Page 1 of 7 1236 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 93

Thread: Graphic Tweaks, Dreamscape Feeling & alii

  1. #1

    Graphic Tweaks, Dreamscape Feeling & alii

    Hi CMDR,

    If you don't feel like using an injector like ReShade or SweetFX or EDFX, there's a few tweaks you can do to visually improve your game.

    Do This At Your Own Risk
    Always Make A Backup Copy Of The GraphicsConfigurationOverride.xml File
    If You Are Unsure Of What To Do, Do Not Try

    Do Not Change Anything Else
    I Do NOT Guarantee That It Will Work, Might Depend On Your Set-Up/Settings
    Be Extra Careful Not To Remove A < Or A /
    NOT tested in 2.2



    The GraphicsConfigurationOverride.xml file is in %appdata%\Local\Frontier Developments\Elite Dangerous\Options\Graphics. Remove it, copy the original GraphicsConfiguration.xml there, rename it GraphicsConfigurationOverride.xml. Tweak there. Beware that some tweaks don't work with the Override (galaxy background for example).
    A software like Notepad++ will make it easier to spot the parameters to tweak.
    Don't forget that different tweaks can add up! Lessen the bloom if you buff the galaxy's brightness!



    Dreamscape Feeling using Bloom

    Find the <Bloom> section, settings <High>, then change values as follow (do not copypasta the block):
    <LocalisationName>$QUALITY_HIGH;</LocalisationName>
    <Method>CustomPassCount</Method>
    <MinThreshold>0.30</MinThreshold>
    <MaxThreshold>500.0</MaxThreshold>
    <GlareWeight0>0.32</GlareWeight0>
    <GlareWeight1>0.4499</GlareWeight1>
    <GlareWeight2>0.2014</GlareWeight2>
    <GlareWeight3>0.2999</GlareWeight3>
    <GlareWeight4>0.4148</GlareWeight4>
    <GlareScale>0.55</GlareScale>
    <ThresholdType>4</ThresholdType>
    <FilterRadius>1.0</FilterRadius>


    Save the file, start the game, make sure you're on Bloom > High settings, and that you're not in Taurus Dark Region or on the dark side of a planet that is actually dark. It's a bloom. Needs light.
    From there, you can adjust to your like by decreasing values on those settings:

    Brightness threshold, what light range will produce bloom
    <MinThreshold>0.25</MinThreshold>

    <MaxThreshold>500.0</MaxThreshold>
    The strengh or density of the bloom
    <GlareWeight0>0.4</GlareWeight0>
    The size of the bloom
    <GlareScale>0.55</GlareScale>

    Impact on performances: none afaik
    Running it with most graphical settings between High and Ultra, no injectors, I get this result on the dark side of a moon, near the Flame Nebula:









    Dust Clouds and Galaxy Background by TheRealPhyzz

    Galaxy Background Texture


    This will give you a great background even on low graphics settings. This is really useful for PCs without crazy graphic capabilities. This is done simply by upping the texture size of the background. It can be upped even more if you wish just be mindful that making this higher and higher increases the time your in witch-space during a hyperspace jump. This is because during the jump your system generates the next system's skybox.
    This tweak works only with the original GraphicsConfiguration file (in the executable folder), do at your own risk. The texture aspect ratio MUST remain the same (1024, 2048, 4096, etc.).

    Find the <GalaxyBackground> section and change the <TextureSize> value to your liking, for the Setting you wish to tweak:

    <High>
    <LocalisationName>$QUALITY_HIGH;</LocalisationName>
    <TextureSize>2048</TextureSize>
    </High>



    Dust Clouds & Background Nebulae

    This will enhance the visibility of dust clouds and the starlight brightness from the core, as well as add more stars and nebulas to the sky (providing you're in a fit area of the galaxy). This will add anywhere from 20% to 200% more stars to the sky. As well as make the galaxy and star dust 3 times brighter and bigger, and change the amount nebulas visible in the background from 40 to 100. From there, find you own settings by decreasing values, in particular <MilkywayInstanceBrightness>: a high value might not look natural in some situation or in conjunction with other tweaks (enhanced bloom for example). Very high values can have unwanted effect on stability.

