• 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

A question about texture sizes

TARPSBird

TARPSBird

Moderator
Staff member
I am planning to do some repaints and have a question about what texture size to do the repaints in. I am working with FS9 planes having 1024x1024 wing and fuselage textures, but I would like to do the repaint work in 2048x2048 to allow for greater detail if users decide to port over the planes to FSX. My question: If I do the repaints in 2048x2048 and then re-size them back to 1024x1024 for FS9, will the level of detail be the same as if I did them in that size to begin with?
 
Yes. . .that's the short answer unfortunately. The paint kits I did that have been used for the T-33 and F-100, I did at 4096x4096 for FSX and saved them in DDS format for the ultimate clarity with no fps hit even on my 3 year old dual core system. Unfortunately though doing repaints for FS9 aircraft with the texture size limited to 1024x1024 produces less than spectacular results after comparing the two, no matter whether you do them in 1024 to begin with, or do them larger and then reduce to fit. IMHO it's a waste of time.
 
i could be wrong, I think i have increased the pixel size when working on some fs9 portovers and left them at 2048 for fsx and I dont recall any problems
 
A pixel is a pixel, so when you reduce texture size from 2048 x 2048 into 1024 x 1024, you will convert four pixels to just one.

So in theory your texture will become the same quality. However as you paint program will use a much larger variety of shades and colours to create this single pixel than you most probably would do when you would draw this texture you will have the feeling the texture is much more detailed.

I hope the above makes any sense to you as I can harly understand myself :icon_lol:

Cheers,
Huub
 
If you use the function "bicubic" (GIMP or Photoshop) when you transform the images into new resolutions it works pretty well, I think.
In Photoshop CS6 it is even better, here you can add a smoothing or sharpening factor to the transformation, depending on enlarging or shrinking the image.
But I use this mainly for blowing up large photoscenery tiles, so don't know how it works on rather low resolutions like 1024.

Cheers,
Mark
 
I find that the only thing that really suffers from image reduction are diagonal lines or edges and rivits that require shading. lines and edges become more jaged or steped and a 4 pixel rivit with shading in 4096 becomes a single pixle at 1024 losing any definition of hight due to shading. Rasterized text also loses quality upon reduction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top