I only have an E6850 system with a 512MB 9800GTX, so my system can't handle Hi-Res textures (4096x4096). They will load ok (Slow) but introduce scenery blurries, that I normally don't get. So this forces me to reduce texture size (With Photoshop) for any texture greater then 1024x1024 down to the standard resolution of 1024x1024 (Or whatever proportionately the texture is) For example if the original size was 4096x2048 it would now be 1024x512. I knew this going into purchasing the PMDG NGX as I have the same issue with McPhrat textures. The result especially in the VC quite honestly I can't tell the difference. I have only converted one of the VC textures so far, so I decided to do a little experiment. Attached are 2 sets of sceenshots of the VC, consisting of 2 shots each, one of the Main panel, and one of the overhead. We'll call them Set A and Set B. One set (Of course I won't say which one!) has been downsized to the standard 1024 res, with Texture_Max_Load=1024, and the other at the original res of 4096 with the Texture_Max_load=4096. FSX resolution was set to 1920x1080x32 (The max my projector an handle) for both. Can you Tell the Difference??? Set A Set B

Based on your system and what you have done, I think that is pretty darn good. This may be a fix for some who are having major FPS problems

Based on your system and what you have done, I think that is pretty darn good. This may be a fix for some who are having major FPS problems

Unfortunately it does nothing for FPS, it just fixes the blurry scenery issue, which was my main intent! Man I'm jealous of those with O/C'd I7's! My system usually holds it's own with current Payware aircraft models, but the detail of this one is making me move the sliders further to the left then I would like! I'm hoping a service pack will optimize performance a little more, which is usually the norm with aircraft addon's in the past. Even just 2 or 3 more FPS would be helpful and appreciated. The goal though it looks like was to optimize it more for current systems, which it seems they have achieved from those with them. So we'll just have to wait and see!

Set A is the high res. Window heating elements are visible in set A but gone in set B. Other than that, I can't find any differences.

It's really hard for me to tell the difference at the resolution that you posted these. If you posted them at the forum max of 1600 then I might be able to tell some difference. I've done the same thing you have done but not with the VC textures yet, just been resizing my external textures to 1024 to help with the exterior loading and I can't really tell much difference in texture quality eiher, same reason I usually run 1024 clouds.

without casting judgement.. the basic logic goes.. the lower the res size, the greater the improvement on FPS. Frankly, it shocked me quite a bit to see the res at 4096 pix!

It's really hard for me to tell the difference at the resolution that you posted these. If you posted them at the forum max of 1600 then I might be able to tell some difference. I've done the same thing you have done but not with the VC textures yet, just been resizing my external textures to 1024 to help with the exterior loading and I can't really tell much difference in texture quality eiher, same reason I usually run 1024 clouds.

Hmm, that's weird The shots I uploaded are 1600x900, it looks like some how the forum reduced them further., probably explains the loss of the heating elements in Set B as they are there clearly in the sim.

Hmm, that's weird The shots I uploaded are 1600x900, it looks like some how the forum reduced them further., probably explains the loss of the heating elements in Set B as they are there clearly in the sim.

Yes, they may have changed it if the were over 200kb.I tried changing the three 4096 and the one 4096 x 1024 main panel texture to three 1024's and one 2048 X 512 main panel. What a difference it made along with doing my external textures to 1024. On my rig I cant even tell the difference since I didn't do any of the lettering texturs, everything is still sharp but no loading issues and a smoother flight.

Yes, they may have changed it if the were over 200kb. I tried changing the three 4096 and the one 4096 x 1024 main panel texture to three 1024's and one 2048 X 512 main panel. What a difference it made along with doing my external textures to 1024. On my rig I cant even tell the difference since I didn't do any of the lettering texturs, everything is still sharp but no loading issues and a smoother flight.

No none was more than 170KB, the dimensions are a little weird too. (1200x675), Ah well. Does it help your frames? It doesn't on mine, but like you the loading , and blurry issues are gone. I think the reason is my limited memory on by video card. I'm thinking of replacing it with a 1GB card, maybe a 460, but as I'm still a WinXP 32 bit hold out (Which has served me well up to this point, no CTD problems at all like some with Win 7 64 bit users report.), it would mean I would have to lower my USERVA value down even lower, which may cause other problems.

Since a couple of days have gone by, I guess I can confirm SET A is the Hi-Res images. For those that voted Set A, can you tell me what gave it away? Was it the missing heating elements (Present in game and the original screenshots on my system) like Joseph mentioned, or the crisper ground textures (Caused by upping the Texture_Max_Load to 4096, something I didn't count on when I did this.) Or can you truly tell the difference in the VC itself?

So can you tell us what texture files need downsizing in VC?

So can you tell us what texture files need downsizing in VC?

There in the texture.vc sub folder in the non winglet folder. You can also down size the external textures in the livery folder, and the .common folder. As usual make backup copies, before you do this. Else you'll have to do a reinstall if something goes wrong. Edit: Ah, just realized something both the 800's and the 900's are using the same VC and common sub folders in the 800 folder, so both sets evidently are Standard Res (Since I downsized it) Oopps Sorry. They still look good though.

Stupid question maybe but isn't setting Texture_Max_Load to 1024 enough to bring down the res...? If you have that setting, aren't you are using 1024 textures...? Or does converting the textures make a real difference? Maybe because the big textures are still loaded but not actually shown...? I think I will have a look at this tonight: I wonder how many textures there are that need editing. Did you do it with DXTBmp and Photoshop...? And you ONLY edited the ones that were bigger than 1024?

Due to the poor quality of the screeshots there is not much to compare really.BUT there is no need to compare.Buying a model with Highres textures and reducing the resolution to make it run on your rig is quiet nonsense.Reducing a texture from 4096x4096 to 1024x1024 means making the same picture with one sixteenth the amount of pixels.In other words thowing away all sharpness and detail.Telling there is hardly any difference....................pfffffffff what a laugh. BTW this has nothing to do with "screenshots" , I really think this is the wrong forum for this kind of discussion. Leen de Jager

the resolution to make it run on your rig is quiet nonsense.Reducing a texture from 4096x4096 to 1024x1024 means making the same picture with one sixteenth the amount of pixels.In other words thowing away all sharpness and detail.Telling there is hardly any difference....................pfffffffff what a laugh.

Ok, wrong forum, but I just wondered: when do you ever see every pixel of that 4096x4096 texture...? Usually you will see the textures a lot smaller... I have a 1080p screen, so in order to actually see each and every pixel of that 4096 texture, I'd have to zoom in so only a 50% (or so) of it fills the screen. In general use I would only see that texture at a lot smaller size. Isn't it so that you can only really start to see the difference between a 4076 and a 1024 texture as soon as you start looking at that 1024 above 100% of it's size...? When I open a large picture in Photoshop, copy it and resize it to a smaller size (let's say a quarter) and then put them next to each other so they have the same size onscreen, with the smaller not being shown larger then 100%, I can't see the difference between the two: that big picture is being resized 'real time' on my screen. I only start to see the difference when the smaller picture is at (for instance) 125% and the original one (while still looking at them at the same size onscreen) is still well below 100%: only THEN I start to see that bigger picture is sharper. Doesn't this work the same with a 4096 texture which you usually only see scaled down a lot in FSX...? Just thinking out loud. I presume some of the sharpness still can be seen even at smaller sizes (there are more pixels to 'play' with when you move your head around, or something like that), but I do doubt if the different is so big that you can call it nonsense, specially if your pc can't handle the plane and you use 1024 anyway.