, and we comment here?---------- Updated at 11:42 AM ----------
I'm not sure if using mid or high combo Oo
@kilyan82 yes this is correct that pictures looks different on different monitors due of gamma calibrations of lack of, but there are things you can see with any calibration, like, for example, LACK OF WHITE COLOR which is controlled by brightness\value\luminance.
@doktor1 - rule number 1 before you release anything that changes colors - calibrate your displace settings to most common standards, if you want this to look the same for most of people. This means you have to tweak your mod with vibrance set to 50, and gamma set to non linear sRGB \ 2.2 which is Gamma 0.45 on Nvidia control panel. Look at my screenshots again when you set gamma to proper value 0.45 . It seems to me that you are playing on wide gamut display with linear gamma 1.0 instead of 2.2 or 0.45 But most of displays are 2.2 and you have to use this value to set proper colors
Anyway, at my screenshots wich actually more naturally looking lighting at 2.2 gamma you can see presence of white color, at yours i dont see white is white. Game already has problems with incorrect color calibrations in PC version, which leads to lack of white color and dimmed dersaturated look (more clear in this xbox to pc comarision side to side):
And you reduced value (brightness) of pixels even more, your value is about 85% of correct on. this is easy to see on histogram if you can see it by your own eyes, i even sampled the most bright point of screen and it proves again that your white is not white but grey and value is indeed about 85%:
Histogram at right should reach upper end, but as you see it stops at about 85%.
I correct your screenshot so that histogram would look as supposed, and sampled same brighest pixel, and now i got 100% value and colors. this is how your screenshots should look when you dont ruin color hue, saturation an value:
Lets try another one, situation here even worse, we got only 80% of value:
and let me correct your mistake, now thats how correct colors suppose to look:
if you think its about taste or personal preferences think better, histogram dont have taste or preferences, it only shows distribution of colors and lets you clearly see whats wrong with them, if you dont trust my human eye then trust computer histogram which proves my words.
And another thing we have to address, is your unfair critism of my screenshot, lets look at histogram of my screenshot and sample brightest pixel:
Histogram says that you are wrong again, luminance on my screenshots is 100% correct, and your screenshots are 15% wrong. I know what im talking about and what im doing with shader modification to achieve the most realistic and correct look and im not trying to folow my tastes im following just a plain logic and color correction rules which i read a lot recently to fix CDPR mistakes and measuring results in programs, you just randomly tossing values in cfg without having idea of what you doing, and you doing this until you having some values that gives you incorrect colors but suits your tastes and gives you feel like its look better.
And dont be so agressive please, i just suggested you to review your settings na recalibrate colors, no offence.
That guy was actually jonwd7 himself!
Thank you very much for your extremely detailed posts, Voodooman! I really appreciate you taking the time to write such in-depth analyses and for sharing your extensive knowledge with us.
I, too, know the benefit of a correctly calibrated monitor (I own an X-Rite ColorMunki Display calibrator that I use on all my screens), but I was wondering if you had also posted your SweetFX preset on the SweetFX Database? I would be very interested in giving it a shot on my system!
No Comment
Guy with this screenhot
is going against this
With in depth analysis... Man, talk to the CDPR, not on my SFX preset..
I made my peset, and I share it with others to try it, and you came with "smartass attitude" talking about lost pixels with THIS picture!? --- Against THIS?
OK... I give up...
First; english is not my native languge; second; I had few beers,,,
I am making SFX presets for a long time! Never, but never I havent come in SFX thread and started to be smartass by talking to others - "your prestet is total mistake"
And guy with THIS ingame picture is telling me about losing vibrance, lumination, depth etc....
RLY??
This is my Dishonored preset, my Dead Island preset and this is my Fallout New Vegas ENB tweaks... or Total War: Rome II etc...
And that guy came here with washed overbloomed pictures to tell me that I have destoyed vibrance....
OK
---------- Updated at 10:57 PM ----------
Then, vanilla game is also "too dark"....
It was like that even in the base game and that annoys me. This is something I did last week and it was too bright(because I was checking out that ambient light setting) and the shadows weren't dark but I think it looked okay.
When tweaking open world games I tend to focus most on the sky and bright light and after that I look at the rest. I think that if you adjust that accordingly the rest of the game will follow suit. Instead a lot of people will apply a rather strong color filter to negate for instance a green, gray, or orange hue from the vanilla game but that in turn makes clouds and the sky an unnatural color which is just bad imo. If you look outside on a normal day the sky will be bright blue with white clouds, not hazy blue and white.
EDIT: It was also too yellow/green, later I added the tiniest amount of blue to balance that.
