• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.

    Post 16 Update

    Post 17 Warning

2048x2048 compared to 4096x4096

O

OleBoy

Charter Member 2015
I know the difference from 2048, to 4096 has a lot to do with resolution and clarity in a repaint. I wanted to try it, so I enlarged the Thorp templates and gave it a try. As a test I ran two wavy stripes down the sides of the fuse on top of a base color, and loaded it up.
Right from the get go I noticed that it took a while for the aircraft to load in the viewer. That I expected. Bigger texture, long loading time. Not much, but noticeable. Once the plane loaded in flight simulator I began to go around it looking for better clarity on all the edges of the stripes. Once I looked, I noticed that the lines edges were actually fuzzier than what is on curves on a 2048 template.

When I think about the fuzzy edges, three things come to thought as to the reason.

1] Not a high enough resolution monitor. (Mine is 1680x1050 and surely does affect the resolution.)

2] It has something to do with the model, and/or the fact that I had increased the templates in photoshop. (I don't think it has anything to do with the fact that I had blown the templates twice their size.)

3] My wavy stripes didn't have enough points placed within the curved radius areas>

Anyone?
 
If a 2048x2048 texture is simply enlarged to 4096x4096, it will look fuzzier up close, because when you enlarge the graphics as is, whether in template form or not, it does not keep the same quality, but tries to compensate and creates 'artifacts' around any lines or rivets. If you take that new 4096x4096 texture sheet, and redraw all of the lines and rivets however, there should be a noticable increase in detail and clarity.

As Meshman noted, you may or may not also need to change the FSX.cfg file to allow you to view 4096x4096 textures in their native resolution within the sim, but I am not sure. Unless the whole exterior of the aircraft is mapped to one or two textures, I don't believe it is wise to use 4096x4096 textures, because of the impact on performance.
 
Meshman, I didn't even think about the FSX config and changing any settings. I'll try that out and see what it does. If I can find it. :kilroy:

Bomber_12th said:
If a 2048x2048 texture is simply enlarged to 4096x4096, it will look fuzzier up close, because when you enlarge the graphics as is, whether in template form or not, it does not keep the same quality, but tries to compensate and creates 'artifacts' around any lines or rivets. If you take that new 4096x4096 texture sheet, and redraw all of the lines and rivets however, there should be a noticable increase in detail and clarity.

As Meshman noted, you may or may not also need to change the FSX.cfg file to allow you to view 4096x4096 textures in their native resolution within the sim, but I am not sure. Unless the whole exterior of the aircraft is mapped to one or two textures, I don't believe it is wise to use 4096x4096 textures, because of the impact on performance.
Click to expand...


Hello John,

The templates were bare (no paint) prior to enlarging them. So I think I'm ok there. The rivet, shading layers etc, they did get enlarged. I'm sure they're distorted.
.....So no one said anything about the number of points I used in the curves. I guess I'm ok there?

As for the performance concerns, I'd never release any paints of that dimension. I can hear the complaints already. I'd get verbally chastised..hehe

2048x2048 textures look fine. Great actually. I just thought I'd play around with bigger templates. :mixedsmi:


I'm not sure what to change in the config file. Is it the bold area?

GRAPHICS]
AC_SELF_SHADOW=0
AIRCRAFT_REFLECTIONS=1
AIRCRAFT_SHADOWS=1
ALLOW_SHADER_30=1
COCKPIT_HIGH_LOD=1
D3D10=0
EFFECTS_QUALITY=2
ForceFullScreenVSync=1
ForceWindowedVSync=1
GROUND_SHADOWS=0
HIGHMEMFIX=1
IMAGE_QUALITY=0
LANDING_LIGHTS=1
NUM_LIGHTS=8
See_Self=1
TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=1024
TEXTURE_QUALITY=4
Text_Scroll=1
SHADER_CACHE_PRIMED_10=1693500672
SHADER_CACHE_PRIMED=1693500672
 
I did a lot of new textures for the reworked T-33 all done in 4096x4096. After experiencing the clarity (ask anyone who used my paint kit to do their own liveries), I now do all my repaints for FSX in 4096x4096. I have an average system, dual core, 9600GT Vid card, 4gig of RAM and 512 on the vid card and it doesn't affect load times or performance.:salute:
 
OleBoy, I've heard of people changing that entry to something like 2048 or 4096, to view textures in those resolutions to their full-extent, but from my own experience, I know that you don't necessarily have to, as I don't recall having seen a difference whether it is 1024, 2048, or 4096, when viewing textures of high resolution.
 
Some addons require you to change this to a higher resolution in your .cfg (REX, Classic Hangars FW190), HOWEVER, some addons (for example A2A) do not require this change to be made, even though the texture resolutions are indeed at 4096 for some of their newer addons. For the addons that require this change, there is indeed a serious degradation in quality if the .cfg is not properly adjusted. Try the Classics Hangar FW190 sometime to see what I mean. With this setting set properly however, this particular addon allows it to display very nice crisp and beautiful textures.

Most addons that require this will specify so in the user manual.

Of note, this does not mean that all textures will be uprated to such a resolution. By placing this setting in your .cfg, FSX knows to load UP TO that texture resolution if called upon.

There are ways around this for some developers.
 
Here is what I found regarding 2048 and 4096 textures and it all depends on whether or not the textures have mipmaps or not.

If there are mipmaps in the texture then you will need to change the texture_max_load line otherwise FSX will only use the 1024 and lower mip maps. When you make any sort of changes to your FSX graphics settings the texture_max_load line may revert to 1024 so you need to keep an eye on it.

