Need Help: Dirt Lense and Motion Blur import

Hi! I'm in the process of making an ENB/ReShade/SweetFX combo for GTA V.
So far I have only a SweetFX_Settings that makes most of visual changes, and ENB helps out some ingame value editing.

I want to apply Dirt Lense and Motion Blur to my preset.
How can I do it?

I do not want to use Mediator.exe if possible! Only causes errors for me.
I do not know how can I achieve the ~same post-processing with FXAA using ReShade instead of SweetFX - but I would do it if its better looking and not more performance consuming.
I have latest ReShade framework 1.0.0. and the latest pack including SweetFX 2.0

The reality is that both, dirt lens and motion blur need blur algorithms which definitely means additional performance impact and its usually not as cheap as color correction.

However, if you still want to try, you can find Marty's dirt lens shader and two of my motion blur shader in the GemFX suite. Therefore, you can activate and tweak those in the GemFX.cfg (either through the mediator or manually).

Hi LuciferHawk!
I want to know, How can I load in your GemFX suite's Dirt Lense & Motion Blur to my existing ReShade/SweetFX config without using whole framework and mediator.exe
Performance wise I know it will hit some.

P.s.: Let me tell you, I'm very grateful GemFX @ Guild Wars 2

You have to apply your SweetFX changes to the entire ReShade 1.0 (check out the SweetFX suite / SweetFX.cfg) not the other way around if you like to use dirt lens, motion blur or similar shader. That's why we released it

Can you please give me a detailed guide to install GemFX shaders above SweetFX? Can't find any on the website/topics.
I have a SweetFX v2.0 working right now. And ReShade files from 0.19.2 PB
What files I need and where, and which command line I have to write in to which file.

Got ReShade Framework 1.0.0.7z & ReShade 0.19.2 Public Beta with SweetFX 2.0 Beta 8.7z to get the files from.

As previously said:

1. Download ReShade 1.0 (Framework) which includes SweetFX 2.0, MasterEffect, GemFX and other
2. Get your SweetFX 2.0 configuration and port it (currently manually) to ReShade 1.0 as I decsribed in the following post:
reshade.me/forum/general-discussion/1084...-1-0-0-tutorial#8637
3. Activate Dirt Lens and Advanced Motion Blur shader in GemFx.cfg or mediator

Hope that helps

I'll try it afternoon - thanks - but isn't it possible to just enable GemFX files - simply.?
Since my original post is about that.
I do not want to use whole framework nor mediator.exe if possible.

In the Framework only activated shader/effects will be loaded and affect performance so do not worry about that but still you will need all files to be present.

We have plans to change that to a more flexible solution in the future in which you can specifically select shader/effects from a pool in the mediator which then will be downloaded to your installation.

Well, it would be great to merge all the features together with simple files, having a big window editor that is more useable than mediator.exe or even an ingame editor like ANTToolWork or whatever.
& make prefab saves that load in, so we don't have to ever overwrite any files when swapping.

Hope it gets sorted out soon. Let me know if I can help with the logic design.

Features and shader are already merged together while considering both, shader developer and end-user. Only the selection after the ReShade download is not implemented yet which is why you currently have to download the complete package.

The mediator's purpose is not allowing huge text edditing but to allow visually quick access to all main features while decreasing the chance file editing mistakes. (Plus the neat LUT creation and preview feature)

In-app modification/gui is up to Crosire but realistically its not as important, since you can do all that much easier in window mode.

Hi! I've tested out Reshade Framework yesterday evening.
To be honest... it steal ~10 FPS with the same settings as pure SweetFX, and like ~-3 FPS with the GemFX Lens Dirt on.
Spin up my GPU on 100% useage and began to overheat my CPU with ~5C

So I drop it. I aim to make a preset that works nearly no performance loss for 60FPS users, who want to enjoy all the experienc GTA V's engine can offer at its edge.

I'm quite sad with the results.
Handled the DLL-s to coders to know what really happens.
I'll post the results soon.

I am sorry to hear that. I am not sure what you tried but we did benchmarks already and the framework is faster than stand alone SweetFX 2.0 in case that is what you tested

Using SweetFX shader only you can set in the Common tab RFX_InitialStorage to 0 and RFX_DepthBufferCalc to 0. This will make SweetFX presets in ReShade 1.0 (Framework) run faster than SweetFX 2.0 stand alone.

