Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • AndalayBay

      SSL Installed   05/29/2018

      Second IP obtained. The issues with IPv6 have also been fixed, but we can't switch to HTTPS until we switch forum software. We can't switch to HTTPS without a current license with IPS.
Sign in to follow this  
Malonn

Skyrim Special Edition

Recommended Posts

I'm considering buying the Special Edition (yes, I procrastinated too long when it was free), but want to know if it's worth it?  Are the visuals truly noticeably improved?  Is the change to a 64-bit program beneficial to the player?  What other changes have been made, and are they worth the 30 bucks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've heard, yes. I suggest waiting for a sale to see if you can get it cheaper. Apparently the new architecture means a lot less crashes and the graphics are better. I own it, but haven't been able to play it yet because I'm helping to test a mod that we don't want to port until we've fixed all the bugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm considering buying the Special Edition (yes, I procrastinated too long when it was free), but want to know if it's worth it?  Are the visuals truly noticeably improved?  Is the change to a 64-bit program beneficial to the player?  What other changes have been made, and are they worth the 30 bucks?

What do you mean by that?  Did you have all DLC with the Limited Edition or did you have the Legendary Edition before SSE was released the 28th of October 2016?

 

And to answer your question.  Yes, buy it and is a lot better than SLE despite for lacking SKSE64, unless you already have it without knowning you had SSE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've heard, yes. I suggest waiting for a sale to see if you can get it cheaper. Apparently the new architecture means a lot less crashes and the graphics are better. I own it, but haven't been able to play it yet because I'm helping to test a mod that we don't want to port until we've fixed all the bugs.

 

Yeah, my gut tells me to wait for a sale because it's just not worth full price.  I'd love to hear your thoughts when you do get around to playing it.

 

 

I'm considering buying the Special Edition (yes, I procrastinated too long when it was free), but want to know if it's worth it?  Are the visuals truly noticeably improved?  Is the change to a 64-bit program beneficial to the player?  What other changes have been made, and are they worth the 30 bucks?

What do you mean by that?  Did you have all DLC with the Limited Edition or did you have the Legendary Edition before SSE was released the 28th of October 2016?

 

And to answer your question.  Yes, buy it and is a lot better than SLE despite for lacking SKSE64, unless you already have it without knowning you had SSE.

 

 

Well, when it first came out if you had all 3 DLC's you could get a copy of SE for free.  At the time I had 2 of the 3 DLCs (didn't have HearthFires), so I could have bought HF and got SE for free (unless I misunderstood).

 

A "lot" better?  Interesting.  Maybe I will put down the $30.00?  I haven't played Skyrim since 2014.  I was setting up a new playthrough, but maybe I'll just get SE and go from there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see.  You know, I once had the same situation like you had back then, but later I bought SLE which included all three DLC and *gave me a free copy* of SSE last year.

 

The HighRes Texture Pack are now included in SSE and the graphics looks better plus it is more stable in-game.  Btw...  Are you using PC or is it one of the consoles PS4/XB1?

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so it's only SLE owners that got a free copy of SE?  Well I've never been an SLE owner per se; I still have the original 2011 copy of Skyrim.  I just bought the DLC's along the way (even though I haven't completed them yet).

 

I have the PC version **PC for Life, Baby**

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, if you had bought Hearthfire before the October 28th deadline you'd have been able to grab SSE for free. When people say Legendary Edition, that applies to Skyrim + all 3 DLCs no matter how you got ahold of them to start with. In any case, you didn't have all the DLCs in time so you're gonna be stuck paying for SSE now. Fortunately, SSE is on sale right now for $20. That's a pretty good deal.

 

The stability alone is worth the price too. I've crashed SSE exactly once and that was due to a bad mesh port when I was porting Wyrmstooth. Otherwise it's been rock solid stable. The graphical improvements are quite nice too, and I also appreciate the additional ground cover that was added all over the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 bucks you say.  Good thing you told me, I just looked on Steam Tuesday and it was 29.99.  Ten bucks less sounds like it may be worth it.  I doubt there'll be a $2.99 sale any time soon for SE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Arthmoor, for the heads-up about the sale.  The game was 39.99 regular, and now 19.99, so I doubt I'd find a better deals than that in under a year or two.  Once TES VI comes out, yeah, but prolly not until then.  Plus I picked up Prey for 50% off--BAM!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I've got Skyrim and all 3 DLC's so I got it for free. I wish I was playing SSE right now - the old version keeps crashing on me.

