Tramp Stamps - A Collection Of SlaveTats Packs

[TarnisMartell]

just continue, this is great work

[Adeladen]

2 minutes ago, TarnisMartell said:

just continue, this is great work

Thanks

 

This is really good timing actually, I just uploaded the beginning of the rough pack. As I say in the mod page there's gonna be a lot more in that one, I just wanted to get something out for now.

[King-Crimson]

2 minutes ago, Adeladen said:

Thanks

 

This is really good timing actually, I just uploaded the beginning of the rough pack. As I say in the mod page there's gonna be a lot more in that one, I just wanted to get something out for now.

Niiiiiiiiiiiiice!

[Adeladen]

Fuck I just noticed I forgot about one of the fonts I was considering, which do you guys prefer?  

The top one is the one I used for the pack, but if you guys like the bottom more I can re do it in that one.

[Aki K]

13 minutes ago, Adeladen said:

Fuck I just noticed I forgot about one of the fonts I was considering, which do you guys prefer? 

Spoiler

 

The top one is the one I used for the pack, but if you guys like the bottom more I can re do it in that one.

I think I like the top one better.

[PubliusNV]

2 hours ago, Aki K said:

I think I like the top one better.

I agree.

[TarnisMartell]

I agree as well! Top one seems more "real" for ... this ... ;P

the second one more like a comic style

[Aki K]

I also think it would just fit on the body better it terms of spacing.

[Adeladen]

True true, I'll go with top, thanks guys.

[sidfu]

for rape tats comp its not to hard. u just in the dds name of the file u include the area for it. this also be for none RT users as it tell them whe4re it be. so say left breast would be LBrst and such.

[Adeladen]

2 hours ago, sidfu said:

for rape tats comp its not to hard. u just in the dds name of the file u include the area for it. this also be for none RT users as it tell them whe4re it be. so say left breast would be LBrst and such.

It's not the name of the file though, it's the name in the JSON. I already made a modified version of it for rapetats 

 

[Clockwinding]

Hey,

 

Nice job on the packs. However... they're so, so heavy! How is the pack 8Gigs for writing? my whole slavetats folder was 1.7GB before your pack (and it's got quite a few in it), it's kinda crazy. I've seen it's because of what software you use and your unrelenting value for quality, but it's just too heavy for me (space wise, not really performance wise).

Do you have some compression available/advice to do it myself in batch maybe? Not gonna lie my disk space is getting tight (that's my own problem/fault though), so I'd really appreciate a way to make your packs less hungry.

 

Thanks in advance and please continue showering us with your content.

[Adeladen]

24 minutes ago, Clockwinding said:

Hey,

 

Nice job on the packs. However... they're so, so heavy! How is the pack 8Gigs for writing? my whole slavetats folder was 1.7GB before your pack (and it's got quite a few in it), it's kinda crazy. I've seen it's because of what software you use and your unrelenting value for quality, but it's just too heavy for me (space wise, not really performance wise).

Do you have some compression available/advice to do it myself in batch maybe? Not gonna lie my disk space is getting tight (that's my own problem/fault though), so I'd really appreciate a way to make your packs less hungry.

 

Thanks in advance and please continue showering us with your content.

It's 8 gigs because a lot of packs don't have mipmaps, which can reduce performance, and I use mudbox to place the tattoos better for less stretching, which increases the file size quite a bit for reasons I'm not quite sure of. And probably the biggest reason is they're just high resolution, when you look at this screenshot from the slavetats page, you can see how very pixellated it is, while mine have little to no pixellation. 

 

And I just now read that you already know why they're big, oops, don't know how I missed that part, still gonna keep this explanation in case you learn anything from it.

 

I was able to use https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrimspecialedition/mods/23316 to generate mipmaps in batch when I learned about them, and it has stuff for compression and resizing of textures too, but unfortunately I wasn't able to make it work just now when I tested it, not sure if it's on my end or if it can't do anything with dds files. Maybe you can make it work.

 

@GrimReaperCalls was able to make the tattoos pngs, making them 100kb instead of 80mb, but I don't know if he did it manually one by one or with a batch thing somehow, 

 

If you just want to compress them without that, then just look up something that batch compresses dds files, I'm sure there's something out there.

 

Will do, but more in moderation this time, I went a bit too hard before.

 

Edit: just noticed the mod broke 10k downloads yay ?

