This is gold! You sir appear to be a genius. Have you thought about working with drkaii to get this stuff into EDProfiler and make it all a bit more accessible?At this point, I feel I've explored most relevant setting options that haven't been detailed extensively elsewhere by others (see Dr. Kaii's thread for stuff regarding the skybox stuff, beyond a resolution bump and the like), except for a complete shadow cascade overhaul.
I'm going to post two override files. The first will have only texture/reflection improvements (8k textures on planets and galaxy background + 1k envmaps, as well as the pool budget cap and extra mip levels to fully enable them) and very conservative shadow changes that can be reliably enabled via the overrides; a bump to slice size/map resolution for the general profile (which is flight in SC, as well as in normal space away from rings and not over planets) only, as there is plenty of performance to spare here on any high-end system, plus some small tweaks to the biases of the cockpit shadows to reduce some minor artifacting. The second set will have all of the changes of the first, plus my personal bloom preferences, which I think go well with the old light balances, but can also help with the new lighting, if one finds bloom excessive.
These tweaks should be compatible with most others, but keep in mind that I've used tab stops, not spaces, in my indents, if you want to start combining things.
Again, the "GraphicsConfigurationOverride.xml" goes in the "%AppData\Local\Frontier Developments\Elite Dangerous\Options\Graphics" directory, by default. There will be a "[n].n[/i]" appended to the file names before the .xml extension, so I can put both overrides in one post without mixing them up. This needs to be removed for the file to be parsed.
GraphicsConfigurationOverride.1.xml contents (IQ only):
Code:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?> <GraphicsConfig> <Shadows_Ultra> <Profile_General> <SliceSize>4096</SliceSize> </Profile_General> <Profile_PlanetApproach> <FrustumCockpit> <DepthBias>0.0001</DepthBias> <DepthSlopeBias>1.5</DepthSlopeBias> </FrustumCockpit> </Profile_PlanetApproach> <Profile_PlanetSurface> <FrustumCockpit> <DepthBias>0.0001</DepthBias> <DepthSlopeBias>1.5</DepthSlopeBias> </FrustumCockpit> <Profile_StationInterior> <FrustumCockpit> <DepthBias>0.0001</DepthBias> </FrustumCockpit> </Profile_StationInterior> </Shadows_Ultra> <Planets> <Ultra> <TextureSize>8192</TextureSize> <WorkPerFrame>512</WorkPerFrame> <TexturePoolBudget>40</TexturePoolBudget> </Ultra> </Planets> <GalaxyBackground> <High> <TextureSize>8192</TextureSize> </High> </GalaxyBackground> <Envmap> <High> <TextureSize>1024</TextureSize> <NumMips>10</NumMips> </High> </Envmap> </GraphicsConfig>
GraphicsConfigurationOverride.2.xml contents (IQ improvements + bloom reduction):
Code:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?> <GraphicsConfig> <Shadows_Ultra> <Profile_General> <SliceSize>4096</SliceSize> </Profile_General> <Profile_PlanetApproach> <FrustumCockpit> <DepthBias>0.0001</DepthBias> <DepthSlopeBias>1.5</DepthSlopeBias> </FrustumCockpit> </Profile_PlanetApproach> <Profile_PlanetSurface> <FrustumCockpit> <DepthBias>0.0001</DepthBias> <DepthSlopeBias>1.5</DepthSlopeBias> </FrustumCockpit> <Profile_StationInterior> <FrustumCockpit> <DepthBias>0.0001</DepthBias> </FrustumCockpit> </Profile_StationInterior> </Shadows_Ultra> <Planets> <Ultra> <TextureSize>8192</TextureSize> <WorkPerFrame>512</WorkPerFrame> <TexturePoolBudget>40</TexturePoolBudget> </Ultra> </Planets> <GalaxyBackground> <High> <TextureSize>8192</TextureSize> </High> </GalaxyBackground> <Bloom> <Ultra> <GlareScale>0.025</GlareScale> <FilterRadius>0.75</FilterRadius> </Ultra> </Bloom> <Envmap> <High> <TextureSize>1024</TextureSize> <NumMips>10</NumMips> </High> </Envmap> </GraphicsConfig>
Now, if you want to disable the new lighting balances, which will remove the new global color filter as well as restore nigh-side planet brightness to roughly what it was in 3.2, you only need to edit (with any text editor, I prefer Notepad++, but essentially anything will do) the main "GraphicsConfiguration.xml" in the main game directory. This will normally end in "Frontier\EDLaunch\Products\elite-dangerous-64", the first part will be whereever you, the installer, or Steam, put it. Same location as "EliteDangerous64.exe".
