Mipmapping and the lack of.....

[dmaher 0]

If you use mip maps in FSX I believe Trilinear filtering will interpolate between mip levels.

[ramsa329 0]

Yes, you are very well known for all of the high quality models you've released... :( Of course Mips are visible from even Spot View, because from the typical default camera distance you are looking at the first mip level, not the full resolution texture......that's why it's "fuzzy" In the past, mips wouldn't kick into play until the second-level LOD was displayed. With FS9 and FSX this is no longer true. That's why even with default aircraft, often the user will need to zoom in very close to (re)load the full-res bitmap, then zoom back out and hope the mip didn't "kick in" again. :(

Now now Bill did I ever say that i was a designer DID I?Can you do anything without the personal insults which were folowed by a "just kidding" (I suppose to "soften" what was totally uncalled for and infantile) but that type of behavior really diminishes you in my eyes and in the eyes of quite a few others who don't share your personal conflict with me ( you've never worked with me or my company and know nothing but what you ASSUME which I'm sure you remember the old saying about the YOU and ME............well you get the picture)You are still not addressing the following:1) ALL the stock planes in FS9 and in FSX are mip-mapped (day time exerior textures signified by a "T") and there must have been a reason.2) In all my experience with Fs9 I have never seen a condition in which it was "necessary" to "close in" on a stock planes. although i have seen it with add-ons.3) In my experience and in my work it is never necessary to "close in" with FSX. 2) The textures for Fly Tampa Hong Kong (an example of what really can be done to enhance visuals and performance in FSX with absolute minimum performance loss) are also mip-mapped (I don't have any affiliation to them)Now either ACES and Fly Tampa knew or didn't know what they were doing and had a reason or they were just "pissing in the wind', so make up your mind and if they were then come out and say it to their faces.That I'm sure should be fun!!!Michael Gwww.fs-gs.com

[n4gix 4,947]

Now now Bill did I ever say that i was a designer DID I?Can you do anything without the personal insults which were folowed by a "just kidding"

That wasn't an "insult." It was my not-so-subtle way of saying that while you know far more than I ever will about hardware, you yourself are just as equally ignorant about FS9/FSX modeling requirements and techniques...I do honor and respect your superior knowledge in the area of your expertise; why can you not reciprocate?

You are still not addressing the following:1) ALL the stock planes in FS9 and in FSX are mip-mapped (day time exerior textures signified by a "T") and there must have been a reason.

The nice folks at ACES have stated many things in the SDKs that are simply incorrect. They claim for example:

For Aircraft, texture maps cannot currently exceed 1024x1024 pixels in size.

FALSE: As has been proven over and over again, FSX will happily consume 2048x2048 or even 4096x4096 bitmaps. Now, that doesn't mean that it makes sense except in special cases to actually use such enormous bitmaps, but......that isn't the point. ACES claims that it can't be done, yet it can.and has been done!Ever since FS2002, the ability to backlight gauges in the VC via an emissive lightmap has been available, yet until I "beat ACES over the head" during the beta of FSX SP1, no one at ACES was aware of that ability. Instead, a couple of the ACES developers spent countless hours inventing an entirely new, and quite unnecessary method for FSX SP2. Apparently ACES reconized my expertise in this area, otherwise they'd not have asked me to write a White Paper for them to publish on their official develper's website: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/esp/cc788741.aspxIt's only a case of serendipity that the "new method" managed to open up new possibilities for lighting that were not possible before, most of which actually have nothing whatever to VC gauge backlighting... :( In the FS9 SDK, ACES made the statement that all bitmaps "must be square." This is also demonstrably FALSE, as any modeler skeptical enough of their claim has proven, time and time again. Both FS9 and FSX will quite happily consume any bitmap one cares to use, provided that the x and/or y dimensions are a exact power of two.I could go on and cite several dozen other "mistakes" and/or "errors" in the official SDKs, but I think the point has been made. You simply cannot assume that everything ACES has said is necessarily accurate. Worse still, there are many "errors of omission." For example they've made absolutely no mention whatever about having changed the algorithims for LOD and Mip display. It has been the hours spent by modelers in trial-and-error that've exposed how the new system actually works.It is long past time that you recognized that there are quite a few people who are just as intelligent and knowledgable within their own field(s) of expertise as you are within your area of expertise, and quit being so bloody patronizing and dismissive of them.

[ramsa329 0]

That wasn't an "insult." It was my not-so-subtle way of saying that while you know far more than I ever will about hardware, you yourself are just as equally ignorant about FS9/FSX modeling requirements and techniques...I do honor and respect your superior knowledge in the area of your expertise; why can you not reciprocate?The nice folks at ACES have stated many things in the SDKs that are simply incorrect. They claim for example:FALSE: As has been proven over and over again, FSX will happily consume 2048x2048 or even 4096x4096 bitmaps. Now, that doesn't mean that it makes sense except in special cases to actually use such enormous bitmaps, but......that isn't the point. ACES claims that it can't be done, yet it can.and has been done!Ever since FS2002, the ability to backlight gauges in the VC via an emissive lightmap has been available, yet until I "beat ACES over the head" during the beta of FSX SP1, no one at ACES was aware of that ability. Instead, a couple of the ACES developers spent countless hours inventing an entirely new, and quite unnecessary method for FSX SP2. Apparently ACES reconized my expertise in this area, otherwise they'd not have asked me to write a White Paper for them to publish on their official develper's website: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/esp/cc788741.aspxIt's only a case of serendipity that the "new method" managed to open up new possibilities for lighting that were not possible before, most of which actually have nothing whatever to VC gauge backlighting... :( In the FS9 SDK, ACES made the statement that all bitmaps "must be square." This is also demonstrably FALSE, as any modeler skeptical enough of their claim has proven, time and time again. Both FS9 and FSX will quite happily consume any bitmap one cares to use, provided that the x and/or y dimensions are a exact power of two.I could go on and cite several dozen other "mistakes" and/or "errors" in the official SDKs, but I think the point has been made. You simply cannot assume that everything ACES has said is necessarily accurate. Worse still, there are many "errors of omission." For example they've made absolutely no mention whatever about having changed the algorithims for LOD and Mip display. It has been the hours spent by modelers in trial-and-error that've exposed how the new system actually works.It is long past time that you recognized that there are quite a few people who are just as intelligent and knowledgable within their own field(s) of expertise as you are within your area of expertise, and quit being so bloody patronizing and dismissive of them.