[GrimReaperCalls]

12 minutes ago, Adeladen said:

 

@GrimReaperCalls was able to make the tattoos pngs, making them 100kb instead of 80mb, but I don't know if he did it manually one by one or with a batch thing somehow, 

 

 

I just googled a .dds to .png converter (which isn't perfect as it crashes after 3 files, but hey, freeware) and batch changed the extension to dds with command prompt. If you are fine with it I can either send it to you to put on in the downloads of the mod (with a big warning considering what Aki K told us about lack of mipmaps). Or I can attach it to a comment. It is however a few version out of date (3.2). 

 

12 minutes ago, Adeladen said:

Edit: just noticed the mod broke 10k downloads yay ?

Well deserved!

[Adeladen]

5 minutes ago, GrimReaperCalls said:

I just googled a .dds to .png converter (which isn't perfect as it crashes after 3 files, but hey, freeware) and batch changed the extension to dds with command prompt. If you are fine with it I can either send it to you to put on in the downloads of the mod (with a big warning considering what Aki K told us about lack of mipmaps). Or I can attach it to a comment. It is however a few version out of date (3.2). 

 

Well deserved!

Googling it gives me several results, I imagine there's one that doesn't crash after 3 files? Maybe? 

 

That's a good idea, but do you think you could update it to the newest version? Or I could I suppose. I just don't want to put something outdated on there.

 

Thanks  

 

By the way, what does your signature mean? Every time I read it I wonder wtf it means and can't figure it out.

[GrimReaperCalls]

8 minutes ago, Adeladen said:

That's a good idea, but do you think you could update it to the newest version? Or I could I suppose. I just don't want to put something outdated on there.

 

I'll get on it. Do you remember which files you changed for 3.2.1? I can just redo the lot of them otherwise, shouldn't take too long (tm).

 

8 minutes ago, Adeladen said:

 

By the way, what does your signature mean? Every time I read it I wonder wtf it means and can't figure it out.

The "Please" is not a body part? At this point it's an outdated, and rather morbid, quote from the Game of Thrones series. Ramsay says it to Theon at one point. Google "ramsay please is not a body part" for the full exchange. In other words, it's utterly meaningless and I don't remember why I put it?

[Yuni]

On 3/24/2020 at 2:55 PM, Adeladen said:

Is there a reason you used dick instead of cock? Like do you prefer dick over cock or did you just type what popped into your head first? I'm gonna go with cock either way, I'm just curious.

Habit. I do a lot of textual role play, and synonyms keep things from sounding dull and repetitive when you have to refer to the same object many times in one paragraph. I call shit all kinds of crazy shit.

[Aki K]

3 hours ago, GrimReaperCalls said:

I just googled a .dds to .png converter (which isn't perfect as it crashes after 3 files, but hey, freeware) and batch changed the extension to dds with command prompt. If you are fine with it I can either send it to you to put on in the downloads of the mod (with a big warning considering what Aki K told us about lack of mipmaps). Or I can attach it to a comment. It is however a few version out of date (3.2). 

 

Well deserved!

Regarding conversion to pngs, I don't know that pngs can do mipmaps.  In my limited experience it's a no.  I think the better route is to find a way to compress .dds files, or figure out why mudbox inflates file sizes.

 

The current method is the only way I know to make tats.  My hand isn't steady enough to do fine tuning to fit them on a body any other way (and I don't even know how).

 

If a reliable way of compressing them is found I would be interested to know.  My own space is starting to run thin, but I also compulsively keep a hard copy of all the mods I use (in case a new version breaks something or a mod author removes their work).

[Adeladen]

10 hours ago, GrimReaperCalls said:

I'll get on it. Do you remember which files you changed for 3.2.1? I can just redo the lot of them otherwise, shouldn't take too long (tm).

 

The "Please" is not a body part? At this point it's an outdated, and rather morbid, quote from the Game of Thrones series. Ramsay says it to Theon at one point. Google "ramsay please is not a body part" for the full exchange. In other words, it's utterly meaningless and I don't remember why I put it?

You can check the update log thingy, I'm not gonna remember more than that says. I think minor fixes just refers to the JSON having some errors.

 

Ah yeah I remember that quote now.

9 hours ago, Yuni said:

Habit. I do a lot of textual role play, and synonyms keep things from sounding dull and repetitive when you have to refer to the same object many times in one paragraph. I call shit all kinds of crazy shit.

You say that and yet you only referred to it as dick >_> 

7 hours ago, Aki K said:

The current method is the only way I know to make tats.  My hand isn't steady enough to do fine tuning to fit them on a body any other way (and I don't even know how).

I don't think it's a matter of a steady hand, I think it's just basically impossible to place them directly on a UV map without stretching.

