A Smoother Skyrim For Christmas

By Alec Meer on December 23rd, 2011 at 3:21 pm.

I'm Jarl Shepard, and I approve of this unofficial patch

I can’t entirely attest to the efficacy of this performance mod for Skyrim as framerate is about the one problem I haven’t had while playing TES5 on my main PC, but it did seem perhaps a little smoother on my puny laptop. The creator reckons it can add a performance boost of around 40% in CPU-dependent scenarios; for instance, around 10 frames per second to chug hotspots such as the lovely waterfall-based city of Markarth. It’s been achieved, apparently, by fixing an alleged tiny oversight on the part of Bethesda.

Claims unofficial path-maker Arisu, “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.” Also, “They’d just have to add the string “/O2 /GL” to their Makefile”. That easy, huh?

I’ll have to take him at his word on that, but it’s not exactly the first instance of Bethesda suffering an accusation that they didn’t give Skyrim the PC TLC it needed. At least they’ve now patched it to support more than 2GB of RAM and high-quality sound.

If there is indeed something in this patch, perhaps Bethesda will be inspired to perform such tweakery officially, as with the 4GB update.

To install the unofficial patch, first you’ll need to grab the Skyrim Script Extender (aka SKSE) from here and extract its contents into your main Skyrim directory. Then, grab the TESV Acceleration Layer from here and dump the DLL file within into [your Skyrim folder]/Data/SKSE/Plugins, creating the latter two directories if necessary. Then, launch the game by running skse_loader.exe from the Skyrim root folder. Let us know if it makes things any better, eh?

Thanks, João


« | »



  1. StingingVelvet says:

    I’ve moved on to TOR now, but this is cool. I only had FPS drops in cities, but in those cities it could get BAD. Especially Markarth.

  2. Valvarexart says:

    I never had any issues, so I won’t install this unless it comes with an official patch…

  3. protospork says:

    I installed this yesterday and haven’t noticed much difference. Then again, my FPS never appreciably dropped in cities, even Markarth. Dwemer ruins are a big problem though (for reasons I can’t work out), and I haven’t tried one yet with TESVAL installed.

    I believe there are other mods out there that require SKSE, though, so I guess I’m prepared now.

  4. Shoor says:

    Yeah noticed this issue. Does anyone know if this will fix the flickering visuals? Like sometimes on the map, or when you read books…

  5. Stevostin says:

    Just tested it. I just entered Markath with my Core2Duo and met its infamous FPS drop last night so I was in the right spot to give it a try. Then I realised that by not using any FPS counter I wasn’t that much in position to inform.

    It *seems* smoother. But it’s still not smooth. I’d say I am usually around 50 FPS, getting as low as 12 FPS in Markath. Now depending on which side I am looking at in the city I probably go from 50 to 16. It may give you an idea : it’s a 33% boost of the lowest rate : huge in a way, but it doesn’t make it smooth either.

    • Ruffian says:

      Not tryin to brag but, the last patch from bethesda, seems to have resolved pretty much all my framerate issues. Good to see that an unofficial patch finally exists though, I was avoiding markarth there for a while.

    • Stuart Walton says:

      I used to get crippling framerate drops in the cites that aren’t open to the world, then I took… a mouse pointer to the ATi Control panel and set V-Sync to application control, and then made sure V-Sync was off in Skyrim.

      Frame rate drops disappeared, except for Markath, which had a less significant improvement. There are typically 2 V-Sync methods used in games (Either wait for the frame buffer to fill before posting a frame or lock to a framerate and drop any partially filled framebuffers) and some games can switch between the 2 depending on the situation. One of the methods used in Skyrim, or maybe the method that you can enforce in your GPU’s control panel just makes things worse. Probably identifies most of the buffered frames as incomplete, or gets into a catch 22 where dropping a frame increases the chances of the next one failing the check too.

      Whatever it is, just try disabling V-Sync. First in the GPU control panel, then in Skyrim.

  6. InSaNe-O_o says:

    will check it out v.soon!

