ssssssssssssssss
Page 1 of 1
Working SweetFX and some Graphical Improvement
07.01.2013 @ 18:40 #1
I noticed the incompetence of the in-game AA; that said, I ventured, through one of my favorites of the "shader" based solutions.
Keep in mind that this requires you to disable any kind of AA in-game and through control panel in order to work properly.
Also, I made this preset an all-round enhancement, look at the comparison(will be adding some more screenshots)
preset and comparison screenshots:
http://sfx.thelazy.n...mes/preset/118/
The mod is avaiable as FULL package (with sweetFX binaries required to run it, and the preset tweaks) in The Witcher nexus:
http://witcher.nexusmods.com/mods/331
If you are struggling to get the antialiasing working with this game, try this, also applicable to those looking to make the game more beautiful, if you have any suggestions, feel free to comment.
This is a WIP, so, some brainstorming might just help the community have a better gaming experience.
Keep in mind that this requires you to disable any kind of AA in-game and through control panel in order to work properly.
Also, I made this preset an all-round enhancement, look at the comparison(will be adding some more screenshots)
preset and comparison screenshots:
http://sfx.thelazy.n...mes/preset/118/
The mod is avaiable as FULL package (with sweetFX binaries required to run it, and the preset tweaks) in The Witcher nexus:
http://witcher.nexusmods.com/mods/331
If you are struggling to get the antialiasing working with this game, try this, also applicable to those looking to make the game more beautiful, if you have any suggestions, feel free to comment.
This is a WIP, so, some brainstorming might just help the community have a better gaming experience.
07.01.2013 @ 19:05 #2
Perhaps this would be more appropriate in the "Mods and adventures" section, if a moderator would care to move it there.
At any rate, downloading your preset and trying it out. I think SweetFX uses SMAA for AA (which I was already using), but I'm curious to see what other changes you've made. I'd like to point out as well to any AMD GPU owners (perhaps you could do so as well on the nexus page?) that you can use SweetFX with the latest preview version of RadeonPro, which means you don't need the d3d9.dll which some people already use to combat stuttering.
I'm still looking for a mod that properly darkens caves/nights/dungeons, is that something that would be possible using SweetFX? I'm not too experienced with these post-processing injectors, unfortunately...
At any rate, downloading your preset and trying it out. I think SweetFX uses SMAA for AA (which I was already using), but I'm curious to see what other changes you've made. I'd like to point out as well to any AMD GPU owners (perhaps you could do so as well on the nexus page?) that you can use SweetFX with the latest preview version of RadeonPro, which means you don't need the d3d9.dll which some people already use to combat stuttering.
I'm still looking for a mod that properly darkens caves/nights/dungeons, is that something that would be possible using SweetFX? I'm not too experienced with these post-processing injectors, unfortunately...
07.01.2013 @ 20:06 #3
Yes, radeon pro indeed has built-in smaa, however, I don't think it supports the other shaders sweetfx uses,(and my config) like luma sharpen, for example, that enhances the game's visuals, I cannot be sure of this, as I happen to be an NVIDIA user, try the config with the SMAA (from radeon pro) disabled, and with the files provided, then, try it without the binaries,see if you notice any changes.
Also, you can disable sweetfx SMAA and keep the other effects by opening the SweetFX_Settings.txt provided and changing :
#define USE_SMAA_ANTIALIASING 1
to:
#define USE_SMAA_ANTIALIASING 0
Choose the AA implementation that performs better, and let me know what you think of the preset.
EDIT:
Just realized what you meant by SweetFX support by radeon pro, it seems you are right, will be changing the nexus description soon.
Also, you can disable sweetfx SMAA and keep the other effects by opening the SweetFX_Settings.txt provided and changing :
#define USE_SMAA_ANTIALIASING 1
to:
#define USE_SMAA_ANTIALIASING 0
Choose the AA implementation that performs better, and let me know what you think of the preset.
EDIT:
Just realized what you meant by SweetFX support by radeon pro, it seems you are right, will be changing the nexus description soon.
08.01.2013 @ 20:18 #12
gaurdian said:
Tree shadows or shadows on buildings seem a little dark, don't they ?
but anyway you did an excellent job.
/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/> ›››
but anyway you did an excellent job.
Yes, I agree with you on that one, I'll test it a bit see how it looks in the various areas of the game, the next version will correct that.
The exaggerated bloom is an HDR issue, i'm attempting to keep it down without spoiling the effect on the NPCS and Geralt, I'ts improved, but , in some areas still a bit overpowered.
It requires some observation(gaming) time to fine tune, but it's getting there(the first implementation was even brighter
18.01.2013 @ 00:03 #14
I'm having the same issue (the image is much, much too dark) as some people have described above. Looking at the SweetFX_Settings.txt file included in your version 1.3 download, I noticed HDR power is set at 9.8 (though according to the description, the maximum value is 8.0?). Higher HDR power leads to a darker image, and changing this setting to a more 'normal' value (e.g. 1.4) indeed fixes the dark image for me. Are you sure 9.8 is really the value you intended or has something gone slightly wrong somewhere?
18.01.2013 @ 13:55 #15
Wut the Melon said:
I'm having the same issue (the image is much, much too dark) as some people have described above. Looking at the SweetFX_Settings.txt file included in your version 1.3 download, I noticed HDR power is set at 9.8 (though according to the description, the maximum value is 8.0?). Higher HDR power leads to a darker image, and changing this setting to a more 'normal' value (e.g. 1.4) indeed fixes the dark image for me. Are you sure 9.8 is really the value you intended or has something gone slightly wrong somewhere? ›››
The intended value was 0.98, I conducted the tests with this value, I can´t understand how the value was changed, but indeed it was!
I'll correct it, sorry.
Sign In »
Register Now!
Help


PM
10408