Note, using a LUT in the Framework to combine SweetFX or other color correction/contrast effects/shader will also out perform a SweetFX preset.

Hey there LuciferHawk!
Both RFX_ you mentioned were 0 as default.
SweetFX 2.0 Stand-alone were heavily outperforming Framework on my PC. (about 0-2 FPS drop)
(7870 TahitiLE & it i5 3570K @ 3.4Ghz, 8Gb 1600Mhz DDR3)

No clue how you guys came to the very oposite of my results...
And due to the fact Framework does not much more than trying up set my PC on fire, I'll more likely to stick to pure SweetFX 2.0 @ GTA V. If possible, I'm still up to try enable GemFX on side of SweetFX, without Framework - and hopefuly it won't disable ENB too.

GemFX setup on GW2 seems perfectly fine tho, about ~2 FPS drop.

I hope you didn't got upset...
I'm just being helpful and constructive.
If there is a problem with ReShade framework, it's better getting located & fixed.

Yes, located issues in ReShade (Framework) are definitly fixed if identified. However, there is no performance issue thats why I think there is no point in spending more time on this matter.
It runs currently faster than the stand-alones specifically because of those two values which I told you (they are set to 1 by default by the way). Without them (or to be precise, one of them) it would run exactly the same as the stand-alones since there is 0 overhead through design and port (everything are preprocessor commands)

Benchmark results:SFX - 1475 fps in stand-alone SweetFX

FW - 1485 fps // RFX_InitialStorage set to 0 and RFX_DepthBufferCalc set to 0 => config for when you only use SFX in the Framework
FW - 1395 fps // RFX_InitialStorage set to 1 and RFX_DepthBufferCalc set to 0 => config for when you use no depth dependent shader
FW - 1205 fps // RFX_InitialStorage set to 0 and RFX_DepthBufferCalc set to 1 => all effects will be dependent on the previous effects
FW - 1172 fps // RFX_InitialStorage set to 1 and RFX_DepthBufferCalc set to 1 => default config if you want to use any mix of shader as intended

NOTE: The depth buffer calculation got greatly improved with the 1.0 release thanks to crosire's changes to the code.

Benchmark source: reshade.me/forum/general-discussion/586-...than-in-reshade#4809

Edit: If you somehow are not convinced yet, give me your SweetFX configuration and I run another benchmark against it.

I advice against comparing FPS for benchmarking. They are non-linear , and pretty useless at high rates (like those 1000+ values). Better check the actual time in milliseconds it took for post-processing to complete (ReShade shows that value in the statistics monitor, "#pragma reshade statistics"). These values stay the same, no matter how many FPS you would normally get in your game.

I agree if you want to be precise when comparing two different shader.
If I only want to see which setup runs faster the fps are accurate enough but here the rest of the values running only SweetFX's CA shader:

SweetFX
1377 fps
0.015708 ms

ReShade 1.0
2500 fps
0.007663 ms

Make sure to use the same binaries when comparing by the way.

Note that those are microseconds (μs), not milliseconds (ms), or the shaders would take a whole 15 seconds each frame to complete .
Anyway, since I'm curious myself (I don't have access to a computer to run these right now), it would be useful to know which effects were enabled for those benchmarks.

Indeed forgot some 0 but was still given in ms. (added the 0 to previous post)

As I wrote, only SweetFX CA was used.

EDIT:: Well, CJ obviously made changes after I compared those two in previous posts and added recently

#if SMAA_PREDICATION == 1
#undef USE_DEPTH
#define USE_DEPTH 1
#endif

(maybe even more?)

to the Sweet.fx though without changing the version. This means, if you compare it to the "latest" version (which is still 2.0 as said) it is running with the exact same speed.

I tested with SweetFX 2.0 from around ReShade 0.18 which should technically not differ ...

To be more precise, the lines have been added around 3 month ago with ReShade 0.18.6, so probably as a result to my previous benchmark

Well, you can go ahead if you wish and try standalone SweetFX2.0 vs ReShade Framework 1.0 with the following settings: pastebin.com/u1EHT4Sf
Above this I wish to apply some Dirt-Lense.

Specs of PC I use to mod on:

• i5 3570K @ 3.4Ghz
• VTX3D HD7870 2Gb TahitiLE
• DDR3 @ 1600MHz
• MSI Afterburner works on background, without OC & Overlay