  7. Fwiffo says:

    I must say for such a simple to install tweak it’s done more to even out my framerate than hours of ini fiddling could. It’s not super-dramatic thanks to decent performance on my modest Q9550 and 560 ti but is certainly more consistent in the cities.

  8. Om says:

    Does anyone know the likelihood of Skyrim being part of the Steam Christmas sale?

    • Resonance says:

      Of course not; I’d say it’s very low though.

    • Shoor says:

      Doubt it. If Portal 2′s already on sale and Skyrim still isn’t, then I think it’s gonna stay that way. If they put it on sale they’d probably get flooded or something.

    • Gusj says:

      I can imagine it at -33% max.

    • Butterbumps says:

      Yesterday I would’ve said no chance, but then they had Arkham City at 50% off less than a month after release, so who knows.

      Also worth noting it’s still at no. 3 in Steam’s best selling chart, at full price, during the Christmas sale, so it probably doesn’t make sense for it to be on sale just yet.

    • frymaster says:

      no idea, but someone got it as a reward for completing one of the Christmas achievements…

    • DickSocrates says:

      If you want it but are prepared to wait until after Christmas, buy a retail copy for far less than Steam is charging. Amazon had it for £20 in the UK last week while Steam was stubbornly stuck at £35. I never have and never will buy a new release on Steam, unless they sort out their rip off, anti-competitive prices. Which they won’t because people will do whatever Valve tells them too. Origin is also much cheaper, but of course we can’t ever use that because though its better value, it isn’t Valve. :-/

    • Fierce says:

      Like Butterbumps, I too saw that Skyrim and Arkham City didn’t have the initial 25~33% off on Day 1 of the sale that everything got, and therefore assumed they weren’t getting a discount at all. Then Arkham City went 50% off and the Inter-Steam-net exploded with credit cards charge requests.

      It is important to note however that the cost of that 50% discount was the disappearance of the WB publisher bundle (at least in North America), which included both Arkham games, the Robin and Nightwing DLC, and then Bastion, the FEAR franchise and other goodies as mentioned by RPS earlier this week.

      I figure the bean counters figured out the bundle was a major steal for the customer and that the major draw was Arkham City anyway, so they dissolved it in favor of a 50% discount on AC and its DLC for slightly higher profits.

      Curse you Math, you spoiling vixen.


      Yes, most everything available on Steam is up for being rewarded as a gift. Not sure how accurate this list of possible gift rewards is anymore, but you’re welcome to peruse it.


      Not sure what the UK amazon site is like in comparison, but I personally couldn’t buy BF3 off amazon.com at it’s discounted price because I wasn’t in the U.S. (spoke with customer service managers and everything), despite all they were selling was an Origin key. They insisted I had to purchase through amazon.ca in order for the key to be valid, which of course was conveniently lacking a discount at all. I’m sure the situation today with Skyrim is no different.

      If you’re saving money with Amazon good on you, but not all deals, however attractive, are snubbed because of allegiance to brands.

    • drewski says:

      The next time I buy a AAA new release on Steam will be the first, to be honest.

      I use Steam to fill out the back catalogue of games I’ve got, not as a way of accessing brand new top shelf content. For that, online mail order is always far, far cheaper. Usually half the price of Steam and I don’t mind waiting a couple of weeks for it to arrive.

    • deviationx says:

      Well, you better get going as I am 100% sure Skyrim is 33% off today. Right now.

    • Davie says:

      Yep! It’s twenty American bucks off right now! Buy it.

  9. Resonance says:

    From what I’ve read on other forums this mod does improve performance, but at a cost. Primarily it wrecks most scripted events in-game; as in they just do not occur. I can’t attest for that myself though, but if it’s true taking cheap shots at Bethesda for not compiling the game in a way that breaks it is pretty low…

    • LionsPhil says:

      If compiling with fairly standard optimizations (/O2 is MSVC++’s “optimize for speed” setting—nothing particularly hairy) breaks your game, you’re probably doing something you shouldn’t.