If the texture does not have mipmaps then there is no need to edit your FSX.cfg. FSX will load and display 2048 and 4096 textures even if the texture_max_load line is 1024 but only if there are no mipmaps.
 
Cody, I believe I recall that the stock install of the CH Fw-190, which has mipmaps in the exterior textures, this FSX.cfg file mod is required to display the exterior textures properly. If you install the optional no-mipmap textures, then I believe it shows just fine within the sim, without this .cfg file mod, at least that is the case on my end. So it may be a matter centering around mipmap textures only?

Edit: you beat me to it, Anthony! : )
 
I agree with Anthony and John above.

One further thing that you might want to look at - I sometimes used to make a texture or a layer that I was going to include in a texture larger - when a curve was involved - to smooth the edge. However, I would then reduce the texture size for inclusion in FSX.

The ideal texture size IMHO, always depended upon how the aircraft surface was mapped.

Cheers

Paul
 
To gain any clarity of detail between 2048 and 4096 you have to paint the actual textures in 4096. All you are doing by enlarging them from 2048 to 4096 is spreading out the pixels -- as was mentioned above. Whatever program you used to enlarge them in is just going to make a best guess as to what color to put in those extra pixels.
:ernae:
 
Mipmaps are a feature, not a bug. :salute:
Keep in mind that no-mip-textures cause flickering/stair effects when zooming out, making for instance 3d gauges unreadable or panel lines jerkey, that's why we use mipmaps by default. It requires some awarness on the user's end but generally generates the better results. The first thing I usually do with unmipped textures is resaving them with mips. :)
With the upcoming Bf108 we automatically adjust the user's FSX.cfg based on user choice (2048 or 4096) so no more hand-editing required.
 
Mathias said:
Mipmaps are a feature, not a bug. :salute:
Keep in mind that no-mip-textures cause flickering/stair effects when zooming out, making for instance 3d gauges unreadable or panel lines jerky, that's why we use mipmaps by default. It requires some awareness on the user's end but generally generates the better results. The first thing I usually do with unmipped textures is re-saving them with mips. :)
With the upcoming Bf108 we automatically adjust the user's FSX.cfg based on user choice (2048 or 4096) so no more hand-editing required.
Click to expand...
That's interesting. . . .I was always under the impression that "mips" were included so that lower end machines didn't have to work as hard to reproduce a single hi-res image at greater distances. In other words, the mips allowed the system to still show the image at different distances but without them being hi-res and thus not taxing the system so much. In every case where I would sometimes see a nice sharp exterior and then later on see a fuzzy exterior, it was due to mip maps being present in the texture sets. Whenever I find a model that has mips I re-save the textures without mips and never produce textures that have mips attached.
 
That's just half the story, falcon.
When stripping off the mips you just exchange blurries under certain conditions against edgies under other conditions. In other words, stripping mips off the textures is taking the easy way out out of the "why do I get blurries" discussion without seeing the benefits of the whole thing.
Of course with mipmaps and large textures in FSX you need to configure the texture_max_load entry, the FSX anti-aliasing settings and your graphics card in concert.
 
Mathias said:
That's just half the story, falcon.
When stripping off the mips you just exchange blurries under certain conditions against edgies under other conditions. In other words, stripping mips off the textures is taking the easy way out out of the "why do I get blurries" discussion without seeing the benefits of the whole thing.
Of course with mipmaps and large textures in FSX you need to configure the texture_max_load entry, the FSX anti-aliasing settings and your graphics card in concert.
Click to expand...

Hi Mathias

Interesting, as I too used to take the simple route of removing mip-maps to reduce blurries.

I (of course) understand your comment re texture_max_load entry, but would be grateful if you would expand on your comments re 'the FSX anti-aliasing settings and your graphics card'. To complicate my request slightly, would your reply be different if the user manages his graphics (eg anti-aliasing etc) via NVidea inspector?

Just to be clear here (the bane of the internet) this is a genuine question on my part and not a 'bragging contest'.

Cheers

Paul
 
Paul, I get best results with the following settings, both with ATI Firepro 5700 and my weak Nvidia 7600GT
- Texture_Max_Load as requested
- FSX: DX10 preview enabled (my ATI card only), filtering method: anisotrop, anti-aliasing box checked.
- Graphics card: anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering application controlled, mipmaps to "quality".

As easy as that, no other tweaks, no Bojote voodoo, no NickN tweaks, never ever experience blurries.
 
Many thanks for the reply Mathias.

I have a different card and set up. I think that it just goes to show how everyones experience can vary a bit with different set-ups in FSX!

Anyway, I must let you get back to releasing that very nice 108! ;)

Cheers

Paul
 
Mathias said:
Mipmaps are a feature, not a bug. :salute:
...
With the upcoming Bf108 we automatically adjust the user's FSX.cfg based on user choice (2048 or 4096) so no more hand-editing required.
Click to expand...

Mathias, might you please be so kind as to adjust the user's FSX.cfg file only when the user actively asks you to do so? (As you know, the FSX.cfg contains a lot of information--and users might not wish to have that file altered without their explicit action.)

Looking forward to the Bf108.

Thanks,
Mike
 
Mike, the tool will run when the installation is complete.
You can just skip it even though it won't do harm and I wouldn't recommend it.
All it does is setting texture_max_load to either 2048 or 4096 as per user choice, and it will do so only if it's not allready equal or higher.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top