-
Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.
-
IMPORTANT DOWNLOADING INFORMATION - ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ
Please see this thread for updates. Update Thread
SOH ADMINISTRATION
Photoreal terrain in Cfs2
- Thread starter gius
- Start date
Jean Bomber
Landscape Gardener
to put custom polys without to flat the area in cfs2 there is ground2k....
JP
JP
MaskRider
Tiller of Soil
photo real in FS2002 not look as good as landclass tiles anyway
FS world not round like the earth
can't get images to fit without stretching and squeezing
use photo image to make custom landclass tiles
make bgl with EZ-landclass
works in CFS2
add polys and lines with Ground2k
looks much more betterView attachment 67020View attachment 67019
FS world not round like the earth
can't get images to fit without stretching and squeezing
use photo image to make custom landclass tiles
make bgl with EZ-landclass
works in CFS2
add polys and lines with Ground2k
looks much more betterView attachment 67020View attachment 67019
Jean Bomber
Landscape Gardener
The best would be to do the landclass with the custom,photoreal bmp,with ezlandclass tool but in cfs2 the resolution is no more that 256x256 ,if it was 1024x1024 that could have an interest to use photoreal,but 256x256 done a low rendering,in cfs2 we work in the blur concerning the terrain....we have to stay on an artistic blur like an impressionism or comics style...
JP
JP
MaskRider
Tiller of Soil
There is a way around the blur that is caused by CFS2's 256 texture resolution constraint- providing that you are not trying to cover too large an area- like a whole country or something- in which case while still doable time left in your life rather than limitations of CFS2 would become the constraint.
Instead of using a single texture to do the job, divide the texture into enough 256 squares using multiple polys- enough to do the job with little or no blurring. I have used this method several times on modestly sized islands using my own custom textures with good results.
For instance if the original texture is 512 square divide it into 4 256 square textures and use each corner- NW, NE, SW ans SE on four adjacent polys. It works nicely although one does have to be a tad painstaking to insure that none of sides of the 4 adjacent polys overlaps. But with practice that is easily and quickly overcome.
For the most part though I agree with simonu- it is easier to combine customized landclass with the VTP1 polys using the standard cfs2 textures.
What I like about G2K's linked texture polys is that they get your custom airfield ground textures down "under" CFS2's ground texturing- that gravely looking effect- which I always have turned on.
Instead of using a single texture to do the job, divide the texture into enough 256 squares using multiple polys- enough to do the job with little or no blurring. I have used this method several times on modestly sized islands using my own custom textures with good results.
For instance if the original texture is 512 square divide it into 4 256 square textures and use each corner- NW, NE, SW ans SE on four adjacent polys. It works nicely although one does have to be a tad painstaking to insure that none of sides of the 4 adjacent polys overlaps. But with practice that is easily and quickly overcome.
For the most part though I agree with simonu- it is easier to combine customized landclass with the VTP1 polys using the standard cfs2 textures.
What I like about G2K's linked texture polys is that they get your custom airfield ground textures down "under" CFS2's ground texturing- that gravely looking effect- which I always have turned on.
MaskRider
Tiller of Soil
Hiya simonu,
Don't think I ever tried a 1024 texture. The biggest I ever tried- in G2K linked-polys- was 512 until I realized that cfs2 was going to display it as a 256 no matter what.
But ok, I'll bite. Why? Does something miraculously unexpected happen with a 1024 texture?
Don't tell me it displays as a 1024 texture.
MR
Don't think I ever tried a 1024 texture. The biggest I ever tried- in G2K linked-polys- was 512 until I realized that cfs2 was going to display it as a 256 no matter what.
But ok, I'll bite. Why? Does something miraculously unexpected happen with a 1024 texture?
Don't tell me it displays as a 1024 texture.
MR
Not sure I would say it is displaying as 1024!
we are using Mip maps which have levels of detail
when Imagetool converts 256 texture they get 9 Mip levels
1024 textures are 16 times the size and get 11 mip levels
level 9 mips in textures of either 1024 or 256 are the same size!
Maybe it is psycological... knowing the image is 16 times the size, it MUST look more detailed.... but they are certainly more fun to paint...
I'm not saying I painted these by the way, landclass tiles in the image on the right are lifted from FSX,
using imagetool to convert from DXT1 to 8bit,
Some of the FSX tile sets are not suitable as is, too many carparks...
use imagetool to convert to 24 bit for editing in gimp or photoshop
we are using Mip maps which have levels of detail
when Imagetool converts 256 texture they get 9 Mip levels
1024 textures are 16 times the size and get 11 mip levels
level 9 mips in textures of either 1024 or 256 are the same size!
Maybe it is psycological... knowing the image is 16 times the size, it MUST look more detailed.... but they are certainly more fun to paint...
I'm not saying I painted these by the way, landclass tiles in the image on the right are lifted from FSX,
using imagetool to convert from DXT1 to 8bit,
Some of the FSX tile sets are not suitable as is, too many carparks...
use imagetool to convert to 24 bit for editing in gimp or photoshop
Hi Simon,
They both look very good indeed!
As said though, not a lot of difference between the two, being a European-theatre man, the one on the right looks better.
I think the question is maybe not what they look like close up, but what do they look like from 1000, 2000, 5000, 10,000ft etc etc, directly above? Also from a distance?