    Find the <GalaxyMap> parameter, and change the <NebulasInBackgroundCount>, <LocalDustBrightness>, <MilkywayInstancesBrightness>, <MilkywayInstancesSize> and the <StarInstanceCount> values, in the setting you wish to tweak.

    <High>
    <LocalisationName>$QUALITY_HIGH;</LocalisationName>
    <NebulasCount>30</NebulasCount>
    <NebulasInBackgroundCount>100</NebulasInBackgroundCount>
    <LowResNebulasCount>16</LowResNebulasCount>
    <HighResNebulasCount>1</HighResNebulasCount>
    <LowResNebulaDimensions>64</LowResNebulaDimensions>
    <HighResNebulaDimensions>256</HighResNebulaDimensions>
    <LowResSamplesCount>35</LowResSamplesCount>
    <HighResSamplesCount>138</HighResSamplesCount>
    <MilkyWayInstancesCount>16000</MilkyWayInstancesCount>
    <LocalDustBrightness>0.8</LocalDustBrightness>
    <MilkywayInstancesBrightness>4.0</MilkywayInstancesBrightness>
    <MilkywayInstancesSize>3.9</MilkywayInstancesSize>
    <MilkyWayInstancesOffscreenRTEnabled>true</MilkyWayInstancesOffscreenRTEnabled>
    <StarInstanceCount>6000</StarInstanceCount>
    </High>


    Preview of the effect:






    Nebula Textures by Ozric

    You can obtain more detailed nebula textures by tweaking the same part as above. Depending on the new values, you might experience performance drop (CPU side). Do NOT tweak the Dimension values, or the nebulae may all disappear.
    You need to enter the same value for both LowRes and HighRes Nebulas Count, which will basically tell the game to display only high res nebulae. You can increase the samples counts too (using always the same ratio); be advised that you will experience a performance hit, loading time in whitchspace at least.

    Find the <GalaxyMap> node, and tweak values highlighted below:

    <High>
    <LocalisationName>$QUALITY_HIGH;</LocalisationName>
    <NebulasCount>200</NebulasCount>
    <NebulasInBackgroundCount>200</NebulasInBackgroundCount>
    <LowResNebulasCount>200</LowResNebulasCount>

    <HighResNebulasCount>200</HighResNebulasCount>
    <LowResNebulaDimensions>64</LowResNebulaDimensions>
    <HighResNebulaDimensions>256</HighResNebulaDimensions>
    <LowResSamplesCount>276</LowResSamplesCount>
    <HighResSamplesCount>552</HighResSamplesCount>

    <MilkyWayInstancesCount>16000</MilkyWayInstancesCount>
    <LocalDustBrightness>0.0</LocalDustBrightness>
    <MilkywayInstancesBrightness>1.0</MilkywayInstancesBrightness>
    <MilkywayInstancesSize>1.0</MilkywayInstancesSize>
    <MilkyWayInstancesOffscreenRTEnabled>false</MilkyWayInstancesOffscreenRTEnabled>
    <StarInstanceCount>4000</StarInstanceCount>


    Examples before/after (from Redfox, without tweaking the samples):







    Increasing the Nebulas Count, on the map:







    Moar Stars In Da Skybox

    This tweak will allow you to have a lot more stars visible both in flight and in the GalMap (in both Realistic and Map modes). I haven't figured out yet how it works, as it appears that star spraeding isn't homogeneous. Meaning, a higher value may only buff a part of the skybox, and a lower value buff another part, with a similar star density. It's possible that above a certain value, stars disappear from the skybox, probably for this very reason (see screenies below). This will also increase the number of stars in the Realistic mode, which will most likely drop your framerate if you're swinging around the core...
    Impact on performances: haven't really noticed anything in flight or on map loading; of course, mapping in the Core will be a tad stuttering.