 

I think $20 is a good deal too. :beerchug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, LE becoming a crashfest is all too common. Yet there are people on Reddit who will just insult you by assuming you don't know what you're doing if that's happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reddit is meh.  I doubt, of all the people, Arthmoor wouldn't know what he's doing.  Those Reddit people are probably people that run 2 mods and no high res textures.  I never follow a Reddit Google result...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a guy there in a thread right now berating people for not being like him and being able to effortlessly install 450 mods (200+ merged), all 4k textures, some fancy ENB preset, and getting solid 60fps at all times on LE. The claim lacks any shred of credibility though because pretty much everyone who actually mods the game knows you can't put that kind of strain on LE and expect it to just work. Not without loading up on about 500 dll hacks or something to manage memory, and by that point you may as well just concede that SSE is superior and move on because you won't need all that to have an equally good game to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know man, it sort of sounds to me like that dude is full of shit.  Almost twice the amount of allowed mods?  4K textures?  ENB, okay, that's more believable.  60FPS?  No.  I'm thinking that that dude lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure of whether this should be in a separate thread, but looking for info on CRCs  for past SE editions:

SSE Versions

  •  1.1 Update
  •  1.0.3.0
  •  1.1.51.08
  •  1.2
  •  1.3.9.0
  •  1.5.16
  • 1.5.23.0

PrgLnch calculates the CRC of the last one (RUNTIME_VERSION_1_5_23_0) as 2933148810, looking at this code for example,

Spoiler

bool skse64Plugin_Load(const SKSEInterface * skse64)
{

    uintptr_t * isModded = nullptr;

    if(skse64->runtimeVersion >= RUNTIME_VERSION_1_10_20)
    {
        isModded = Utility::pattern( "48 83 EC 28 C6 44 24 ? ? 84 D2").count( 1 ).get( 0 ).get<uintptr_t>();
    }
    else if(skse64->runtimeVersion >= RUNTIME_VERSION_1_5_412)
    {
        isModded = Utility::pattern( "40 57 48 83 EC 30 40 32 FF").count( 1 ).get( 0 ).get<uintptr_t>();
    }
    else if(skse64->runtimeVersion >= RUNTIME_VERSION_1_5_205)
    {
        isModded = Utility::pattern( "40 53 48 83 EC 30 32 DB 84 D2" ).count( 1 ).get( 0 ).get<uintptr_t>();
    }
    else if(skse64->runtimeVersion == RUNTIME_VERSION_1_5_157)
    {
        isModded = Utility::pattern( "48 89 5C 24 ? 55 57 41 57 48 83 EC 20 8B A9 ? ? ? ?" ).count( 1 ).get( 0 ).get<uintptr_t>();
    }
    

Does anyone have a record of the older CRCs- or does it actually matter anymore, as Steam won't allow the game to be run unless it's the most recent update.

Does BOSS run a similar pattern match on the CRCs? Is this the standard test we all use?

@VM: This is baffling:

In compiling SKSE64 getting an error on this line in IErrors.h:

#define STATIC_ASSERT(a)    typedef static_assert_test <sizeof(StaticAssertFailure<(bool)(a)>)> __MACRO_JOIN__(static_assert_typedef_, __COUNTER__)

It's with the __COUNTER__ macro. When I go to Peek Definition we get:

large.Peek__COUNTER__.jpg.6c26836d190da3

Attempting to rename it (not that we would) gets:

Spoiler

---------------------------
Microsoft Visual Studio
---------------------------
Expected 1 export(s) with contract name "Microsoft.VisualStudio.ProjectSystem.IProjectConfigurationsService" but found 2 after applying applicable constraints.
---------------------------
OK   
---------------------------


Weird, the MSDN page on macros is also currently unavailable, but the cached version, has the macro's description intact.

PM'd Ian Patt, mentioning the following:
It may be something to do with the compiler settings on this machine - using /FC - or even something wrong with the install of VS- could attempt a repair I guess- but it takes so long!

Edit: It's also happening with the other called macros on the module like __FILE__ and __LINE__. Tried running elevated etc- might have to raise as an issue with MS unless something is missed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me check on BOSS. I know for plugins that it simply uses the Boost CRC function.