In this file, simply change the "1" in the variable "<PrototypeLightingBalancesEnabled>1</PrototypeLightingBalancesEnabled>" (under the 'HDRNode_Reference' settings) to "0" and save. If you want to revert the change, just change it back to "1", or have the installer verify the game's files (this will revert all files in the main game directory to their defaults, but will not touch you settings/overrides in those folders in your user profile.
With regards to a more comprehensive shadow overhaul, I'm going to wait to see what Frontier does in the next patch, then work on my own rewrite if there are not significant improvements. This will take some time and I have holiday plans, so I'm not expecting to have anything worth releasing until around new year's.
As always, constructive comments and criticism are appreciated.
Graphics settings - Beyond Ultra
- Thread starter CMDR Corlas
- Start date
This is gold! You sir appear to be a genius. Have you thought about working with drkaii to get this stuff into EDProfiler and make it all a bit more accessible?
I haven't talked to him.
Much of my work here is based off of or inspired by what's been started by others. Even where it's original observation and experimentation, I'm likely not the first person to have stumbled upon it. So, I can hardly lay claim to it and if someone wants to use it to improve their own projects they are more than welcome to.
If you want to point out this thread and pass along to Dr. Kaii some ideas for improvements to EDProfiler, go right ahead. I'd be more than happy to answer any questions that I can and help with some further testing.
Comparison between some of the HDRNode_Reference variables (as usual, best viewed in a non-Chrome based browser):
PrototypeLightingBalancesEnabled=1
ToneMapType=1
[video=youtube;tMpyCwD-2gw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMpyCwD-2gw[/video]
PrototypeLightingBalancesEnabled=0
ToneMapType=1
[video=youtube;IlAai7M3_Z4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlAai7M3_Z4[/video]
PrototypeLightingBalancesEnabled=0
ToneMapType=0
[video=youtube;SHo_Z577sYw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHo_Z577sYw[/video]
As you can see, the protoype lighting balances are quite profound and encompass a bit more than just the color filter. Hard for me to decide which combination I prefer as their are annoying aspects to each.
Disabling the new tone map works as expected...gamma curve becomes linear which dramatically over brightens some things.
PrototypeLightingBalancesEnabled=1
ToneMapType=1
[video=youtube;tMpyCwD-2gw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMpyCwD-2gw[/video]
PrototypeLightingBalancesEnabled=0
ToneMapType=1
[video=youtube;IlAai7M3_Z4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlAai7M3_Z4[/video]
PrototypeLightingBalancesEnabled=0
ToneMapType=0
[video=youtube;SHo_Z577sYw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHo_Z577sYw[/video]
As you can see, the protoype lighting balances are quite profound and encompass a bit more than just the color filter. Hard for me to decide which combination I prefer as their are annoying aspects to each.
Disabling the new tone map works as expected...gamma curve becomes linear which dramatically over brightens some things.
Last edited:
Morbad, since this is your thread now,as OPs original question has been answered, can you start a new thread please so your changes can all be added to your first post in future ?
Also many of us like the new "Darkness" on planet darkside. Can you mention how we can use all your changes and still leave the dark "dark" ? (I know you have mentioned the option earlier)
Also many of us like the new "Darkness" on planet darkside. Can you mention how we can use all your changes and still leave the dark "dark" ? (I know you have mentioned the option earlier)
Yes this. NEW THREAD!
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
is this a problem with the 2070s? i know it is an issue with some of the 2080tis. even then tho, it is the people with issues who tend to post the most so i wonder if even that issue seems worse than it is (i do know of someone whos 2nd 2080ti just failed however)
Hi
I have a 1080ti so maybe i should be taking note as well... so if >4096 is problematic for some, out of curiosity what is the default? if i change mine to 4096 should that give me a bump over stock?
right now i am just on VR ultra with 1.5x HMD super sampling and 1.5x supersampling on everything in oculus settings.
my 1080ti is overclocked and is running at pretty much 2ghz constantly under load.
Last edited:
Didn't intend to hijack Corlas' thread and once I've done some more testing and made a few more refinements I may start a fresh one.
Removing the color filter while retaining very dark nights on planets didn't pan out. The prototype lighting balances control both of those aspects of the new lighting system and thus far I haven't been able to separate them to any useful degree.
The basic quality and bloom adjustments in the override can apply irrespective of this setting, however.
4096 textures were only problematic in prior versions and usually only if texture pool budget was left high enough for the planetary textures to displace other assets. 3.3 improved things, and with 3.3 plus a capped texture pool, I haven't seen any texture issues even at 8192.
Stock ultra preset has a 2560 planetary texture size, 2048 galaxy background texture size, 256 environment map size, and 2048 shadow map/slice size.
I'm also running at 1080 Ti and the override config I've posted raises these to 8192 planet, 8192 galaxy, 1024 env map, and 4096 for the general shadow profile, with the ultra preset. Performance hit is minimal.