    Find the <GalaxyMap> parameter, and change the <StarInstanceCount> value, in the setting you wish to tweak.

    <High>
    <LocalisationName>$QUALITY_HIGH;</LocalisationName>
    <NebulasCount>30</NebulasCount>
    <NebulasInBackgroundCount>100</NebulasInBackgroundCount>
    <LowResNebulasCount>16</LowResNebulasCount>
    <HighResNebulasCount>1</HighResNebulasCount>
    <LowResNebulaDimensions>64</LowResNebulaDimensions>
    <HighResNebulaDimensions>256</HighResNebulaDimensions>
    <LowResSamplesCount>35</LowResSamplesCount>
    <HighResSamplesCount>138</HighResSamplesCount>
    <MilkyWayInstancesCount>16000</MilkyWayInstancesCount>
    <LocalDustBrightness>0.8</LocalDustBrightness>
    <MilkywayInstancesBrightness>4.0</MilkywayInstancesBrightness>
    <MilkywayInstancesSize>3.9</MilkywayInstancesSize>
    <MilkyWayInstancesOffscreenRTEnabled>true</MilkyWayInstancesOffscreenRTEnabled>
    <StarInstanceCount>240000</StarInstanceCount>
    </High>


    Examples with a value of 120,000:

    Skybox comparison between 20,000 (didn't see a difference with the default value) and 120,000:





    The new stars are mostly tiny/far away ones on the upper half of this picture ^

    Realistic GalMap comparison:






    Map mode GalMap comparison (20,000 <--> 120,000):






    And the Core:






    I'm set at 240,000, not visible difference with 120,000 except that, as mentionned above, density as moved to another part of the skybox... I'll fly a bit in the week and see if anything else is noticeable.

    The 480,000 value fail:


  2. #2
    Sweet.
    Trying this now.

  3. #3
    Sounds like you have a good handle on the backend of the game!

    Question for you...

    Can you determine if there is a problem with ED failing to load the ULTRA version of planetary surface textures? I was just responding to another thread about how terrible planet surface textures now look in 2.1 compared to the high detail, nearly photo realistic appearance of many planets in 2.0. I am also having fps issues that I never had in 2.0, and all for the sake of this huge downgrade in graphics quality on planets.

    Thanks in advance!

  4. #4
    Originally Posted by GG7 View Post (Source)
    Sounds like you have a good handle on the backend of the game!

    Question for you...

    Can you determine if there is a problem with ED failing to load the ULTRA version of planetary surface textures? I was just responding to another thread about how terrible planet surface textures now look in 2.1 compared to the high detail, nearly photo realistic appearance of many planets in 2.0. I am also having fps issues that I never had in 2.0, and all for the sake of this huge downgrade in graphics quality on planets.

    Thanks in advance!
    Wow, I have no idea about that... My first thought would be texture loading, perhaps files corrupted somehow, or data fragmentation preventing from loading correctly? Texture in 2.1 are better without any doubt, so I suppose it's more likely to be an issue on your end

  5. #5
    Originally Posted by Qohen Leth View Post (Source)
    Wow, I have no idea about that... My first thought would be texture loading, perhaps files corrupted somehow, or data fragmentation preventing from loading correctly? Texture in 2.1 are better without any doubt, so I suppose it's more likely to be an issue on your end
    There are a lot of people who run ULTRA that are NOT seeing anywhere close to the same level of detail we had in 2.0. My textures look like medium to low when flying above the surfaces, and the surface detail of hills and canyons is totally bland and uninteresting. Someone just posted a thread about this in this same forum a few minutes ago.

    I am definitely not alone here.

    I thought that perhaps you could tell if the textures for ULTRA were indeed ULTRA and if they were actually being loaded when using maxed out graphics settings.