The **SE code can be temperamental to compile since it uses a lot of preprocessor macros instead of the equivalents in the standard libraries. You may want to ask the devs what the proper compilation options are. The code really needs to be rewritten but the codebase would be a bit of a pain to overhaul to that degree. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think we're getting a little closer to the SKSE errors: here's a bunch of asserts, the only two of those which generate the E0070: incomplete type is not allowed error are the ones with the handle arguments: lines #1 & #3.

STATIC_ASSERT(offsetof(MenuTopicManager, talkingHandle) == 0x68);
STATIC_ASSERT(offsetof(BGSSaveLoadManager, thread) == 0x2B0);
STATIC_ASSERT(offsetof(BGSSaveLoadManager::Thread, hThread) == 0x30);
STATIC_ASSERT(sizeof(BGSSaveLoadManager::Thread) == 0xC0);
STATIC_ASSERT(sizeof(BGSSaveLoadManager) == 0x3D0);

The STATIC_ASSERT is defined thus:

#define STATIC_ASSERT(a)	typedef static_assert_test <sizeof(StaticAssertFailure<(bool)(a)>)>__MACRO_JOIN__(static_assert_typedef_, __COUNTER__)

Hazard a guess the handle is not giving any context to the preprop typedef. Perhaps a handle can be converted to an int?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all defined in IErrors.h

#pragma once

void _AssertionFailed(const char * file, unsigned long line, const char * desc);
void _AssertionFailed_ErrCode(const char * file, unsigned long line, const char * desc, unsigned long long code);
void _AssertionFailed_ErrCode(const char * file, unsigned long line, const char * desc, const char * code);

//! Exit the program if the condition is not true
#define ASSERT(a)					do { if(!(a)) _AssertionFailed(__FILE__, __LINE__, #a); } while(0)
//! Exit the program if the condition is not true, with an error message
#define ASSERT_STR(a, b)			do { if(!(a)) _AssertionFailed(__FILE__, __LINE__, b); } while(0)
//! Exit the program if the condition is not true, reporting an error code
#define ASSERT_CODE(a, b)			do { if(!(a)) _AssertionFailed_ErrCode(__FILE__, __LINE__, #a, b); } while(0)
//! Exit the program if the condition is not true, reporting an error code and message
#define ASSERT_STR_CODE(a, b, c)	do { if(!(a)) _AssertionFailed_ErrCode(__FILE__, __LINE__, b, c); } while(0)
//! Exit the program with an error message
#define HALT(a)						do { _AssertionFailed(__FILE__, __LINE__, a); } while(0)
//! Exit the program with and error code and message
#define HALT_CODE(a, b)				do { _AssertionFailed_ErrCode(__FILE__, __LINE__, a, b); } while(0)

// based on the boost implementation of static asserts
template <bool x> struct StaticAssertFailure;
template <> struct StaticAssertFailure <true> { enum { a = 1 }; };
template <int x> struct static_assert_test { };

#define __MACRO_JOIN__(a, b)		__MACRO_JOIN_2__(a, b)
#define __MACRO_JOIN_2__(a, b)		__MACRO_JOIN_3__(a, b)
#define __MACRO_JOIN_3__(a, b)		a##b
#define __PREPRO_TOKEN_STR2__(a)	#a
#define __PREPRO_TOKEN_STR__(a)		__PREPRO_TOKEN_STR2__(a)
#define __LOC__						__FILE__ "("__PREPRO_TOKEN_STR__(__LINE__)") : "

#define STATIC_ASSERT(a)	typedef static_assert_test <sizeof(StaticAssertFailure<(bool)(a)>)>__MACRO_JOIN__(static_assert_typedef_, __COUNTER__)

Hang on, static_assert_typedef isn't defined anywhere else. Maybe that's the problem!

And he has defined StaticAssertFailure twice. Ooops!

Weird, the BBC code has omitted:

template <> struct StaticAssertFailure <true> { enum { a = 1 }; };

There's an StaticAssertFailure in there.

Edited by Schtearn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly,- but it's not working properly- ref the above edited post- StaticAssertFailure is defined twice- but it can't be changed as things get worse.

Hmm, I see how it's predicated- like the answer here.

Edited by Schtearn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×