This patch will improve your frame rate by up to 40% in all CPU-dependent situations, i.e. especially in cities. It works mostly by rewriting some x87 FPU code and inlining a whole ton of useless getter functions along the critical paths because the developers at Bethesda, for some reason, compiled the game without using any of the optimization flags for release builds.
There has been some confusion about the original dll file and the current one for Script dragon. Script Dragon's dinput8.dll is 592kb The non working TESV Accelerator dinput.dll is 74kb
Scroll bars are just an element of a UI, not the entirety of it. I think you're kind of missing my point, and we're getting into a in a forest through the trees thing here.
I worded that poorly; I meant that Morrowind was the last game theuy had that had a different UI; all the others have been fairly derivative of each other since then.
Some, but admittedly not a lot. I'm not really disagreeing with you that the UI could use polish, I am, however, disagreeing that the UI needs to be inherently different (barring mouse support) across platforms.
No, what I'm saying is that they should put the same amount of effort into ALL platforms, and not bias one over the other.
Jerykk wrote on Dec 28, 2011, 01:34:Sure it is. Case in point: iOS vs. Android. Windows vs. Mac. MythTV vs. Windows Media Center. PS3 vs. Xbox vs. Wii.
I personally like the heiarchial minimalist approach. You don't. It's subjective based on preference.
I'm not talking about style, I'm talking about functionality. Scroll bars, for example, are a common feature of Windows, MacOS, Firefox, IE, Opera, Chrome, etc, because it's considered standard. Skyrim does not have scroll bars, in spite of the amount of scrolling you have to do...
Jerykk wrote on Dec 28, 2011, 01:34:Again, preference. I might like having something completely different than you describe, like, say, a graphical representation of my player-character that I can drag and drop items onto, or maybe a CLI where I just type out what I want to equip. Does that make one bad over the other? Not really. It just makes them different. Bethesda has had this interface since Morrowind, and, well, I guess I've just grown accustomed to it.
Err, Morrowind had a completely different UI than any games since. It was icon-based, whereas the later games revolve around text lists. But again, if you're going to have text lists, you need to provide users with a way to quickly navigate them. Skyrim doesn't do that.
Jerykk wrote on Dec 28, 2011, 01:34:Why? I mean why make it different across platforms when it functionally serves it's purpose? We're not talking about forcing a gamepad here. the mouse and scrollwheel works. that said, I actually use WASD + E (R, Y/N) without even thinking about it. *shrug*
Because it's not just a matter of being functional. It's a matter of functioning well. According to your logic, players should be happy if games merely run, as opposed to being any good.
Out of curiosity, do you do a lot of alchemy in the game? If you do and you haven't noticed the ridiculous amount of scrolling required, I'm not sure what to say.
Jerykk wrote on Dec 28, 2011, 01:34:Again, no matter what they release, an element of the gaming population is going to think that it's utter crap, so, why waste more time on it when you know what you have works, provides little/zero risk of a platform-specific problem, and, for the most part, looks exactly like the UI of the last several RPGs you've put out?
Because it results in a better product for the specific platform? What you're basically saying is that developers should put no effort into their PC ports.
Despite your claims, the process is different after release than before release. Hence why I say a port is after the fact.
Before release the engine is still relatively open to change (this obviously wanes in direct ratio to a looming deadline). Before release all the source files are easily.. sourced, and converted to the next platform.
Developing for multiple platforms is easier than 'porting.'
Artists will produce textures at higher resolutions before shrinking them down. At least good artists will. Especially if the game supports multiple platforms.
Developing for multiple platforms is easier than 'porting.'
How do you figure? It's easier and better for quality if the textures are generated at a high resolution then scaled down for each platform as necessary.
Nobody is going to generate a 128x128 and scale it up to save memory, that doesn't make sense at all. Your larger image file still takes more memory and now it looks like fuzzy garbage.
This isn't an emotional issue, it's a semantics issue. Porting is Rebuilding.
Ports happen after release, not during development.
If they're developing in tandem, there's no point in porting anything, because they're still developing it.
You can't 'port' something that isn't finished.
Creston wrote on Dec 28, 2011, 21:52:Tanto Edge wrote on Dec 28, 2011, 20:12:
The textures are all higher resolution on PC than any other platform.
Errr....? If it hadn't been for Rage taking the all-time shitty textures crown, there'd have been a billion angry rants about the absolutely horrible texture quality in Skyrim. Default Skyrim textures are easily worse than they were in Oblivion... :|
Tanto Edge wrote on Dec 28, 2011, 20:12:
The textures are all higher resolution on PC than any other platform.
Any developer will tell you that scaling down while maintaining quality is a lot harder than scaling up.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you dislike the term "port" because it implies that the PC version was bottlenecked by the console versions, right? And that the PC version was simply an afterthought?
The graphics are shared across platforms? So be it. Doesn't mean the game's a port.
Jerykk wrote on Dec 27, 2011, 06:15:
Except it isn't just semantics. You're using the wrong word. It's like calling an apple an orange. Completely different things. When you take the code and assets from one build and convert them into a functional build on a different platform, that's a port. It doesn't matter when the port is released. It only matters which build was the original/lead.
