[Lighting Mods] STLM 3.0

[GregorWladacz]

Yeah, your right there. For calibration with tools, there is. But you have to buy these tools and...well, persons who don't want to buy it, like me, use calibrations based on ther eyes, and that is very subjective. You can not assume and demand, tht everyone is using hardware devices to calibrate their monitors.

 

[Guest 3841499]

Yeah, your right there. For calibration with tools, there is. But you have to buy these tools and...well, persons who don't want to buy it, like me, use calibrations based on ther eyes, and that is very subjective. You can not assume and demand, tht everyone is using hardware devices to calibrate their monitors.

No, of course not, but I know many graphics mod authors do calibrate their displays to synchronize with their audience. If mod was developed on a non-calibrated display, there is 0 chance anyone else will see what the author saw as he/she developed the mod, but if it was developed on calibrated display, then people do have a chance to see the image as the author saw IF they decide to calibrate.

 

[Guest 3841499]

BTW, I compensated for those complaints about WLM by simply using darker textures for grass, vegetation, foliage, etc. Now WLM is no longer cartoony or overly bright, but it was with vanilla textures.

 

[Gabriel Fróes]

XshI0u Do you mind if I PM you some screenshots of the mod in use?

 

[TookaFace]

No problems !

 

[tennisaddict1999]

My opinion on STWLM. I like the sunsets, nights, cutscene projector lighting, and possibly shadowed areas in STLM 3.2 better, but everything else in STWLM, I like more and it's playable! So good work.

 

[tennisaddict1999]

Does anyone think it'd be possible to do what STWLM did, except keep the nights same as STLM 3.2 and have cutscene projector lighting enabled? Or can someone point out to me where I'd have to go in STWLM files to change the values to be the same as STLM, in regards to the nights and cutscene projector lighting, for myself? Honestly, if I can get a mod that accomplishes that, it'd be everything I want.

 

[SigilFey]

The thing about E3 look, the one that STLM attempts to resemble, is that it is not unknown what exactly was changed and whether lighting or other graphics assets that made that lighting possible even exist in the final game. That means attempts to make the final game resemble E3 in some areas can very much make other areas look very inaccurate or just strange, but it may be the best that could be done given the available assets. For all we know, CDPR could've been using different-colored grass textures, architecture textures, etc.

From what I understand, TW3 was originally built using a completely different graphics engine. It's possible to get things pretty dang close to the "grey and misty" look of the E3 footage, as we've already seen, but getting it exactly the same will likely be impossible because: different surface and different paints.

You know, that there is no right/objective way to calibrate your monitor like there is no objective way of perception.

Calibration is based on a standard, not a preference. You don't adjust settings based on how you like it - you use hardware devices (colorimeters, spectrophotometers, etc.) and software to measure your display's color output and then make appropriate adjustments to reduce error to a minimum, again, using hardware and software, not your eyes.

For calibration with tools, there is.

No, of course not, but I know many graphics mod authors do calibrate their displays to synchronize with their audience.

Heh...you're both right. Calibration is a standard, but monitors are not. Despite the fact that basic colors can be calibrated to exactly the same temperatures, their ranges will still be dictated by the capabilities of the monitor. For example, I had 2 choices when I bought my present monitor: G-Sync or uber-range. G-Sync was still quite expensive and experimental, so I ended up going with the color range, and boooy-ooo...wow...what a difference. The blacks on the monitor are significantly deeper when the monitor is ON than off (i.e. I turn it on...and the screen darkens noticeably.), and the whites are so bright, that it can be uncomfortable to look at it in a dark room (like switching the lights on as soon as you wake up). And all the fine, subtle color shifts in-between.

In practice, this means I occasionally have a hell of a time with ENBs. Despite calibrating the monitor every so often, I never really enjoy the "100% accurate" gamma, and wind up taking a bit of it out and increasing the contrast. That creates a more realistic feel, if not truly realistic visibility. But even subtle shifts to my monitor's / GPU's color temps, and I can wind up with an ENB that looks like a white glare...or so dark that almost everything affected by AO is a crushed-black swath.

______________


One does not need a color meter to get very accurate results. You just need a dark room and any free calibration program -- and there are dozens of free ones! Your eye will get trained up in a matter of days, and you'll be able to burn through a complete "zeroing out" your monitor in minutes whenever you want. It's a nice thing to do every now and then, anyway.

 

[Guest 3841499]

From what I understand, TW3 was originally built using a completely different graphics engine. It's possible to get things pretty dang close to the "grey and misty" look of the E3 footage, as we've already seen, but getting it exactly the same will likely be impossible because: different surface and different paints.




Heh...you're both right. Calibration is a standard, but monitors are not. Despite the fact that basic colors can be calibrated to exactly the same temperatures, their ranges will still be dictated by the capabilities of the monitor. For example, I had 2 choices when I bought my present monitor: G-Sync or uber-range. G-Sync was still quite expensive and experimental, so I ended up going with the color range, and boooy-ooo...wow...what a difference. The blacks on the monitor are significantly deeper when the monitor is ON than off (i.e. I turn it on...and the screen darkens noticeably.), and the whites are so bright, that it can be uncomfortable to look at it in a dark room (like switching the lights on as soon as you wake up). And all the fine, subtle color shifts in-between.

In practice, this means I occasionally have a hell of a time with ENBs. Despite calibrating the monitor every so often, I never really enjoy the "100% accurate" gamma, and wind up taking a bit of it out and increasing the contrast. That creates a more realistic feel, if not truly realistic visibility. But even subtle shifts to my monitor's / GPU's color temps, and I can wind up with an ENB that looks like a white glare...or so dark that almost everything affected by AO is a crushed-black swath.