    There is nothing wrong with my machine considering it runs all my other games at 4k resolutions beautifully.

  6. #6

    Too many fps?

    Originally Posted by GG7 View Post (Source)
    There are a lot of people who run ULTRA that are NOT seeing anywhere close to the same level of detail we had in 2.0. My textures look like medium to low when flying above the surfaces, and the surface detail of hills and canyons is totally bland and uninteresting. Someone just posted a thread about this in this same forum a few minutes ago.

    I am definitely not alone here.

    I thought that perhaps you could tell if the textures for ULTRA were indeed ULTRA and if they were actually being loaded when using maxed out graphics settings.

    There is nothing wrong with my machine considering it runs all my other games at 4k resolutions beautifully.
    I know it may sound stupid, but what about the following scenario: the game engine allows for a specific amount of time only to load/process textures and is using for this both cpu and gpu. If you are "too fast", the ultra textures are not loaded. What you may do is to limit fps to 60 from in game option and also try to use that slider for gpu processing.

  7. #7
    Originally Posted by Mugur View Post (Source)
    I know it may sound stupid, but what about the following scenario: the game engine allows for a specific amount of time only to load/process textures and is using for this both cpu and gpu. If you are "too fast", the ultra textures are not loaded. What you may do is to limit fps to 60 from in game option and also try to use that slider for gpu processing.
    Where did you get the information that a fast machine will not be able to load ultra textures because it is too fast? That certainly seems to be what is happening, but it only started happening with 2.1. I usually play ED on my 55" OLED TV at 1080p @ 60hz, so for all intents and purposes, I am locking the fps to 60 by nature of the TV's refresh rate.

    I have tried locking the fps to 60 via the in-game setting, but that clashes with something and doesn't perform properly. Since I am essentially locking the fps down to 60fps via the refresh rate in hardware, using a software setting to do the same thing is probably not a good idea.

    Thanks for the feedback... I know the game has issues in these areas, so I just have to hope that Frontier is aware of them and fixes whatever got broken between the last version of 2.0 and where we are today.

    Otherwise, I'm probably going to be moving on from ED like so many other vets who are just fed up with everything that is wrong with this title.

  8. #8
    Originally Posted by GG7 View Post (Source)
    There are a lot of people who run ULTRA that are NOT seeing anywhere close to the same level of detail we had in 2.0. My textures look like medium to low when flying above the surfaces, and the surface detail of hills and canyons is totally bland and uninteresting. Someone just posted a thread about this in this same forum a few minutes ago.

    I am definitely not alone here.

    I thought that perhaps you could tell if the textures for ULTRA were indeed ULTRA and if they were actually being loaded when using maxed out graphics settings.

    There is nothing wrong with my machine considering it runs all my other games at 4k resolutions beautifully.

    And then you get others like me who *are* running ULTRA and are seeing marked improvements; to the level of "wow!"
    Which leads me to presume that it's a bug that seems to affecting a few users; there is a known issue with rendering textures at distance, so perhaps it's that?

    - - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

    I tried your settings, but I also had an injector running ...
    I must say, I like the change - and I'm in-love with the HUD now, it actually *looks* like a hologram interface now (to me anyway).






  9. #9
    Originally Posted by GG7 View Post (Source)
    There are a lot of people who run ULTRA that are NOT seeing anywhere close to the same level of detail we had in 2.0. My textures look like medium to low when flying above the surfaces, and the surface detail of hills and canyons is totally bland and uninteresting. Someone just posted a thread about this in this same forum a few minutes ago.

    I am definitely not alone here.

    I thought that perhaps you could tell if the textures for ULTRA were indeed ULTRA and if they were actually being loaded when using maxed out graphics settings.

    There is nothing wrong with my machine considering it runs all my other games at 4k resolutions beautifully.
    I never said you were alone, and I never said something was wrong with your machine. Computers aren't perfect. I don't run any game on 4K, my pc isn't even 'high end' but I never had any problem of the sort. I'm not a dev, I can't tell .