---------- Updated at 11:14 PM ----------
Yes that's correct but you seem to desaturate on top of that which extrapolates that perception as you can clearly see in that .gif. In any case please stop sharing your preference if it gets you upset, this can't be a discussion if you're just defending yourself. Aside from the resolution those flickr gallery images don't even appeal to me also
Just to clarify things - screenshots i posted used combination of in-game tweaks and modified reshade framework wtih few of my own shaders, sweetfx was mostly unused, the only things from it i use - luma sharpen and film grain which reduces extreme color banding in sky (which CDPR needs to fix by using more preciese calculations in shaders), most of bloom effect comes from modfied (not just tuned from settings, i replaced lens dirt textur ith plain colors to keep color overlay effect at some angle but get rid of ugly dirt and did few more changes which i dont bother to memorize) ambient lighting shader from GemFX, which i use to simulate more natural and not so lfat lighting with sort fo lighting bouncing ak Global illumination.
This effect only looks washed and extreme when you watch screenshots with linear uncallibrated gamma, as i mentioned many time, you have to set gamma in nvidia or at driver settings to 0.45 instead of 1.0 to see it with correct gamma.
In game gamma settings is broke indeed. But there is a trick, game accepts negative values, and proper gamma value equal to 0.45 or 2.2 srGB in fullscreen mode can be achieved by setting
Gamma=-4 and i do my calibrations of everything with this gamma value. Screenshots unfortunately does not preserve actual gamma and save in linear gamma 1.0 so that when your display is actually non linear 2.2 it could be properly displayed (if you save screenshot with 2.2 and then apply calibration of 2.2 over it gamma will be destroyed and double darker than it supposed to be). White colors however can be restored with gamma, for this i used my own HSV(HSB) color space control shaders (wchi h i made long ago for Fable Anniversary that has totally ruined color with white) that allows to control Value-Brightness without affecting saturation and hue, which is very good and precise way to control brightness, plus RGB to HSV conversion shaders by Chilli Ant and gamma Linear to SrGB and SRGB to Linear conversion shader by that guy from Naughty dogs whos filmic tonemap from Uncharted 2 you can see now wrongly implemented in many recent games (Watch Dogs, GTAV, and i think even witcher uses it wrong way). and there was also used my own custom LUT texture to rebind shades of gray. wite and black to restore white, enhace blacks and yet keep mid-tp-dark gray range brighter for less contrast=catroonish and more natural look.
But these screenshot are 2 weeks old, screenshots looked natural at day time, but since LUT was always the same and i was not able to "tell" (however i have idea of makng adaptive shader that will detect nights and days by sampling arpoximated color of scene, could probably add that into ambient lighting shader to save time) shader if there a day or night it ruined night lighting by making it very bright, so after that i moved to mix of tuned Reinhard and modified FIlmic (--which yet again by default was wrongly implemented in reshade framework, and ruined whites and blacks even more, since they was not designed to be used separately and was made to be used in chain with other color processing shaders, just like most of SweetFX shaders which people use by randomly changing values without realising that these shaders are not supposed to work like that. so i had to fix it and started to work on my own AccFX that applied on top of SweetFX, and framework to fix their color mess and use those color shaders they way they supposed to be used to achieve correct colors--), and Ambient light, this time with modded overlay textures and toned down AL bloom).
Anyway since many of you using linear gamma, i baked non linear 2.2 gamma into same screenshot, so if you looking at them with linear gamma they are supposed to look like this on 2.2\srgb calibrate displays (not washed out and not so bloomy now, huh? beware, not it looks way too dark on calibrated displays):
Another point of screenshots (that was taken before patch that added mip bias settings that partially fixed ugly fat and flat grass mips) was to actually showcase in-game tweaks that makes vegetation looks better (sorry, jpg compression of VK ruined it and actual 4k resolution) that was mip refiner and disabled lod downscallers, enabled uber sampling for vegetation, and few more settings i dont remember now.
Oh, somebody said that postfx should not be discussed here - why not? This is tweaking of game, no matter if it external or internal they all have same aim -improve game, and this the point ot tweaks and fixed. And there are many things you can do with internal means due of limitations, so this is where external tweks may come handy, and color issues of this game is something you can fix internally (at least not until someone will write proper unpacker and packer for bundles and CR2 containers that most of files in bundles using (i wonder, does anyone even trying to unpack files with CR2 headers?).
I hate those silly limitations
No need for that, because this limitation indirectly helps keep everything neat and tidy! Being limited by a character count forces me to make the OP as streamlined as possible, which is a very good thing for quick referencing and easy to follow instructions.
I think it's not the only value to be set correctly. What about luminascence, saturation,digital vibrance and contrast? setting gamma to 0.45 makes the image uber dark for me.
With our gamma settings now the shadow in the picture is too dark, maybe a bit tweaking with level ,could fix them?
That was admirable, you used our settings to meet our way of see things
. Personally i don't mind changing my settings, but we have to agree on the same for everyone for a proper comparison think.
Last edited:
Crosire's ReShade injector for SweetFX just got another update - 0.18.7 - which fixes a memory leak triggered by previous versions of ReShade in Direct3D10/11 renderers. Grab it from here (link in the OP was also just updated)!
Maybe that's why my PC locked-up completely earlier this week when playing The Witcher 3 with ReShade/SweetFX?