      That said it’s not like this guy has the source. That he fucked up trying to manually inline ASM isn’t exactly infeasible.

      Either way, if Bethsda’s answer to “turning on optimizations breaks the game” was “turn off optimization”, it somewhat smacks of the PC port being time-starved/lazy.

    • Stevostin says:

      Thank you for reporting that. I am off using it instantly. It’s not like I couldn’t cope with some rare frame rate drops.

    • Nim says:

      Sorry but this is flat out WRONG. WRONG WRONG WRONG. The job of the compiler is to make absolute sure that the written code is translated to machine instructions in such a way that the program is guaranteed to execute as intended. All compiler optimizations have to guarantee this too. The compiler can only AND ONLY optimize something if it can deduce by rules and math that the optimization does not alter the program’s execution in any way or form. THE END.

      er… what I am trying to say is that optimization flags for compilers do not break programs. Ever. Unless they’re buggy or beta. Something else is likely the culprit.

    • Weylund The Second says:

      “Unless they’re buggy.”

      Meaning: if there are bugs.

      Which is pretty much every large code base, ever. And I’m betting Skyrim is plenty large. And I’m also betting they’ve got some pretty old code in it, which further complicates things when you’re talking about modern optimizations. What if they’ve got stuff in there that was hand-optimized for VC6? If you assume that’s going to “work as intended” with VC2010 you’ve got a broad definition of “intended”.

      In theory turning on optimizations shouldn’t do anything harmful. I wouldn’t want to base the functioning of a 10-million-copy game on theory. So yeah, a) it might break things and b) they would absolutely want to check if it did.

    • Lacero says:

      Nim, read up an aliasing assumptions and optimisation. A lot of really good optimisations require assumptions that are true 99% of the time and that the compiler cannot detect and the language cannot express.

    • cliffski says:

      If I read this right, and they basically shipped the debug build, they are flipping clueless, I don’t care how they try to excuse it.

      What priogrammer does not check their code runs fine on a routine basis by dioing (at least) weekly runthroughs in release mode? Surely something is getting mistranslated because if a multi-million dollar game is being shipped in debug build due to incompetence, then the lead coder should have his ass kicked out of the door.

      I honestly can’t believe that is the correct explanation, because it’s absolutely unthinkable for anyone but an inexperienced hobbyist developer. I’m pretty crap, and even I have never shipped a debug build :D

    • Lacero says:

      I’ve never seen a debug build of a game run that fast. It has to be something else. But yeah it does look like that.

    • Xerian says:

      I havent tried this, and dont intend to as I havent experienced any FPS drops that werent simply slight, small and subtle. (I go down by about 4-6 in Markath, which is the biggest drop I’ve experienced in about 200~ playhours, and I havent experienced any bugs at all, except for the usual Bethesda-hillarious-Physics-bugs, lucky me I guess.) Anyhow; This was posted by Calabi just below this…
      “It increases my peformance alot in certain citys, by up to 7fps, but now some events dont happen as they should. Like the first fight at the beginning of the game.”
      So its most / somewhat likely fiddling / meddling with something it shouldnt.

      EDIT: Besides, what do we need it for? We’ve got this lovely mod, which will surely make the game much, much better!

  10. Calabi says:

    It increases my peformance alot in certain citys, by up to 7fps, but now some events dont happen as they should. Like the first fight at the beginning of the game.

  11. Blackcompany says:

    I have read a good half dozen mod descriptions for Gamebryo based games such as Fallout New Vegas, Oblivion and now Skyrim. (And these are built on Gamebryo, even if a new and slightly updated version thereof.) Each has claimed – usually using some sort of highly technical jargon – to vastly improve FPS/Performance and to greatly reduce stutter/bugs/crashes.
    What I tend to look for is a detailed explanation as to *how* these mods operate. Also, in the case of plugins using dll files, open source code. If the mod maker cannot produce either of these things I tend to steer clear of them. I hope this works for some who needs it – I really don’t anyway, since this game has never really had issues with FPS – but for myself…no thanks.
    I will wait for official patches and explanations of how exactly these things work, in layman’s terms. If I don’t understand a mod or plugin well enough to trouble shoot potential problems with I do not feel comfortable using it. And I for one cannot understand the jargon used here.

