• 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

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

FSX, Sim Design, and an idea

L

Lionheart

SOH-CM-2014
Hey guys,


Here I am always thinking.. (trying to anyways) and at times I get these tiny little revelations or ideas...


and this one has been really getting me going.


What if a Sim could use JPG's...? X-Plane uses PNG's for their textures. What if you could 'optionally' also use JPG's.... Could you imagine the boost in frame rates!!!!!! Astronomical. The sim could probably be set for a frame rate setting of 200!


If you could come up with a new, low memory texture useage (something that isnt BMP's) then dang.. I think you would really have some power there..


(If I am correct, DDS is basically still close to a BMP, if I am correct... )




Bill
 
I've wondered the same thing. Not sure why .bmp (and now .dds) is the texture of choice for MS - with perhaps the exception that it's one of MS' own creations (if I'm not mistaken). I now save wallpapers exclusively in .jpg format.
 
Well, I'm not sure... Jpegs are smaller in size, but (but...) that's because they are "encoded", meaning the color info contained in the image has to be "decoded" ... by something, in this case the sim. So, would it be faster? In the early days of computers, we used bmps instead of jpegs for computer based training becase we had plenty of HD space, but processors were slow, and bmp's displayed a bit (a "bit" ... get it...? :d) faster... Bmps can be dislayed by simple memory data transfer, no decoding required... I'm guessing that's why bmps were chosen by fs designers in the first place. The time difference to display a bmp vs. a jpeg is no big deal when we're talking about photos in a web browser, but hundreds of texture files constantly going to and fro ... I'll bet it adds up...
 
PRB explains it pretty well (by my understanding, anyway).

A bitmap, is a map of bits. JPGs are a type of compression.. kinda like MP3s for graphics.

When it comes to "maping" bits.. a JPG is gibberish to a computer.. it would hace to be un-compressed before all bits could be mapped..
 
Yup, which is why an 82Kb JPG file shows as a 1.54Mb file when opened in Photoshop. As far as the graphics card (and GPU) is concerned, it is a 1.54MB file that it stores in memory or has to process, not 82Kb.

Brian
 
the compression ratio of a JPEG conversion can be adjusted, but it is a "Lossy" compression algorythm, meaning that some information is discarded in the compression. A file that has much detail and a wide vareity of colors and textures will require more space than something with few tones, textures and colors. As Paul mentioned, the conversion process takes processing power and time, two things that in the current scope of things would slow things down.

I am always amazed that things work as well as they do!

Cheers: T.
 
Dds is the best file format for textures. Almost every modern engine uses them (like Unreal Engine 3, etc). Dds compression is directly supported by video cards. Jpgs could be used, but jpg compression is not supported directly, and though, textures must be uncompressed before game sends them to video card, and thats not the best idea.
 
Dang....!

Good to know.. I never knew JPGs were compressed..

So PNG must also 'not' be compressed..


I notice in doing webpages that JPG's load faster, but PNG's do not.. a slight pause.. the JPG blinks and its on.. done.. I figured it was the same way in gaming.. Oh well.


So BMP and DDS are 'pure data' with no compression.. Many thanks for the info.

:ernae:


Bill
 
Better than JPG...

Wouldn't it be great if FS could read vector graphics? Just think of the fine detail?

Not possible? See macromedia Flash movies. Flash uses scaleable vector graphics even for it's 3D objects. And if modellers could build aircraft like we engineers do and not like 3D modellers, then...

...yes - mdl files in the GB, I know... :) But the painter in me yearns at least for the SVG format...

Bill...

All the (non compressed type) graphics formats you are looking at are all raster graphics made of dots

Vector graphics can be "lighter" because regardless of real estate on screen, a vector is a vector. If you look at a flash image file, you'd see that no matter how large the image - ten pixel square or 10000 pixels square, the data amount is the same. Zoom in on a Photoshop photo image and you'll see pixellation. Zoom in on a Photoshop vector and the lines stay sharp.
 
But vector graphics have to be calculated "on the fly" the same as compressed formats have to be converted, Chris.