______________


One does not need a color meter to get very accurate results. You just need a dark room and any free calibration program -- and there are dozens of free ones! Your eye will get trained up in a matter of days, and you'll be able to burn through a complete "zeroing out" your monitor in minutes whenever you want. It's a nice thing to do every now and then, anyway.

Depends on panel type. A high quality VA panel with deep blacks looks much better with accurate gamma, but VA panels have less accurate colors. With calibration tools you get the best of BOTH world -great contrast of a VA panel, and IPS-level of accuracy on the same VA panel after calibration and 3DLUT application, which can be applied to video playback through madVR and to games through ReShade's LUT.fx feature.

 

[SigilFey]

Depends on panel type. A high quality VA panel with deep blacks looks much better with accurate gamma, but VA panels have less accurate colors. With calibration tools you get the best of BOTH world -great contrast of a VA panel, and IPS-level of accuracy on the same VA panel after calibration and 3DLUT application, which can be applied to video playback through madVR and to games through ReShade's LUT.fx feature.

That's more or less what I'm getting at. And of course, personal preference will always be the unspoken factor. I've, honestly, never found a single "default calibration" gamma setting I've liked. (Even in most modern-day films, I find "night scenes" to be annoyingly over-exposed and lacking a true sense of darkness.) And that's probably where it comes from. I don't do too much film work, but when I do any editing for post, I always hate the way reels look once we set the light levels. Always seems to bright to me...but it never is.

I'm sure experts will argue, and they'll have the data and evidence to back it up, but I rarely use any form of "professional tool" for testing color / light. The one caveat being if we're using a non-standard film speed, some weird exposure setting, or we need to match shots taken under totally different conditions (like multiple outdoor takes over multiple days). Nowadays, most of even that stuff can be managed effectively using free software in post. (Computers ruined film!!! )

 

[Guest 3841499]

That's more or less what I'm getting at. And of course, personal preference will always be the unspoken factor. I've, honestly, never found a single "default calibration" gamma setting I've liked. (Even in most modern-day films, I find "night scenes" to be annoyingly over-exposed and lacking a true sense of darkness.) And that's probably where it comes from. I don't do too much film work, but when I do any editing for post, I always hate the way reels look once we set the light levels. Always seems to bright to me...but it never is.

I'm sure experts will argue, and they'll have the data and evidence to back it up, but I rarely use any form of "professional tool" for testing color / light. The one caveat being if we're using a non-standard film speed, some weird exposure setting, or we need to match shots taken under totally different conditions (like multiple outdoor takes over multiple days). Nowadays, most of even that stuff can be managed effectively using free software in post. (Computers ruined film!!! )

Oh yeah, I am into all that - bias lighting is also very important. Its just these days its NOT expensive at all. You need to just buy a colorimeter for some $150-175, just not the Spyder series...

 

[meilspem]

Looks amazing, thank you for this!

 

[spoxox]

So, i just want to ask, if there's a fix for the swamp nights? This is the biggest issue that STLM 3.2 has, i tried using "darker nights" mod, but it has no setting for the swamp specificly, only for whole Velen, aside from that it has some issues with the clouds. I noticed that Fyke Isle nights look just fine, maybe it's possible to make the same for the swamp? Here's a comparison:

https://imgur.com/a/Qmrjb

Please @essenthy?!

 

[kubfor]

So, i just want to ask, if there's a fix for the swamp nights? This is the biggest issue that STLM 3.2 has, i tried using "darker nights" mod, but it has no setting for the swamp specificly, only for whole Velen, aside from that it has some issues with the clouds. I noticed that Fyke Isle nights look just fine, maybe it's possible to make the same for the swamp? Here's a comparison:

https://imgur.com/a/Qmrjb

Please @essenthy?!

U can download here heavily modified swamp looking something like 3.2 with fixed nights. Or use this env and repack STLM if u mind.

 

[spoxox]

kubfor it looks more like STLM 3.0 swamp tho

 

[kubfor]

You can also wait for Essenthy to fix it. But he doesn't and won't care so it's going to last really long.

 

[KeeperOTF]

kubfor it looks more like STLM 3.0 swamp tho

download quickbms place it into stlm content folder and unpack the bundle, search fyke env, it should not be hard ro find its called quest something something if i remember or is in a quest related folder delete everything in the uncooked folder except fyke env and its folder structure and build a new mod with modkitchen really easy and quick drop the new mod into mod folder and give it higher priority than stlm. if you have any questions feel free to contact me

 

[Japuk21]

Hi guys, I have a question: is it possible to change the Velen in STLM 3.2? I like everything about STLM 3.2 expect Velen. Don't get me wrong, it looks great but I prefer the version of Velen from STLM 3.1. So is it possible to have a STLM 3.2 with the Velen from previous version?

 

[KamehamehaNudel]

Hi guys, I have a question: is it possible to change the Velen in STLM 3.2? I like everything about STLM 3.2 expect Velen. Don't get me wrong, it looks great but I prefer the version of Velen from STLM 3.1. So is it possible to have a STLM 3.2 with the Velen from previous version?

unpack both mods with quickbsm, and then copy velen related envs from 3.1 to the 3.2 folder you just got and then repack with mod editor.

 

[fereno]

Just wanted to ask.. Have you been discussing the overexposed braziers and candles and torches at night ? Is there any solution how to fix that ?