    • binaryv01d says:

      The source code’s available in this thread.

    • LionsPhil says:

      “I want to know exactly how it works, but I don’t want any exact wording”.

      Cool argument bro.

    • Calabi says:

      He does explain it, its not his fault you cant understand, why should he have to spend more time explaining so idiots can understand(whom cant google).

    • steviesteveo says:

      I can’t be the only person who detests this behaviour in my day job. People who demand to know exactly (in detail!) what’s going on but, when it’s spelled out to them, complain about not understanding “jargon” are just despicable people. Argh.

    • Devan says:

      You have to realize that not everything can be explained in layman’s terms without teaching the subject from the ground up. Or at least, not explained well enough for someone to troubleshoot problems based on it.
      If you want to be able to troubleshoot then by all means roll your sleeves up and dig in and be willing to spend the time to learn new things. If you don’t have time to do that then you can either continue to mistrust things you don’t understand (not necessarily a bad choice), or take a risk on the author knowing what he’s doing (and you can always uninstall the mod if it doesn’t work right).

    • XerBlade says:

      “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” – Albert Einstein

      The excuse that “highly-technical” things can’t be explained to “idiots” is merely used to cover up the fact that the person giving the excuse doesn’t understand anything either and is trying to sound superior by insulting someone else who also doesn’t understand it.

    • CMaster says:


      Jargon exists for a reason. It’s often used excessively and unnecessarily. However sometimes there is no short way of describing things without using technical terms. You want a programming problem and solution explaining, somewhere along the line you’re going to have to learn something about programming.

    • Inverness says:


      Quoting Einstein doesn’t suddenly make you correct in this argument. The explanation for the necessity of the changes is quite sufficient. Floating point operations can be optimized for accuracy, speed, or a balance of the two. Getters in C++ are functions that retrieve the attributes of an object as opposed to being able to access them directly as that violates OOP principles. Compilers optimize this away with inlining if you need it to remove the overhead of a method call.

    • drewski says:

      I think use of jargon is more often an example of inability to communicate effectively than lack of understanding.

      If you’re not used to rewording concepts for a lay audience on the fly – which most techies aren’t, because they very, very rarely deal with a truly lay audience in the tech field – then it can be very difficult to communicate in language you’re basically completely unfamiliar with in that context.

      But that doesn’t mean it can’t be done – however it’s often very hard, which is why I personally think the ability to communicate knowledge is much more impressive than the ability to attain it.

    • Saldek says:


      “‘If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.’ – Albert Einstein”
      It’s a decent sentiment, but can easily become a defense for the opposite problem, i.e. rejecting explanations that contain unfamiliar concept, introduce new terms or become elaborate to reconcile subject complexity with explanatory simplicity. Taken to seriously, his own aphorism would probably suggest that Einstein never understood his own theories.

    • steviesteveo says:

      Einstein also said “Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

      There really are things in this world that just can’t be reduced to two stick figures drawn in crayon no matter how well you know your stuff.

      Remember, the original post that started this thread was from someone who wanted modders to provide a detailed explanation of exactly what their mods did without getting technical, pointing out they couldn’t understand the jargon.

    • MadMinstrel says:

      Inverness: I’d just like to point out that using attributes directly doesn’t really violate any OOP principles. It is a bug waiting to happen though so you use getters and setters to do sanity checks on the values.

  12. DigitalSignalX says:

    Breaking game play events in favor of frame lag is not a good trade. Better to have crusty looking shadows or glassy water and still have scripts function correctly.

  13. Lobotomist says:

    What about ENBseries patch ?

    It came out few days after Skyrim was released , and it fixed pretty nasty bug, where WinXP users with dual core processors, had random 4-7 second freezes. And it also improves performance for at least 10 fps.

    Wouldnt even consider running game without it.

