192 mattking2010 Members 328 posts Report post #1 Posted July 8, 2015 As the owner of some really powerful computers, I tend to use SweetFX on everything I play to make things look even higher end. Should we get to work on improving the graphics with third party tools? I think so, the results from this thread look.. Remarkable! http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/7861-sweetfx/#topmost Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
8 Tayzer2 Members 42 posts 480 battles Report post #2 Posted July 8, 2015 ^^^ I so agree. Those screenies look absolutely amazing! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
142 [D4NCE] Beerstein Alpha Tester 524 posts 49 battles Report post #3 Posted July 8, 2015 It definitely looks worse with SweetFX in my opinion. Water is super hard to work with to get looking even remotely real and this takes away from what the devs put in to make it look how it does, the clouds also look a LOT worse. If you go into most any game with water and lower the graphics settings on water it'll look like what you got with SweetFX, if you raise them it'll look more like how it looks without it. So in most games if you prefer the shiny unrealistic water you have the option to just lower the settings on it. The short of it is that it really does look a lot better without SweetFX, but if you want flashy and shiny then I guess it's an option for you. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
192 mattking2010 Members 328 posts Report post #4 Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) Before/After. Seems to me the graphics are pretty bad without it, I love how it accentuates the finer details, the models come to life. Edited July 8, 2015 by mattking2010 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
142 [D4NCE] Beerstein Alpha Tester 524 posts 49 battles Report post #5 Posted July 8, 2015 Before/After. Seems to me the graphics are pretty bad without it, I love how it accentuates the finer details, the models come to life. It feels like it's actually removing a lot of the blending/depth/realism. It's meant to look that way and it's not an accident or lack of graphics/graphical ability that makes the original how it is, quite the opposite actually. Again if you prefer that crisp feel of the models then great you have a way to get that but I prefer the original. The short of it is that the graphics aren't "bad without it" they're just working as designed and intended. The ones with SweetFX remind me of Ruinberg on fire, man I hated that map, felt like they unleashed a kid with an editing program on it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2,197 [KMS2] Legendary_Typo Members 10,919 posts 4,863 battles Report post #6 Posted July 8, 2015 It definitely looks worse with SweetFX in my opinion. Water is super hard to work with to get looking even remotely real and this takes away from what the devs put in to make it look how it does, the clouds also look a LOT worse. If you go into most any game with water and lower the graphics settings on water it'll look like what you got with SweetFX, if you raise them it'll look more like how it looks without it. So in most games if you prefer the shiny unrealistic water you have the option to just lower the settings on it. The short of it is that it really does look a lot better without SweetFX, but if you want flashy and shiny then I guess it's an option for you. To me, it looks like in the example posted, it just makes the day look like an afternoon even though the clouds look like it's at a time where there's little light. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1 djredden Beta Testers 32 posts 1,293 battles Report post #7 Posted July 8, 2015 wow i want my game to look like that. looks like it is time to upgrade to a non-integrated graphic card Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
142 [D4NCE] Beerstein Alpha Tester 524 posts 49 battles Report post #8 Posted July 8, 2015 To me, it looks like in the example posted, it just makes the day look like an afternoon even though the clouds look like it's at a time where there's little light. The one on the left is original and yeah the lighting looks right on it IMO. The one on the right as you mentioned is very bright for so many clouds. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
192 mattking2010 Members 328 posts Report post #9 Posted July 8, 2015 I think the game has pretty low end graphics right now, even on ultra. I will be tweaking SweetFx this evening. I tend to prefer more crisp models, better AA, and detailed environments. I think WG 'washes out' much of their game to mask the lower end graphics they deliver, but they over-mask. Removal of some of the mask actually seems to offer a pretty dramatic improvement in the way the game looks. But it does require more horsepower to do this! (which may be why they mask/blend so heavily) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
5 [DUDES] Tiu501 Beta Testers 80 posts 10,457 battles Report post #10 Posted July 8, 2015 To me it looks like someone cleaned the right side of a dirty lens. Right side looks clearer to me. Not as hazy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
29 SquareCanine Alpha Tester 111 posts 293 battles Report post #11 Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) The nice thing about SweetFX is that it's user side, so you can do it totally to personal taste, or not at all. I've used it on and off for WoT, though I have a lot of problems with snow and HDR. Expect the same problem with Icebergs in WoWS. What I would really like to see is a working ENB for WoT and WoWS both. It's much harder to get an ENB working for a game, but it offers many more effects, including true HDR. Heck, you could add ambient occlusion to WoT, which would look quite nice I think for those city battles. I might give SweetFX a shot though. I tend to favour a little extra saturation and contrast. Not the same game, but this is an example of what a properly tuned ENB can do for a game: Unfortunately, I haven't seen anyone get an ENB working for WoT since 2012, and I don't have the know how to do it myself. Edited July 8, 2015 by SquareCanine Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