    Originally Posted by CMDR Zhon Daeli View Post (Source)
    And then you get others like me who *are* running ULTRA and are seeing marked improvements; to the level of "wow!"
    Which leads me to presume that it's a bug that seems to affecting a few users; there is a known issue with rendering textures at distance, so perhaps it's that?

    - - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

    I tried your settings, but I also had an injector running ...
    I must say, I like the change - and I'm in-love with the HUD now, it actually *looks* like a hologram interface now (to me anyway).

    http://i.imgur.com/VFPUqrO.jpg

    http://i.imgur.com/XnRH5X1.jpg

    http://i.imgur.com/mHfAbi3.jpg
    Glad you like it!

  10. #10
    Originally Posted by Qohen Leth View Post (Source)
    I never said you were alone, and I never said something was wrong with your machine. Computers aren't perfect. I don't run any game on 4K, my pc isn't even 'high end' but I never had any problem of the sort. I'm not a dev, I can't tell .




    Glad you like it!
    I think you are reading some hostility into my previous post which was not intended. Sorry if it came across that way! I mainly mentioned nothing being wrong with my machine because that seems to be a frequent comment when someone reports issues with the game that others for whatever reason are not seeing, or are simply not understanding what the problem is.

    After decades of gaming, I have pretty much come to the conclusion that when a game update suddenly changes your performance from great to lousy without you having changed a thing on your end, it is a pretty safe bet that the problem is with the game, not the machine of the client reporting the change.

    And lastly, this change in textures was no secret. FD made a very big deal about the replacement of the planetary textures in 2.0 by whatever you want to call what we have now in 2.1. It sounded like it would be a great idea until I actually launched the game for the first time, and was shocked at how low res and crappy the terrain surrounding all my local planetary bases suddenly looked.

    The only planetary texture that looks as good as 2.0 now is the view from outside of orbital cruise. The minute you start descending towards the planet and enter orbital cruise, the detail starts fading away as if you are traveling back in time from present day to 1994 video game terrain maps.

  11. #11
    Originally Posted by GG7 View Post (Source)
    I think you are reading some hostility into my previous post which was not intended. Sorry if it came across that way! I mainly mentioned nothing being wrong with my machine because that seems to be a frequent comment when someone reports issues with the game that others for whatever reason are not seeing, or are simply not understanding what the problem is.

    After decades of gaming, I have pretty much come to the conclusion that when a game update suddenly changes your performance from great to lousy without you having changed a thing on your end, it is a pretty safe bet that the problem is with the game, not the machine of the client reporting the change.
    Which is as viable a possibility as its contrary indeed Sorry I can't help you Only other thing I'd think of would be a change by FDev in how a particular rendering is dealt with by drivers...

  12. #12
    Looks great! Definitely better lookinf than your first tweak.
    Just kidding. Thanks for sharing!

  13. #13
    Originally Posted by Qohen Leth View Post (Source)
    Which is as viable a possibility as its contrary indeed Sorry I can't help you Only other thing I'd think of would be a change by FDev in how a particular rendering is dealt with by drivers...
    Sounds good! I will be surprised if FD doesn't make some changes in this area in the next point update. The difference in quality is stunning if you look at some of the before and after comparisons folks have posted on the net showing an impressive planetary surface location in 2.0 and then that same location after the 2.1 update. The drop in quality in 2.1 is rather shocking when you see these side by side comparisons and it tells me that I am not imagining this.

    I'm going to bookmark this thread for future reference! When FD gets their issues sorted out with these textures, I am definitely going to go under the hood and try some of your mods!

    Cheers.

  14. #14
    Looks awesome, I'll bookmark this for later
    thanks a lot CMDR o7

  15. #15
    Many thanks for the info and looking forward to future updates.

Page 1 of 7 1236 ... LastLast