    • Stevostin says:

      ENSB ? I tried it for GTA IV and FNV. Crap each time. Fps drop, no real visual improvement. I’ve yet to see a mod that makes the game seriously better. Some improve the look, but at a big FPS cost. Some degrades it, at a big FPS cost too.

      That being said, the .ini edit of skyrim was a big pay off with a more powerful CG. But that’s different : IMO those options are here precisely because Bethesda thinks PC. Not everything makes sense in an in game menu if you can edit it in a txt file and need to relaunch anyway.

    • Lobotomist says:

      It fixed freezing, many users experienced.

  14. LionsPhil says:

    Changing build options would, for any place that isn’t a complete shambles, require retesting.
    Retesting costs money.
    Bethsda are very, very unlikely to ever make this change official.

    • MaXimillion says:

      That’s what beta testing is for.

    • Nim says:

      Simply switching on 02 or 03 in a compiler should not need additional testing. The code is guaranteed to work exactly as it did before the change.

    • Jabberwocky says:

      > “Simply switching on 02 or 03 in a compiler should not need additional testing. The code is guaranteed to work exactly as it did before”

      You may want to cover your ears, lest you be deafened by my booming laughter.

    • BrettW says:

      @Nim: If compilers worked like you claim, there wouldn’t be a switch. It’d be automatic because everyone likes fast code, right?

      Optimization flags aren’t guaranteed to give correct performance, or even better performance. They *should* in many cases, but does not in all. I’ve seen compilers produce flaky assembly or even slower programs jumping from -O2 to -O3. For something as big (code-wise and commercially) as Skyrim, I’m pretty sure they didn’t put all their faith in a “should”.

    • drewski says:

      Or maybe they did, notice that “should” or not, it broke something, and didn’t have time to fix whatever it broke so they just recompiled the version they knew worked.

    • LintMan says:

      Like Drewski said, most likely something broke or got flakey when the optimizations were turned on, so they did the expedient thing and just disabled them instead of trying to track down the problem. Given Bethesda’s post-release support track record, this will likely never be fixed.

    • jalf says:

      Simply switching on 02 or 03 in a compiler should not need additional testing. The code is guaranteed to work exactly as it did before the change.

      Well, yeah, assuming (a) a bug-free compiler, and (b) that the game’s source code is bug-free.

      We know for a fact that neither assumption is true. Which means that turning on optimizations *can* break things.

      If (and admittedly this would be stupid, but not unheard of) they haven’t regularly tested the game with optimizations enabled, then they’d have suddenly found themselves with a working unoptimized game near the release date, they tried to flick on optimizations, and it crashed spectacularly.

      Then they’d have two options: fix their code, or release without optimizations.

      Of course, if you know what you’re doing, then testing with optimizations enabled should happen throughout development, just so you know it works, and because it flushes out bugs that weren’t apparent in a debug build.

      But please, if you think that enabling optimizations cannot break code, then you’ve been extremely lucky to only ever have to deal with very small, very robust and very well-written applications.

      Optimization flags aren’t guaranteed to give correct performance, or even better performance

      Well, yes they are. If given correct input, then the entire point in optimizations is that they speed things up without changing the semantics of the program. So yes, that is precisely what they guarantee. Of course, if the compiler contains bugs, they might not be able to live up to that guarantee, but the promise of optimization flags is still that the do not change the behavior of your code.

      However, if your own code is buggy and relies on undefined behavior in the language, then all bets are off, and the compiler is under no obligation to produce a program that behaves at all like you expected.

  15. MooseMuffin says:

    Where is the author getting the source code to modify and recompile?

    • BrettW says:

      They aren’t. They’re looking through the disassembly, finding things that look like unoptimized code and rewriting it where they can. It’s like rewriting someone’s novel by looking at it a few words at a time. Sometimes you can compress a wordy statement into something more concise. Sometimes you mess up the sentence because you don’t have access to the given context.

    • Joras says:

      In this case the optimizations they’re doing are a bit like moving critical citations from the appendix to the bottom of the page.