Removing the color filter while retaining very dark nights on planets didn't pan out. The prototype lighting balances control both of those aspects of the new lighting system and thus far I haven't been able to separate them to any useful degree.
The basic quality and bloom adjustments in the override can apply irrespective of this setting, however.
4096 textures were only problematic in prior versions and usually only if texture pool budget was left high enough for the planetary textures to displace other assets. 3.3 improved things, and with 3.3 plus a capped texture pool, I haven't seen any texture issues even at 8192.
Stock ultra preset has a 2560 planetary texture size, 2048 galaxy background texture size, 256 environment map size, and 2048 shadow map/slice size.
I'm also running at 1080 Ti and the override config I've posted raises these to 8192 planet, 8192 galaxy, 1024 env map, and 4096 for the general shadow profile, with the ultra preset. Performance hit is minimal.
Updated post #59 to include a modest increase to the depth biases of cockpit shadows, where applicable. This will virtually eliminate cockpit shadow acne (aka 'elephant butt leather') on in nearly all ships in all environments and should have essentially no negative side effects (vs. the defaults). There are a few cockpits (e.g. the Imperial Courier) that have small raised features that will have small areas of peter panning/floating shadows, that may be apparent when light sources illuminate the features that cast them from extremely shallow angles, but these were present with the default setting and could not be eliminated without adding much worse artifacting to most other ships. These new values should be an all-round improvement, but if anyone notices any problems, please take a screen shot and let me know.
I've also rolled back some of the bloom intensity reduction in the second file as I've gone back to using the 3.3 prototype light balances, which has more subdued glare.
Will probably be my last update to this thread. I'll try to consolidate my tests/changes and include more detailed shadow modifications in a new thread after the holidays.
I've also rolled back some of the bloom intensity reduction in the second file as I've gone back to using the 3.3 prototype light balances, which has more subdued glare.
Will probably be my last update to this thread. I'll try to consolidate my tests/changes and include more detailed shadow modifications in a new thread after the holidays.
May I ask what your frame times with this settings are on planet surfaces and star ports are?
@Morbad: How is the VRam consumption with your new texture settings?
Last edited:
Just checked after an extended session and it was peaking at nearly 9GiB:
This is much more than the game was able to properly use prior to 3.3, which probably explains why I haven't seen any texture loading issues at all...it's keeping more in VRAM rather than having to evict them.
I'm playing on a OCed GTX 1080 Ti in Windows 7 with the 417.22 drivers at 4k with 16x AF and High Quality texture filtering set in the NVIDIA control panel; all ultra in-game settings, except DOF which is disabled, 60 FOV, 1.999999 LOD distance scale, and 85% on the terrain work slider; plus my custom override xml.
Last edited:
IIRC I haven't seen the game take considerably more than 5GB prior to 3.3. So it is good to see we can put that VRAM to use finally.
By the way, thank you for your effort!
Just bookmark this. I believe these iare Morbad's final customization edits. Correct me if I am wrong.Good thread. Nice work Morbad. Nothing to add, but comment makes it easy for me to find again
Also I took a note of this:
I tried the 1st setting and I gets massive hiccups every time I jump into hyperspace (and arriving at the destination system)... what could cause this?
Possibly excessive texture/shadow resolution for your card's VRAM, or insufficient system memory.
What are your system specs and what other settings are you trying to use?
EDIT #2: Some people are having issues with 8k textures on 8GiB cards since the 3.3 update. If you experience excessive loading times or slowdowns, try 4096 instead of 8192.
Due to some issues with the brightness of bloom dependent features pointed out to me by neutronium as well as some disconnected/peter panning cockpit shadows in the Vipers, I'm going to post another update to my GraphicsConfigurationOverride.xml:
Basically, I reduced the depth bias, but increased the slope bias, until I had acceptable results in all ship cockpits that I tested. I then increased bloom GlareScale by 50% vs. my prior version, but still 25% below default...which is about as bright as I can tolerate on my own setup.
If you want to restore the full default bloom intensity, just remove the entire <Bloom></Bloom> section.
EDIT: Fixed some issues I saw with peter panning shadows on features like Mamba's winglets by tightening the depth biases of the inner shadow cascades for some profiles and made another minor adjustment to the cockpit depth bias.