192 mattking2010 Members 328 posts Report post #12 Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) To me it looks like someone cleaned the right side of a dirty lens. Right side looks clearer to me. Not as hazy. Exactly. I can confirm STOCK SweetFX offers a remarkable improvement.. Sharpens things up - or 'cleans the lense' as you say.. Also it fixes the terrible antialiasing issue on the wires/railings on ships! I grabbed it from here; https://sfx.thelazy.net/downloads/ SweetFX 2.0 (Preview 8 | ReShade 0.19.0) SweetFX 2.0 (Preview 8) by CeeJay.dk | ReShade 0.19.0 by Crosire 23 Jun 15:28 CEST I used that one, used the Setup file, pointed to WOWS EXE file (NOT the launcher, the actual game file!).. Exited, loaded game like normal, then once in hit scroll-lock to see it on and off. On it looks much much better, like someone cleaned it up, polished it, and fixed the rendering bugs.. After a few matches I can confirm it doesn't crash the game at all, or impact gameplay. It just looks a whole lot better. Edited July 8, 2015 by mattking2010 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
192 mattking2010 Members 328 posts Report post #13 Posted July 8, 2015 Snapped this as the game closed a match and shaded out. But you can see the wires are 'fixed' (or at least - 99% improved). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
726 RogueFlameHaze Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters 8,843 posts 7,637 battles Report post #14 Posted July 8, 2015 Why does it look like it just brightened the screen and slapped "cloudy day" as a background for the sky? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
192 mattking2010 Members 328 posts Report post #15 Posted July 8, 2015 Interesting thing I noticed. WG appears to have applied a 'blur' filter to the entire game. SweetFX turns it off, and everything just looks MUCH better. Why would they intentionally degrade game graphics? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
142 [D4NCE] Beerstein Alpha Tester 524 posts 49 battles Report post #16 Posted July 8, 2015 Interesting thing I noticed. WG appears to have applied a 'blur' filter to the entire game. SweetFX turns it off, and everything just looks MUCH better. Why would they intentionally degrade game graphics? Blending, hide small issues. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
192 mattking2010 Members 328 posts Report post #17 Posted July 8, 2015 Here's a good example of stock SweetFX+Reshade in operation on your wonderfully loved Warspite. The results speak for themselves, I can't even stand to look at the game without it, it makes me think my glasses are dirty. Without SweetFx. (ULTRA setting) With SweetFX+Reshade 2.0 on 'default'. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
304 MobileChernobyl Alpha Tester 1,152 posts 1,454 battles Report post #18 Posted July 8, 2015 Where is this, I demand a link to this now! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
5 [DUDES] Tiu501 Beta Testers 80 posts 10,457 battles Report post #19 Posted July 8, 2015 The link is above. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
192 mattking2010 Members 328 posts Report post #20 Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) I still can't get over how it appears they purposely made the graphics poorer. What's the logic? They spent all of this time on gorgeous models, then added Vaseline to the lens? Look at how glorious the Aurora looks with the mod.. It's like a whole new game.. My son said "Wow! I can see the wood planks, and even the variations in each plank!"... Pretty much sums it up. Edited July 9, 2015 by mattking2010 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
192 mattking2010 Members 328 posts Report post #21 Posted July 9, 2015 Bumping. For those that want 'good' graphics in the game! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
8 Tayzer2 Members 42 posts 480 battles Report post #22 Posted July 9, 2015 I set it up yesterday and am pleased with the results. The SweetFX Configurator...Genius! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1,440 Sirus_Patton Members 3,243 posts 1,579 battles Report post #23 Posted July 9, 2015 Absolutely stumped, system specs in sig and yet it won't load ship models after setting up sweetfx. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
87 [-APE-] Handies Beta Testers 290 posts 254 battles Report post #24 Posted July 9, 2015 Absolutely stumped, system specs in sig and yet it won't load ship models after setting up sweetfx. My computer is miles ahead of what this game needs to run and it always takes a good couple of minutes to load up ships at the start of the game(Vanilla) CPU: Intel 5820k Oced to 4.0ghz Mobo: Asus x99-A RAM: Kingston HyperX16gb Ddr4 2133mhz GPU: Evga 980 HD(s): Samsung 850EVO 250 GB SSD & Western Digital Black 1Tb PSU: Evga G2 1000w 80+ Gold Case: Corsair 750D Mouse: Razer Deathadder Chroma K/B: Razer Blackwidow Chroma Headset: Astro A40 Gen 2 Monitor(s): ASUS 27" LED x2NZXT Kraken x61 (One for gpu and cpu Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1,440 Sirus_Patton Members 3,243 posts 1,579 battles Report post #25 Posted July 9, 2015 My computer is miles ahead of what this game needs to run and it always takes a good couple of minutes to load up ships at the start of the game(Vanilla) CPU: Intel 5820k Oced to 4.0ghz Mobo: Asus x99-A RAM: Kingston HyperX16gb Ddr4 2133mhz GPU: Evga 980 HD(s): Samsung 850EVO 250 GB SSD & Western Digital Black 1Tb PSU: Evga G2 1000w 80+ Gold Case: Corsair 750D Mouse: Razer Deathadder Chroma K/B: Razer Blackwidow Chroma Headset: Astro A40 Gen 2 Monitor(s): ASUS 27" LED x2NZXT Kraken x61 (One for gpu and cpu I had to change some settings in sweetfx, because after 5 minutes and not loading the model something had to be wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