  16. Was Neurotic says:

    What fucking frame rate drops?

  17. Solidstate89 says:

    Yeah, the one thing I have not had a problem with was frame rate drops. The most I would notice was momentarily when entering a city and having everything load. But after a second or so, it’s all back to normal. I built my machine to pretty much brute force its way through anything, and so far it’s been able to do that. Even with Saints Row 2.

  18. The Sombrero Kid says:

    If bethesda had forgot to compole with optimisations, the performace difference would be 1000% not 40% changing dissassembly like this is more likely to break your game than it us to improve performance

  19. Weylund The Second says:

    Good lord. I just had a glance at the source. The chances of breaking something look pretty astronomical, depending on how the Bethesda folks built the game. Since the patch author couldn’t have had the slightest inkling as to how they did it, I’d trust this thing as far as I can throw it. And it’s on the internet, meaning I can’t throw it at all.

    Probably true too: if optimizations had been turned off entirely you can bet performance would be a hell of a lot worse than is currently reported.

    Last, depending on how and what they’re linking, /GL might actually cause trouble. WPO still isn’t perfect. So acting like Bethesda was remiss to *not* do it is naive. Again, you haven’t seen their code, you don’t know how they’re building it or what libraries they’re using… it’s dangerous to make assumptions, and foolish to act on them.

  20. Llamageddon says:

    Well I am going to test broken scripted events with a new save but I can certainly confirm a frame rate increase at particularly low FPS areas of the game. Looking at the tree in Whiterun from the top of the steps to the Jarl’s palace I go from 12-13 FPS to 16, in Markath I went from 9 fps to 13. Only reason I am happy playing at such low FPS is that in the wilderness I very rarely drop below 25 FPS. (I do have a silly amount of custom HD textures installed and a tweaked ENB patch).

    Can anyone confirm that my Athlon 64 X2 6000+ is probably bottlenecking my Radeon HD 6950 (2GB) in this game? I thought it was still quite a competent processor. Maybe time to see if overclocking gets me some extra FPS.

    For reference I am running the game with 4GB Ram, max view distance and at 1980×1024 res with 2x AA and 16x antistropy so I realise I can’t expect blazing FPS. It doesn’t sound like I should be too far behind Alec’s capabilities though. Damn I want uGridstoload=11!

    • kemryl says:

      Since Bethesda apparently decided to use the CPU to render shadows in Skyrim, yes, that processor is without a doubt a bottleneck.

      They were a decent line of processors, I had a 4200+ a few years back and it did the trick in most games for a good long while. However, now that quad core processors are almost standard on even budget laptops, it probably is about time you upgraded, especially if you want to get your money’s worth from that GPU.

      I don’t know your mod configuration, but I think it’s possible that you could get as much as a 20-30 FPS boost in Skyrim if you replaced your processor, perhaps even larger gains.

  21. ALJA says:

    I haven’t read all the comments, so I am not sure if it has been mentioned, but this has the unfortunate side effect of breaking some scripted sequences in quests

  22. deadly.by.design says:

    This gives me an increase of ~5-7 FPS, ranging from +10-20% increase. (Win7x64, Q6600, 4GB 1066, GTX 460 1GB)

  23. povu says:

    “At least they’ve now patched it to support more than 2GB of RAM and high-quality sound. ”

    Where did you read that high-quality sound thing?

    • Hematite says:

      Early on there was a bug which caused crashes if your windows sound sampling rate was over 44KHz (or something), I think it was fixed in the first patch. I wouldn’t say ‘supported’ so much as ‘ceased to break’ high quality sound.

  24. Fiatil says:

    Everyone, as far as I can see, in the forum thread for this that has tested it says that it breaks a lot of scripting. It’s most notable and easily testable if you start a new game; apparently scripts that make the two sides fight in the intro and the one to make parts of the building collapse wont fire at all.