[Clockwinding]

13 hours ago, Adeladen said:

It's 8 gigs because a lot of packs don't have mipmaps, which can reduce performance, and I use mudbox to place the tattoos better for less stretching, which increases the file size quite a bit for reasons I'm not quite sure of. And probably the biggest reason is they're just high resolution, when you look at this screenshot from the slavetats page, you can see how very pixellated it is, while mine have little to no pixellation. 

 

And I just now read that you already know why they're big, oops, don't know how I missed that part, still gonna keep this explanation in case you learn anything from it.

 

I was able to use https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrimspecialedition/mods/23316 to generate mipmaps in batch when I learned about them, and it has stuff for compression and resizing of textures too, but unfortunately I wasn't able to make it work just now when I tested it, not sure if it's on my end or if it can't do anything with dds files. Maybe you can make it work.

 

@GrimReaperCalls was able to make the tattoos pngs, making them 100kb instead of 80mb, but I don't know if he did it manually one by one or with a batch thing somehow, 

 

If you just want to compress them without that, then just look up something that batch compresses dds files, I'm sure there's something out there.

 

Will do, but more in moderation this time, I went a bit too hard before.

 

Edit: just noticed the mod broke 10k downloads yay ?

I'll give the CAO tool a try, it looks quite a bit better than oldish LE texture optimizer (which did all or nothing...). Thanks!

[GrimReaperCalls]

So, this is gonna be a bit of a lengthy post, but TLDR: There's really a huge impact on performance and memory load (both system memory and VRAM) between using the "no-mipmaps-png" and DXT5 dds with mipmaps.

 

I decided to test just what kind of impact the "png-turned-dds", that I've been using, have on loading times, system memory, and VRAM.

 

I used 5 tattoos from the "Rough" pack, CD, MMG, BABYL, SLAPR, STCL, FTR. Loaded up a new save in the bannered mare, recorded the working set RAM-usage of TES5.exe and enbhost.exe (kb), and the VRAM-usage (MB) of my graphics card, before adding any tattoos. Then applied the 5 tattoos, measured the time it took for all of them to apply, and recorded the same parameters as before once they finished loading. Repeated 5 times for the tattoos in pure .dds DXT5-formats. Presenting the averages here, and I will attach the raw data to the comment.

 

Results for tattoos using DXT5, with mipmaps

Before applying tats:

enbhost: 1230356kb

TES5: 684802kb

VRAM: 2841MB

 

After applying tats (percentage increase in parenthesis):

enbhost: 1745818kb (42% increase)

TES5: 682309kb (1% increase, negligible imo)

VRAM: 3325MB (17% increase)

 

Time taken for all tats to load: 3.9s

 

 

Results for tattoos using png, no mipmaps (4 completed attemps):

Before applying tats:

enbhost: 1229127kb

TES5: 687082kb

VRAM: 2874MB

 

After applying tats (percentage increase in parenthesis):

enbhost: 3316887 (170% increase)

TES5: 693072kb (<1% increase, negligible imo)

VRAM: 4875MB (70% increase)

 

Time taken for all tats to load: 17.5s

 

 

I also experienced 2 failed attemps at loading the tats when applying 5 at once (resulting in a blue body). 

 

So not only does it take far longer to apply the tattoos, from ~4s to >17s (presumably also affecting loading times of saves with tattoos applied after game restart), but it also takes up much more system memory and VRAM (42%->170% and 17%->70% respectively). If you've got a lot of headroom for both, maybe it's not that huge of an issue considering the file sizes for tattoo textures go from 80MB to 100-200kbs, but it will definitely increase the risk of CTDs. And apparently texture glitches. All the direct information lacking from the .png files, making it smaller in size, needs to be reconstructed apparently both in the Skyrim engine and in the rasterizer. 

 

Reading up more on the .dds format, I don't know if we can shrink the file size remarkably without lowering the resolution, part of the reason being how the .dds format handles transparency (which is why either DXT3 or DXT5 is necessary for images with transparency). I've tried a number of different dds formats with different quality and swizzling settings, but they all result in the same file size.

 

Going forward, I think I'm doing to re-package the tattoos that I like the most into separate archives and only have a few tattoos decompressed at a time. Just wanted to post my results if anyone was as curious as I was :P.

 

If anyone is still interested in the "png-version", despite the obvious problems and impact on performance, I've updated them to 3.2.2 and if Adeladen gives the OK I'll attach it to a comment.

 

EDIT: I've attached the archive with png-ified versions of the textures. Please understand the above information before using them!