Try watching a 3d CAD package (which will usually be vector information) load/redraw a complex file and you can literally see each segment appear. It would probably be slower than decompressing a jpeg. That and the fact that there are a lot of things (such as dirt marks, light maps, for instance) that cannot be drawn using a vector element. The more different types of information you are dealing with, the slower the process gets. That's why everyone uses raster images - no interpretation of what is there is required.
 
Have you not seen some of the Flash 3D games? OK, the graphical objects are still basic...

Morning Ian - what are you doing up so early?

(I work(ed) in the aerospace industry and have seen some damned impressive 3D modelling - no problems with vectors - but us mortals couldn't afford the computer power. Also remember - if you "paint" the 3d model direct and use it without wrapping textures, it is "lighter" too)
 
I have very odd working hours. I was sitting waiting for Microstation to fire up on my immensely powerful P4 3.2GHz / 1Gb RAM / 256Mb GeForce card while typing that. ;)

Vector is great for solid colour objects - you draw them, you fill them. The moment you need to vary a single variable, however, (colour, direction, width, etc.) you need a new vector and it all gets very big and unwieldy.
 
Lionheart said:
Dang....!

Good to know.. I never knew JPGs were compressed..


Bill
Click to expand...

It gets even worse, Bill. If you happen to 'save' a jpg image for a second time, it gets compressed again .. and loses more quality. It can NOT get the previous quality back !
Do it again..... even worse !

One of the reasons you always need to keep your original photographs stored safely (and preferably use RAW format to begin with), or you may loose your finest shots when working on them !
 
Lionheart said:
Hey guys,


Here I am always thinking.. (trying to anyways) and at times I get these tiny little revelations or ideas...


and this one has been really getting me going.


What if a Sim could use JPG's...? X-Plane uses PNG's for their textures. What if you could 'optionally' also use JPG's.... Could you imagine the boost in frame rates!!!!!! Astronomical. The sim could probably be set for a frame rate setting of 200!


If you could come up with a new, low memory texture useage (something that isnt BMP's) then dang.. I think you would really have some power there..


(If I am correct, DDS is basically still close to a BMP, if I am correct... )




Bill
Click to expand...


Parts of the answer have already been given above.
However, for a little bit more precise information on the context:
When you display a picture, you display it in BMP, whatever happens, whatever is the format on the disk. When it's on your screen, it's in BMP (understand, in non compressed, directly readable genuine data format).

When you load a picture in a program in order to display it on a 3d object as a texture, you perform the following steps:
1- open the file
2- read the data in the file
3- convert this data to a BMP picture and store it in the video memory
4- draw your object with the texture on it

Step 3 is the one that ruins your dream ;)

Textures are usually stored in non-compressed (or not-so-compressed) format so that the step 3 gets as fast as possible. Storing the picture in JPG in the video memory would save some video memory space for sure, however you would have to perform a convertion from compressed to uncompressed at EACH single FPS.... so you would get something like 1 FPS or 2 at maximum, even when the sim is paused over the low 1x ocean with clear weather :)
 
Hi guys

I would like to add that number 4 on Daube's list also has a very significant influence on the performance you can get. No matter what texture format you use, the sim still has to do a lot of work drawing those textures on your objects. So even with the most efficient texture format, more polygons = more processor (CPU/GPU) work = decrease in performance.

That is the main reason why I used a lot of time before our latest release of the Denmark Scenery on going through our older building models in the Copenhagen area, removing a lot of hidden unnecessary polygons and doing other optimizations on the MODELS, without touching the TEXTURES. And it did have a positive effect on the performance.

So the number of polygons in a scene is probably more important than the texture format used to render the scene. And since we always will be craving for more detailed scenery, I don't think we will be seeing the 200 FPS in the near future :)

Regards
Kim
 
I would like to see .png textures in some cases but when using a large amount of detail such as a photoreal repaint the .png image will be roughly the same filesize as a .bmp of the same dimensions.

16bit .png images do support great transparency though without the need of any pesky alpha layers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top