Maybe that's why my PC locked-up completely earlier this week when playing The Witcher 3 with ReShade/SweetFX?
Last edited:
Crosire's ReShade injector for SweetFX just got another update - 0.18.7 - which fixes a memory leak triggered by previous versions of ReShade in Direct3D10/11 renderers. Grab it from here (link in the OP was also just updated)!
Maybe that's why my PC locked-up completely earlier this week when playing The Witcher 3 with ReShade/SweetFX?
Ugh, memory leak is bad
People on Reddit are reporting that patch 1.05 is now live on GOG.com! :thumbsup:
---------- Updated at 02:59 PM ----------
I can also confirm that a new patch (1.02 -> 1.05) is now showing under the The Witcher 3 tab in my GOG games library. Once I get home, I will let GOG Galaxy download and install the update for me!
---------- Updated at 02:59 PM ----------
I can also confirm that a new patch (1.02 -> 1.05) is now showing under the The Witcher 3 tab in my GOG games library. Once I get home, I will let GOG Galaxy download and install the update for me!
Last edited:
I'm sorry but I've run out of patience. Your idiotic spiel is poisonous to the community. Your so-called analysis is flawed, and the difference in Geralt's shadow and the near shadows is because of two things:
1. Geralt's position changes each time you load the same save
2. The building shadows are a couple of frames ahead or behind the other, because I have to spam the Select button to enter the menu as fast as possible upon save load.
How can I fail to see something when that's exactly what I was showing it for? Maybe you failed to read.
CHANGING CASCADE 2 FROM "1.5" TO "4" DOES EXACTLY WHAT I SAID IT WOULD! THAT SHADOW THAT GETS BLURRY? GUESS WHAT. IT'S CASCADE 2. OBVIOUSLY CHANGING CASCADE 2 FROM 1.5 TO 4 WILL MAKE IT BLURRY. It is doing so because it's spreading Cascade 2 over a larger distance. And yet you keep refuting this point.
And, AS I CORRECTLY PREDICTED, going from 1/1/4/4 to 1/4/4/4 extends shadow cascade 1 to cover the building which is why the shadow goes from blurry to sharp again:
1/1/4/4
1/4/4/4
Because Cascade 1, which is always rendered at a FIXED RESOLUTION (based on the max size you have set in the INI), and is much higher resolution than cascade 2, is stretched to cover the building when you change Cascade 1 from 1 to 4.
And do you know how I know the building is covered by cascade 2 in the first image?? Because if you change it to 0, the building shadow will disappear:
1/1/0/0
So please tell me how one can be wrong when they predict something will do exactly as they said it would. Let's take a minute to point out something you said in your post:
Immediately proved to me that you have no understanding of the system. Since your entire predication is that since I changed Cascade 2 scale, that this made Cascade 1 blurry. Well that house shadow is Cascade 2, and I made Cascade 2 blurry because I increased the distance it covers in game. How are you not understanding this?
If you change cascade 1 to 0, you will see just how small cascade 1 is (compare to 1/1/0/0 image):
1/0/0/0
So, you somehow keep refuting the idea that increasing the cascade scale stretches out the cascade over a larger distance, let's show that's incorrect:
2/0/0/0
4/0/0/0
You can see that 1/1/0/0 is roughly the same as 4/0/0/0 ... Why is that? Because it would appear that Cascade 1 is about 3x the size of Cascade 0. So, 1 * 1 + 3 * 1 = 4 vs 4 * 1 + 0 * 1 = 4.
I'd honestly like to see you try at this point. I cannot believe someone can be so RUDE, while being so incredibly wrong about everything they are saying. You are abrasive, self-aggrandizing, and you are not helpful to this community.
Because like I said, all of your predicating points were incorrect. So how could I trust the rest of the post which these predications were based on? You said very basic statements that proved you don't have an understanding of the cascade system in this game. So what sense is there in looking at all of your pointless math?
Honestly, I'm detecting a language barrier here. Everything I've said so far has been correct, yet you are managing to somehow avoid the important details that show that nothing I've said is wrong. But also I think you started out with the idea that you are correct in everything you do, so it doesn't compute with you. I'd almost tend to think we're arguing over nothing and that we both have an understanding of how the system works, yet you don't know English well enough to understand the words I'm writing down. On the reverse side, literally nothing you said made sense to me even though I have a deep understanding of how the system works (sorry for not showing 3000 pictures showing every single thing I understand by the way. You keep telling me I don't know things because I didn't show them which is a logical fallacy). So it's difficult to explain away how you have said things that are simply not true.
-----
Anyway, I've run out of energy arguing with you. You're rude and abrasive and clearly incapable of any kind of intelligible debate.
Hay, I'm experiencing an odd glitch with hair works I was wondering if any one knows anything about. part of Geralts hair no longer reacts to water or rain, which wasn't originally the case when I played the game last week. anyone had this problem and could there be a fix?
Er, which is the settings in the config files for fire and blood? Seems that after applying the newer patch, fire (Igni) and blood disappeared from combat.
- Status