 

performance tests.xlsx

Tramp Stamps 3.2.2 png-ified.7z

[Adeladen]

9 minutes ago, GrimReaperCalls said:

So, this is gonna be a bit of a lengthy post, but TLDR: There's really a huge impact on performance and memory load (both system memory and VRAM) between using the "no-mipmaps-png" and DXT5 dds with mipmaps.

 

I decided to test just what kind of impact the "png-turned-dds", that I've been using, have on loading times, system memory, and VRAM.

 

I used 5 tattoos from the "Rough" pack, CD, MMG, BABYL, SLAPR, STCL, FTR. Loaded up a new save in the bannered mare, recorded the working set RAM-usage of TES5.exe and enbhost.exe (kb), and the VRAM-usage (MB) of my graphics card, before adding any tattoos. Then applied the 5 tattoos, measured the time it took for all of them to apply, and recorded the same parameters as before once they finished loading. Repeated 5 times for the tattoos in pure .dds DXT5-formats. Presenting the averages here, and I will attach the raw data to the comment.

 

Results for tattoos using DXT5, with mipmaps

Before applying tats:

enbhost: 1230356kb

TES5: 684802kb

VRAM: 2841MB

 

After applying tats (percentage increase in parenthesis):

enbhost: 1745818kb (42% increase)

TES5: 682309kb (1% increase, negligible imo)

VRAM: 3325MB (17% increase)

 

Time taken for all tats to load: 3.9s

 

 

Results for tattoos using png, no mipmaps (4 completed attemps):

Before applying tats:

enbhost: 1229127kb

TES5: 687082kb

VRAM: 2874MB

 

After applying tats (percentage increase in parenthesis):

enbhost: 3316887 (170% increase)

TES5: 693072kb (<1% increase, negligible imo)

VRAM: 4875MB (70% increase)

 

Time taken for all tats to load: 17.5s

 

 

I also experienced 2 failed attemps at loading the tats when applying 5 at once (resulting in a blue body). 

 

So not only does it take far longer to apply the tattoos, from ~4s to >17s (presumably also affecting loading times of saves with tattoos applied after game restart), but it also takes up much more system memory and VRAM (42%->170% and 17%->70% respectively). If you've got a lot of headroom for both, maybe it's not that huge of an issue considering the file sizes for tattoo textures go from 80MB to 100-200kbs, but it will definitely increase the risk of CTDs. And apparently texture glitches. All the direct information lacking from the .png files, making it smaller in size, needs to be reconstructed apparently both in the Skyrim engine and in the rasterizer. 

 

Reading up more on the .dds format, I don't know if we can shrink the file size remarkably without lowering the resolution, part of the reason being how the .dds format handles transparency (which is why either DXT3 or DXT5 is necessary for images with transparency). I've tried a number of different dds formats with different quality and swizzling settings, but they all result in the same file size.

 

Going forward, I think I'm doing to re-package the tattoos that I like the most into separate archives and only have a few tattoos decompressed at a time. Just wanted to post my results if anyone was as curious as I was :P.

 

If anyone is still interested in the "png-version", despite the obvious problems and impact on performance, I've updated them to 3.2.2 and if Adeladen gives the OK I'll attach it to a comment.

performance tests.xlsx 11.82 kB · 0 downloads

Holy moly what a post. Thank you for your testing. Seems like that's really not the way to go then. 

 

Go ahead and attach it to a comment, they should know the risks if they've read your comment.

 

If you want to reduce the size @Clockwinding I'd probably suggest just removing the tattoos you aren't interested in.

[TheOneSin]

I'm wondering if it's possible to have a full body set option aka merge some tats together so as to not use excessive slave tat slots I have been experimenting myself with it using gimp by merging the layers but it gets mixed results since I'm new to it.

 

[Adeladen]

1 hour ago, TheOneSin said:

I'm wondering if it's possible to have a full body set option aka merge some tats together so as to not use excessive slave tat slots I have been experimenting myself with it using gimp by merging the layers but it gets mixed results since I'm new to it.

 

I have actually been considering making some of the newer tats sets. I could definitely make some sets of already existing tats yeah. The problem is figuring out what to put in the set, if it has 5 tattoos you like but then 1 you dislike, that makes the whole set useless.

[Aki K]

5 hours ago, GrimReaperCalls said:

So, this is gonna be a bit of a lengthy post, but TLDR: There's really a huge impact on performance and memory load (both system memory and VRAM) between using the "no-mipmaps-png" and DXT5 dds with mipmaps.