  25. terry says:

    The only thing Markath needs is flattened >:(

  26. Llamageddon says:

    New version is out in the currently active thread on the Beth forums, a lot, if not most/all of the scripting bugs appear to have been ironed out in this hotfix and there is a more polished re-release in the works once some more testing has been done. It does boggle the mind that Bethesda could have missed simply ticking some boxes to optimise the code for PC so I won’t be surprised if this does turn out to be too good to be true.

  27. snozberry says:

    I have a lot of mods running and don’t made to not feel comfortable launching the game from any other shell than the Nexus Mod Manager (where I manage all of my mods…), if I launch the game with this SKSE shell instead of with NMM, will all of my mods work properly? I know that’s a more complicated question than just a simple yes or no and does not come without caveats, but from someone else’s experience, is it okay?

    Thanks and peacies.

    • Dominic White says:

      The script extender was NEEDED by most Oblivion mods, and it’ll be the same for most Skyrim mods. So yeah, don’t worry about it.

    • behippo says:

      SKSE doesn’t do anything about selecting which mods to run – that is handled in the “normal” fashion either through the standard Skyrim Launcher or through another tool like NMM. SKSE does launch the plugins written for it if they are in the proper directory.

      As for trusting 3rd party code and launchers, you’ll have to make your own judgement there. We’ve released source code for each version of the ScriptExtender (OBSE for Oblivion, FOSE for Fallout 3, NVSE for Fallout New Vegas, and now SKSE for Skyrim). Much of our code remains the same as the internals are all based on the same basic engine. Many, many Oblivion mods used OBSE and the latest version (v20) has had close to 1 million downloads since it was released earlier this year. We’re trusted in the BGS mod community.

      As for the Accelerator – it is targeted at the hot spots in the game. The folks who worked on it (including ianpatt, also from the SKSE team) profiled the game to see what chunks of code were taking up the most time on a consistent basis. Much of the Skyrim code is not as optimal as it could be. It doesn’t seem to target the modern processors the way it should and does some very strange things allocating lots of tiny chunks of data. The code fixes in the Accelerator (as I understand them) introduce more streamlined assembly code which achieves the same result as the hot paths of code, and uses more modern calls available on the processors.

      The script bug was introduced by a typo in one line of assembly code. The latest version has that code fixed and reports show that the main scripting problems have been sorted out.

  28. fgfdgfdh says:

    ==== http://.surprisefirms.com/==== hello everyone if you like to order anything you like. More details, please just browse our website Quality is our Dignity; Service is our Lift. enjoy yourself. thank you!! ====http://.surprisefirms.com/ ====

  29. perablenta says:

    Game is simply to complex to think one, or two specific things drop my, or your framerate.

    I have had the game run at 60fps for hours, I have had the game go 60-50-40-50-60 up and down for hours. It went down and up every time I alt-tab-ed out and into the game. It went to 15 when I looked in front of me in the middle of nowhere and to 60 when I look at the sky or at my feet, in dark dungeons it goes down to 35 in bright dungeons it goes down to 30, then tomorrow similar dungeons it rock solid 55…

    Its just to complex…

  30. MythArcana says:

    My Skyrim experience thus far (with HD and misc mods) has consisted of 30% of my game time looking at the loading screen. This amounts to some serious time after character level 40 and I just don’t see wasting my life waiting for levels to load on a semi-high end machine.

    Back to Stone Soup…

    • The Tupper says:

      My PC’s bloody ancient and Skyrim runs like shit off a shovel (translation for non-UK residents: it’s fast).

      Possibly some problem other than the game itself?

  31. FeepingCreature says:

    Is the article seriously saying that Bethesda shipped the debug version? That’s not a slight error, it’s (to quote Sarda the Sage) amateur hour horseshit.

    I mean either this was the most rushed release ever or the modder is wrong or Bethesda’s release management consists of a monkey on speed.

  32. rattatosk says:

    33% off now on Steam
    Bought it

  33. enobayram says:

    I wonder if that means the previous build was a debug build, with all the symbols. That would expose them to serious decompilation. It’s almost like giving away the source code! I always check 10 times before I start sending around executables.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>