Sure it is. Case in point: iOS vs. Android. Windows vs. Mac. MythTV vs. Windows Media Center. PS3 vs. Xbox vs. Wii.
I personally like the heiarchial minimalist approach. You don't. It's subjective based on preference.
Again, preference. I might like having something completely different than you describe, like, say, a graphical representation of my player-character that I can drag and drop items onto, or maybe a CLI where I just type out what I want to equip. Does that make one bad over the other? Not really. It just makes them different. Bethesda has had this interface since Morrowind, and, well, I guess I've just grown accustomed to it.
Why? I mean why make it different across platforms when it functionally serves it's purpose? We're not talking about forcing a gamepad here. the mouse and scrollwheel works. that said, I actually use WASD + E (R, Y/N) without even thinking about it. *shrug*
Again, no matter what they release, an element of the gaming population is going to think that it's utter crap, so, why waste more time on it when you know what you have works, provides little/zero risk of a platform-specific problem, and, for the most part, looks exactly like the UI of the last several RPGs you've put out?
Jerykk wrote on Dec 27, 2011, 06:08:I understand and respect your thoughts, but I think that UI is, at best, very subjective, and I can totally relate to their decision to just make the UIs consistent across platforms. In some ways I appreciate this, as I have a few of these games on PC and 360.
I don't think good UI is really subjective at all. The point of UI is to provide a means for the user to interact with the software. Ideally, these interactions should be as quick and intuitive as possible. In essence, if a UI is doing its job well, the player will never have anything to say about it because they don't even notice it. It meets all their expectations and gives them no reason to be frustrated or annoyed. It is essentially invisible.
Jerykk wrote on Dec 27, 2011, 06:08:
Skyrim's UI does not achieve this. There is redundant scrolling in almost every menu, due to the focus on aesthetics rather than functionality. And with all this excessive scrolling, basic things like scroll bars and sorting are sorely missed. Then there's an 8 hotkey limit, even though keyboards have 10 number keys. Then there's the fact that players have to mark items/spells as favorites before they can be assigned hotkeys.
Jerykk wrote on Dec 27, 2011, 06:08:
Finally, UI should never be consistent across platforms when one of those platforms is PC. M/KB is a completely different control scheme than a gamepad. PC users typically sit much closer to the screen than console users as well. These are significant considerations that should be made when porting a game to PC and if you ignore them, you are disrespecting the PC platform and those who game on it.
Jerykk wrote on Dec 27, 2011, 06:08:I mean, why make a special UI if you know people will still complain. Let's be honest here--PC gamers are just about impossible to please; we always want more than we get, even if it is exactly what we as for ;-)
That's not really a good philosophy to take. Yes, there will always be people complaining about something. However, that doesn't mean you should automatically discard their complaints. Skyrim's UI is slower and less inefficient than it should be, especially considering the complexity of the game. It has an excessive amount of scrolling, forcing players to spend more time in menus than they should have to. Basic things like scroll bars and sorting would help alleviate this but Bethesda didn't bother because they always put the bare minimum of effort into their PC ports. While I applaud them for releasing mod tools, players shouldn't have to rely on mods to get a decent UI.
Tanto Edge wrote on Dec 27, 2011, 03:36:Jerykk wrote on Dec 26, 2011, 22:25:
According to your logic, the console ports weren't actually ports because they were released at the same time, even though it's pretty obvious that they were ports.
Yep.
Again, pure semantics (or hair splitting), but a simple concept.
If you're porting the game, it's already been released or developed for one system.
Nobody said you had to agree with that, but defining a port based on UI was my initial topic of debate anyhow.
I understand and respect your thoughts, but I think that UI is, at best, very subjective, and I can totally relate to their decision to just make the UIs consistent across platforms. In some ways I appreciate this, as I have a few of these games on PC and 360.
I mean, why make a special UI if you know people will still complain. Let's be honest here--PC gamers are just about impossible to please; we always want more than we get, even if it is exactly what we as for ;-)
Jerykk wrote on Dec 26, 2011, 22:25:
According to your logic, the console ports weren't actually ports because they were released at the same time, even though it's pretty obvious that they were ports.
Jerykk wrote on Dec 25, 2011, 19:57:(^Drag0n^ wrote): Adding my $0.02 to this: All that means is that they made a multiplatform UI to ease the workload, and focus on the more important task of development of the actual game as opposed to custom UIs. I like it that way. It's lead to a better game in this case, IMO.
I completely disagree. If you're going to release a game on multiple platforms, you should ensure that each platform gets equal focus. For the PC, this means redesigning the UI as necessary (as Bioware tends to do). Skyrim's UI was clearly designed for gamepads, not M/KB, and even with gamepads, it's slow, clunky and requires an excessive amount of scrolling. Skyrim would be a better game if the UI were better.
I'm pretty sure you don't work at Bethesda, hence, you don't know what their pipeline looks like. 'Oh dear'? Cram it.
I agree they could have included a UI for each platform, but let's be honest here:
They don't do that. They do the bare minimum because they're not interested in making UI.
They're interested in making games, not interfaces. This has always been obvious, since their first games up until now.
The whole 'issue' here is pure semantics, but as far as I'm concerned, a port is after the release, not during development. That's just development.