 

I decided to test just what kind of impact the "png-turned-dds", that I've been using, have on loading times, system memory, and VRAM.

 

I used 5 tattoos from the "Rough" pack, CD, MMG, BABYL, SLAPR, STCL, FTR. Loaded up a new save in the bannered mare, recorded the working set RAM-usage of TES5.exe and enbhost.exe (kb), and the VRAM-usage (MB) of my graphics card, before adding any tattoos. Then applied the 5 tattoos, measured the time it took for all of them to apply, and recorded the same parameters as before once they finished loading. Repeated 5 times for the tattoos in pure .dds DXT5-formats. Presenting the averages here, and I will attach the raw data to the comment.

 

Results for tattoos using DXT5, with mipmaps

Before applying tats:

enbhost: 1230356kb

TES5: 684802kb

VRAM: 2841MB

 

After applying tats (percentage increase in parenthesis):

enbhost: 1745818kb (42% increase)

TES5: 682309kb (1% increase, negligible imo)

VRAM: 3325MB (17% increase)

 

Time taken for all tats to load: 3.9s

 

 

Results for tattoos using png, no mipmaps (4 completed attemps):

Before applying tats:

enbhost: 1229127kb

TES5: 687082kb

VRAM: 2874MB

 

After applying tats (percentage increase in parenthesis):

enbhost: 3316887 (170% increase)

TES5: 693072kb (<1% increase, negligible imo)

VRAM: 4875MB (70% increase)

 

Time taken for all tats to load: 17.5s

 

 

I also experienced 2 failed attemps at loading the tats when applying 5 at once (resulting in a blue body). 

 

So not only does it take far longer to apply the tattoos, from ~4s to >17s (presumably also affecting loading times of saves with tattoos applied after game restart), but it also takes up much more system memory and VRAM (42%->170% and 17%->70% respectively). If you've got a lot of headroom for both, maybe it's not that huge of an issue considering the file sizes for tattoo textures go from 80MB to 100-200kbs, but it will definitely increase the risk of CTDs. And apparently texture glitches. All the direct information lacking from the .png files, making it smaller in size, needs to be reconstructed apparently both in the Skyrim engine and in the rasterizer. 

 

Reading up more on the .dds format, I don't know if we can shrink the file size remarkably without lowering the resolution, part of the reason being how the .dds format handles transparency (which is why either DXT3 or DXT5 is necessary for images with transparency). I've tried a number of different dds formats with different quality and swizzling settings, but they all result in the same file size.

 

Going forward, I think I'm doing to re-package the tattoos that I like the most into separate archives and only have a few tattoos decompressed at a time. Just wanted to post my results if anyone was as curious as I was :P.

 

If anyone is still interested in the "png-version", despite the obvious problems and impact on performance, I've updated them to 3.2.2 and if Adeladen gives the OK I'll attach it to a comment.

 

EDIT: I've attached the archive with png-ified versions of the textures. Please understand the above information before using them!

 

performance tests.xlsx 11.82 kB · 1 download

Tramp Stamps 3.2.2 png-ified.7z 6.35 MB · 1 download

And just an FYI, that can even happen with smaller packs.  I had issues with a .dds pack once that didn't have mipmaps.  I never tried using a png in place of .dds, since .dds formats are pretty specific to bathesda stuff I'm inclined to think the formatting is boderline necessary.

 

And as I may have mentioned, even the smallest tat pack without mipmaps can have an impact because ALL TEXTURES are supposed to have mipmaps.  New armor?  The textures need mipmaps.  New eyebrows?  Mipmaps.  Etc.  And you never know which mod authors do and do not know this.

 

There are tools that can be run that scan your entire game data/mods and add mipmaps to all textures in case this is a concern for you.  But I'm sure it impacted hard drive space to do so.  For those who want to risk not having mipmaps on everything, it's gonna be a guessing game as to what mod puts you over the limit and gets glitchy/crashy.

 

Imagine you download a huge home mod like Goma Pero land.  It has hundreds of new textures.  Even if your tat packs worked fine until then, the new home could put you over the games ability to generate as you play.

 

Speaking of which, that could be the problem with using pngs.  .dds files are made to be able to have mipmaps, even if you don't include them.  When they don't already have them, the game has to generate them while you're playing.  The game might not be able to generate them for pngs due to the difference in formatting.  I'm not sure.  All I know is that GIMP doesn't give me a prompt to add mipmaps to pngs but it does for .dds.  So it's possible the png file format will always be a very glitchy solution with possible exceptions.