I doubt very much that i am patronizing or dismissive at all to tell you the truth. When and where applicable I use everything that I read and study so that I can enhance my own and my clients enjoyment and knowledge of the sim. But I do not worship the ground you walk on nor do I accept everything that pops out of your mouth just because it's you.Nor do I expect anyone to accept whatever I say just because it's me.In my work if I can't deliver than I have failed. My obsevations are based on my NOT FAILING and if my clients are dissapointed with their performance or their visuals than I take responsibility and that includes fiscal responsibility.I've already heard it all on these forums. I've heard how my service was "snake oil" by, people who never even did it, except of course when some (and only some) of the techniques were handed out for FREE than it was "the greatest thing since flush toilets".Every time I post here someone starts something and I'm still standing and so is my business.I find your tone and your attitude to be obnoxious and it's not the first time I've said so.It's not your knowledge it's your delivery always taking a superior attitude getting agressive when someone doesn't immediately accept your gosple.You need to calm down. My experience clearly points out that mip-mapping is to the benefit of the user in FSX and in most cases in Fs9 and I have seen it both throughmy clients and my own experience over and over again.So excuse me for introducing the real world here where we see results through real people who day in and day out fly their sims and not waste their time looking for the next "word of G*D. I am absolutely sure that if my clients weren't so busy flying and NOT complaining about FSX they would post here and say the same.Michael Gwww.fs-gs.com

[Guest PPSFA]

Hey guys, I just asked a simple question, no need to stsrt WW3 over it! :(

[Guest FlyingBits]

Not to barge in, but this is a question for both you guys:1. SP1 is better for photoscenery clarity over SP2? this has been my result in an apples to apples same driver, same Lod bias etc settings.2.As per both of your opinions, has everyone checked on the settings in which this is better than that? I mean, if you done have the right AA, alphAA and other things selected such as high quality LODS (vs. Performance LOD) things will look blury and this or that. Jusy saying, many argue over things that are not relative.Peace!

[N2056 33]

This is just a thought on the observation that all of the stock planes are mipped...:( The stock planes are also used as AI planes, and mips would be useful there. All I know is what I have experienced while building models. Mip maps always look bad, so I choose not to use them.

[Guest FlyingBits]

This is just a thought on the observation that all of the stock planes are mipped...:( The stock planes are also used as AI planes, and mips would be useful there. All I know is what I have experienced while building models. Mip maps always look bad, so I choose not to use them.

Always?What are all your relivant video driver settings that you are using?

[N2056 33]

I have seen the same thing over the course of at least three or four different video cards (and may drivers) over the years, and it has been discussed in designer forums many many times...

[ramsa329 0]

This is just a thought on the observation that all of the stock planes are mipped...:( The stock planes are also used as AI planes, and mips would be useful there. All I know is what I have experienced while building models. Mip maps always look bad, so I choose not to use them.

and my experience is that everytime one of my clients loads an FSD aircraft they have to mip-map it.Different strokes for different folks.Michael Gwww.fs-gs.com

[Guest FlyingBits]

I have seen the same thing over the course of at least three or four different video cards (and may drivers) over the years, and it has been discussed in designer forums many many times...

Good.Not doubting you, But I made a valid point.Been modeling highrez Objects and sceneries since FS5 and I did my fair-share of card reviews, seen all type of issues appear and disapear depending on settings and the interplay between the game settings and driver set. Now can you describe your settings and what >"it" is?

[N2056 33]

and my experience is that everytime one of my clients loads an FSD aircraft they have to mip-map it.Different strokes for different folks.Michael Gwww.fs-gs.com

It is a common practice among all developers...hence the original question! I was fully expecting that this would get thrown up as an FSD 'flaw'. Thanks for not letting me down! Based on this comment I am wasting my time trying to get anything out of this thread, and I will not be posting anything further here.

[Guest PPSFA]

All I know is what I have experienced while building models. Mip maps always look bad, so I choose not to use them.

Thats very interesting, I get just the opposite results.

[virtualstuff 751]

All I know is what I have experienced while building models. Mip maps always look bad, so I choose not to use them.

Then you have a problem maybe local but in FSX you should use mipmaps ;-) actually texture work looks better lol and it should beHence the hardware and driver is designed to work this way ;-)If you ever wonder why ground textures or airport buildings shimmer just add mipmaps :( Andr

[ramsa329 0]

It is a common practice among all developers...hence the original question! I was fully expecting that this would get thrown up as an FSD 'flaw'. Thanks for not letting me down! Based on this comment I am wasting my time trying to get anything out of this thread, and I will not be posting anything further here.

It was never my intention to imply that this was an FSD flaw.The problem is much greater than any one company.Michael Gwww.fs-gs.com