Hello Gents,Normally when I save a texture in DxtBmp, I leave the MipMaps unchecked. But this most recent time, it seems like the N number font has a certain edge to it that I don't like:I tried checking the option and here is what I got:It's tempting, based on these two pics, to conclude that with MipMaps checked, it looks better, but I've found that the rest of the textures tend to look blurry. :( What's the best way to do this for FSX? Is it possible I'm missing some other aspect? Btw, I use Paint Shop Pro for my texture manipulation and DxtBmp to convert them for the sim.

This can be very subjective, but I for one, have chosen to leave them off. Occasionally Icrete two sets of a skin, one with and one without mipmaps - after all, it's no big deal to create a clone of a plane... I think it also depends in part, on how the maker has exported his mdl file as to whether mips are usable or not. Some folk will tell you yes, some will say no. As processors get better, I tend to the no-mips faction in most cases, but as you know, the further away you get from the plane, the less detail you need to display, so you can make the computer work less by having mips. This can make a difference in MP flight for instance.So you either paint for your tastes or you paint for the weakest PC.Maybe even a graphics card driver update can help sharpen your display?

Hi guys,Here an example of a paint for FSX in a high definition texture.( wich I did not paint myself)Zoomed in extremely the smallest details are shown, each rivet , each line , even the smallest scratches.Zoomed out there is no distortion or strange glittering moir

Very nice, amazingly nice even. Especially that detail of the door handle. But....Please forgive the nit-picking (whoever did this)... the but? Take a look at the lighting on the rivets. The light is either:a. coming from underneath and wrong because modern airliners use countersunk (flat) rivets- or -b. coming from vertically overhead and wrong because that implies indented rivets. (Whatever that would be)On the other hand, I DO know that this is difficult to get right. You really have to go look at a real aircraft skin to see why rivets are so difficult to get right. Countersunk rivets are always the same height as the aircraft skin - that is because they are countersunk and thus flush (sorry - sucking eggs here). In many cases on new planes you won't even see most rivets except as a faint circle (only the outline is visible). As the plane ages and flexes, some rivets will loosen and you'll see darker circles as the paint splits and dirt gets in. But what you won't see is a bump. Unless the makers actually used dome head rivets.And then there is the mechanical spacing of rivets. The "pitch" between rivets (generally eight times rivet stem diameter between centres) and the "land" between a panel edge and the row of rivets (generally four times the rivet stem diameter). The rivets here look like they are barely half an inch between centres - that would have a "tear along perforations" effect if one rivet failed.I know, I know, even my paints suffer(ed) this at times. Another issue with the bumpmap effect is that most painters (even me) tend to stick with one lighting direction. I use "from top front". So when the model just happens to have rotated textures on one sheet, you get one side rivets lit correctly and the other side will look like it's coming from the opposite direction. Take a look at the Aerosoft Twin Otter - the port/rear section of fueslage was mapped from the same direction as the starboard rear - but the texture is inverted on the paint. The net result is that the plane looks really weird to look at from the rear left quarter. And of course, using the "noise" effect to make the painted surface look slightly rippled also causes a bad effect. It looks like there is a severe orange peel effect caused by too much paint being applied to the aircraft skin. Modern airliners have a paint finish measured in microns and even so, an Airbus A380 still has 600 Kilos of paint to carry around. No commercial aircraft manufacture would deliberately want an "Orange Peel" effect on his planes. Paint sprayers can loose their jobs for that. Sorry to put a damper on this, but bumps on sim textures are difficult to get right. You have to remember the physics of light and colour and even then bump maps are only a compromise. THE BIG CAVEATI do realise how this reads. Sorry. I also know that I make the same mistakes every time I paint a model too. I have written this as much to myself as to the painter who made that beatiful America West skin. Despite my words, that is still a good effort.

Hi Chris,Thats a long answer.About the rivets you have a point there.Making rivets is very tricky.BUT, the subject of discussion is the possibility op making a paint look sharp and detailed from a short distance an keeping the same undistorted texure when the distance of viewing increases without blurryness or walking ants.The picture shows that, that is perfectly possible , and thats the only thing I wanted to show.I must say I absolutely agree with you about the fact some rivetlines are overcrowded.The way the texture artist interpretes the way he wants to make rivets and how many and where is not the issue not the subject of this topic.Rivets can be made in several ways but will have its limitations I fully agreeAs I said before that was not the point of discussion.I must emphasize once more I did not do this paintwork , just used the screens to explaine something else what has nothing to do with the shape and size of the rivets.Leen de Jager