Cheers
Shessi
They both look very good indeed!
As said though, not a lot of difference between the two, being a European-theatre man, the one on the right looks better.
I think the question is maybe not what they look like close up, but what do they look like from 1000, 2000, 5000, 10,000ft etc etc, directly above? Also from a distance?
Cheers
Shessi
Thats my point, Shessi. MIP levels are levels of detail. Default CFS2 ground textures as in left image have 9 levels of detail.
1024 textures have 11 levels of detail.
The question is, does CFS2 display any mip level above 9? I'm not sure, I think it does, but I know the image is bigger and so MUST look better, it's a bit subjective and I am not sure. Thats why I asked if JP and MR have ever tried 1024 textures.
In any case the level of detail displayed is dependant on the distance you are viewing from, so if there is any difference it will be more apparent at closer viewing ranges.
Besides all that, the ..\world\texture folder of default CFS2 is 48.8mb, a folder of 1024 textures would be something like 446mb... I would not consider offering up the entire set for public distribution, as practical,
indeed if we were talking about modded FSX textures or any other photoreal ground images obtained under licence or EULA it would not be legal to do so.
Rather I suggest that those flight sim enthusiasts who like to improve the look of their CFS2 and might happen to also own FSX, should not rule out using a few of those fsx textures as a basis to work from when attempting to paint photoreal like images, and having painted those images at 1024x1024 they should not then compress them down to 256 without first trying them at 1024...
MaskRider
Tiller of Soil
Hiya Simonu,
I am thinking that silly little "TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=1024" line in the cfs2.cfg file may be the key. I don't have that line in my cfg file.
The application I am dealing with is using G2K's "textures and linked polys" menu to get my custom airfield ground textures onto the ground without the need for a flatten.
All I know is that no matter what, whenever I tried a larger size texture file in those linked VTP1 polys, I still got the same blurred results no matter how large and detailed a texture file I started with. I concluded that cfs2 naturally defaulted to 256.
As I said, I was able to successfully over come the problem by, for instance, dividing a 512 texture file into four 256 texture files using four instead of one poly to cover the same area. Then I get the crisp, un-blurred level detail I am looking for.
I guess that the key to successfully using a 512 (or 1024) texture files must be having that "TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=1024" line in the cfg file preferences section. I'm am not sure but guess its worth a try. Does the line apply to VTP1 polys as well as all others poly types?
Right out of the box I know that cfs2 will handle a 1024 size texture file when used in a texpoly- my standard airfield ground poly used with a flatten..
Someday, maybe soon, I will add the 1024 max texture line to my config file and see what happens when texturing one of those linked VTP1 poly contraptions in G2K..
BTW, isn't that setting of the max texture size to 1024 a setting that is available in the cfs2 setting section? I thought that it was. No?
Thanks,
MR
I am thinking that silly little "TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=1024" line in the cfs2.cfg file may be the key. I don't have that line in my cfg file.
The application I am dealing with is using G2K's "textures and linked polys" menu to get my custom airfield ground textures onto the ground without the need for a flatten.
All I know is that no matter what, whenever I tried a larger size texture file in those linked VTP1 polys, I still got the same blurred results no matter how large and detailed a texture file I started with. I concluded that cfs2 naturally defaulted to 256.
As I said, I was able to successfully over come the problem by, for instance, dividing a 512 texture file into four 256 texture files using four instead of one poly to cover the same area. Then I get the crisp, un-blurred level detail I am looking for.
I guess that the key to successfully using a 512 (or 1024) texture files must be having that "TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=1024" line in the cfg file preferences section. I'm am not sure but guess its worth a try. Does the line apply to VTP1 polys as well as all others poly types?
Right out of the box I know that cfs2 will handle a 1024 size texture file when used in a texpoly- my standard airfield ground poly used with a flatten..
Someday, maybe soon, I will add the 1024 max texture line to my config file and see what happens when texturing one of those linked VTP1 poly contraptions in G2K..
BTW, isn't that setting of the max texture size to 1024 a setting that is available in the cfs2 setting section? I thought that it was. No?
Thanks,
MR
MaskRider
Tiller of Soil
I don't think we are having a successful communication.
In the screenshots you posted, if the one on the right is the one with the 1024sq texture then yes, I do think that 1024 looks better.
I guess I am missing your point. My apologies if it sounded as though I am challenging your opinion or disagreeing with you. It wasn't my intention.
Alas, as I get older I become noticeably more obtuse with each passing day.
MR
MR, No need to apologise to me, I should offer mine to you.
The thread started as a discussion on photoreal scenery and weather there is some ap that would create it,
We agree that G2K is the tool to apply custom textures to mesh terrain as polygons and lines.
When it comes to creating scenery for CFS2 you and Jean set the standard.
Cheers
The thread started as a discussion on photoreal scenery and weather there is some ap that would create it,
We agree that G2K is the tool to apply custom textures to mesh terrain as polygons and lines.
When it comes to creating scenery for CFS2 you and Jean set the standard.
Cheers
MaskRider
Tiller of Soil
Maybe so. But its guys like you, Jean too (much more than I) digging around inside the guts of CFS2 who have led the way. I have always just put to use the newly discovered tips and tricks of the true pioneers and tinkerers!
Cheers,
MR