File is attached below:
Due to some issues with the brightness of bloom dependent features pointed out to me by neutronium as well as some disconnected/peter panning cockpit shadows in the Vipers, I'm going to post another update to my GraphicsConfigurationOverride.xml:
Code:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<GraphicsConfig>
<Shadows_Ultra>
<Profile_General>
<SliceSize>4096</SliceSize>
<FrustumCockpit>
<DepthBias>0.00008</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.75</DepthSlopeBias>
</FrustumCockpit>
<Frustum0>
<DepthBias>0.0005</DepthBias>
</Frustum0>
<Frustum1>
<DepthBias>0.0005</DepthBias>
</Frustum1>
</Profile_General>
<Profile_PlanetApproach>
<FrustumCockpit>
<DepthBias>0.00008</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.75</DepthSlopeBias>
</FrustumCockpit>
<Frustum0>
<DepthBias>0.0005</DepthBias>
</Frustum0>
<Frustum1>
<DepthBias>0.0005</DepthBias>
</Frustum1>
<Frustum2>
<DepthBias>0.0005</DepthBias>
</Frustum2>
</Profile_PlanetApproach>
<Profile_PlanetSurface>
<FrustumCockpit>
<DepthBias>0.00008</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.75</DepthSlopeBias>
</FrustumCockpit>
</Profile_PlanetSurface>
<Profile_StationInterior>
<FrustumCockpit>
<DepthBias>0.00008</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.75</DepthSlopeBias>
</FrustumCockpit>
</Profile_StationInterior>
<Profile_AsteroidField>
<FrustumCockpit>
<DepthBias>0.00008</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.75</DepthSlopeBias>
</FrustumCockpit>
<Frustum0>
<DepthBias>0.0005</DepthBias>
</Frustum0>
<Frustum1>
<DepthBias>0.0005</DepthBias>
</Frustum1>
</Profile_AsteroidField>
</Shadows_Ultra>
<Planets>
<Ultra>
<TextureSize>8192</TextureSize>
<WorkPerFrame>512</WorkPerFrame>
<TexturePoolBudget>50</TexturePoolBudget>
</Ultra>
</Planets>
<GalaxyBackground>
<High>
<TextureSize>8192</TextureSize>
</High>
</GalaxyBackground>
<Bloom>
<Ultra>
<GlareScale>0.045</GlareScale>
<FilterRadius>0.8</FilterRadius>
</Ultra>
</Bloom>
<Envmap>
<High>
<TextureSize>1024</TextureSize>
<NumMips>10</NumMips>
</High>
</Envmap>
</GraphicsConfig>Basically, I reduced the depth bias, but increased the slope bias, until I had acceptable results in all ship cockpits that I tested. I then increased bloom GlareScale by 50% vs. my prior version, but still 25% below default...which is about as bright as I can tolerate on my own setup.
If you want to restore the full default bloom intensity, just remove the entire <Bloom></Bloom> section.
EDIT: Fixed some issues I saw with peter panning shadows on features like Mamba's winglets by tightening the depth biases of the inner shadow cascades for some profiles and made another minor adjustment to the cockpit depth bias.
File is attached below:
Last edited:
I play at 1440p not 4k, but 8192 GalaxyBackground is 100% an overkill and will cause huge freezes, hiccups, increased loading times while in hyperspace! Please be a bit more metodical in your testing.
I find anything above 3512 for 1440p is going into placebo territory (and I've tested a lot by increasing the value bit by bit, re-launching the game, taking screenshots and comparing them in Photoshop).
Here's what I suggest for testing GalaxyBackground setting:
1) Position you ship in space and don't move it
2) Logout to main menu and log back in (just to make sure the position will be the same)
3) Take the screenshot using F10
4) Close the game
5) Increase the value (in 256 increments or even less)
6) Launch the game and take a screenshot using F10
7) Throw that screenshot on to a new layer in Photoshop
8) Chech if the quality actually increased
7) Repeat steps 4-8
That way you will find the spot where actual quality does not increase. You can use the same method for planets.
I find anything above 3512 for 1440p is going into placebo territory (and I've tested a lot by increasing the value bit by bit, re-launching the game, taking screenshots and comparing them in Photoshop).
Here's what I suggest for testing GalaxyBackground setting:
1) Position you ship in space and don't move it
2) Logout to main menu and log back in (just to make sure the position will be the same)
3) Take the screenshot using F10
4) Close the game
5) Increase the value (in 256 increments or even less)
6) Launch the game and take a screenshot using F10
7) Throw that screenshot on to a new layer in Photoshop
8) Chech if the quality actually increased
7) Repeat steps 4-8
That way you will find the spot where actual quality does not increase. You can use the same method for planets.
What is your VRAM and RAM? 8192 is an overkill for 2k probably, you are at ~3k so it is so & so but for 4k I think it is spot on. The thing is you must have at least 8gigs of VRAM and 16gigs of RAM to be able to handle this at 4K. I play at 5760x1080 tripple monitor so essentially I am at ~3K and use 1080Ti with 11gigs of VRAM and 16gis DDR4 RAM 2,66GHz. Yes it stutters during hyperspace but it is not that bad.
Morbad did say in a previous post that these edits are for High End systems.