I really understand what you are saying.When you look at a picture 1024x on a 1024x monitor you see all there is.When you look at a texture wich is 4096x it is possible to see more detail zooming in. But there is more to it , having a panel in 4096 it is possible to show tiny details like scratches, bits of dirt tear and wear. Example try to paint just one single hair or scratch at 1024 , the narrowest line we can draw is 1 pixel ,Painting the same on a 4096 sheet this scratch will only be one quarter of its width and look much more realistic. Looking at this on a 1024 monitor the scratch will look more real ( in fact a bit vague) and will not be visible as a fat line. Apart from the fact the quality of images gets damaged by scaling them up or down , reducing from 4096 to 1024 will make it impossible to see the details when zooming in. These days having big screens is no exception.Having High res paints and a small monitor is a bad combination. I cannot say a thing about FPS and inside panel textures , thats not something I am experienced in.My general experience is , the gauges/cockpitsystems etc. slow down things more than paneltextures , but as I said , thats not my speciality.Very high resolution exterior-textures have NO negative influence on the FPS on the average rig.I have been doing many tests with 4096x textures , I fact I was one of the first guys (possibly the first ? ) testing them in FSX for highly detailed ( you might say extremely ) textureart. Leen

And I also understand what you are saying. That's what I was (sort of) thinking about when I said 'more pixels to 'play' with'.

Since it's moved from the screenshot forum and out of respect of PMDG removed my comments here...

Sorry to say Leen but I would refrain from this kind of comments when you don't have a real clue how all things work at the background...I also believe as you stated this isn't the place to discuss it here ;-)

Yes you are right I really would refrain from comments not having knowledge about the issue..Being one of the devolpers of high-definition-outside-texturing at McPhatstudios I am qiuet well informed and know exactly what I am talking about.As I said I have no experience in inside texturing.And stating ,downscaling textures ruins them ( details get lost) is not a statement ,its just a fact. Nevertheless feel free to disagree. Cheers Leen de Jager

No need to explain who you are I already have that knowledge and my answer is based on that...

OK André , your vision is clear.I`ll contact McPhat and ask them to sack me. They just hired me for my knowledge and experience , they must be crazy at McPhat. do`nt you think. Cheers Leen BTWThis discussion about file-resolutions fits this topic perfectly, that`s what this topic is about.Our opinion has been asked about the result of fiddeling with the resolution of NGX texturefiles.Although some shots are shown here , this topic should have been posted elswhere or moved. EDIT:It occured to be done by our screenshotsmoderator.

You basically summed up all of my thoughts exactly. When The OP posted the shots, my first instinct was to click "image info" and see the resolution. The OP vote is sort of a joke. Sorry for the thread revival, but I wanted to share my thoughts on how ridiculous it is to say there's no difference in 1024 vs 4096. Especially considering Andre has been so active in repaints, I would have thought he would have known this; though most (all) of the panel textures I've used of his were irritatingly low res (think 767 VC mod).

I actually took two VC screen shots yesterday from the same vantage point, one with the regular hi-res VC main panel and one with the re-sized version. I resized them and compressed them to fit the 200KB Avsim upload policy and posted the compares in the screen shot gallery for Leen to compare. However, even though I resized them to fit 1600x size requirements, when I uploaded them and you click on them they wouldn't display in the whole 1600x resolution, so I asked to have the post deleted. In any case, if I was allowed to post a direct comparison at full size of the two VC pics, you would actually be able to see that the difference between the full size 4096 x 1024 and re-sized 2048 x 512 is VERY small. You really need to examine it to see any difference and I would be willing to bet that most people would be hard pressed to see any difference if given the opportunity to comapre them side by side. The only thing I could really tell much of a difference in was the screw heads being a little less detailed in the resized version, however the lettering remains the same since it is done in a seperate texture sheet that overlays the main panel and does not get resized, hence the letter textures don't get fuzzy or blurred. If you resized the lettering textures then it wouldn't look good, but just resizing the main panel back drops doens't really effect the appearance at all. Sean Campbell

I actually took two VC screen shots yesterday from the same vantage point, one with the regular hi-res VC main panel and one with the re-sized version. I resized them and compressed them to fit the 200KB Avsim upload policy and posted the compares in the screen shot gallery for Leen to compare. However, even though I resized them to fit 1600x size requirements, when I uploaded them and you click on them they wouldn't display in the whole 1600x resolution, so I asked to have the post deleted. In any case, if I was allowed to post a direct comparison at full size of the two VC pics, you would actually be able to see that the difference between the full size 4096 x 1024 and re-sized 2048 x 512 is VERY small. You really need to examine it to see any difference and I would be willing to bet that most people would be hard pressed to see any difference if given the opportunity to comapre them side by side. The only thing I could really tell much of a difference in was the screw heads being a little less detailed in the resized version, however the lettering remains the same since it is done in a seperate texture sheet that overlays the main panel and does not get resized, hence the letter textures don't get fuzzy or blurred. If you resized the lettering textures then it wouldn't look good, but just resizing the main panel back drops doens't really effect the appearance at all. Sean Campbell

Interesting, Sean. Thanks for sharing! I'm going to leave my NGX install alone unless someone makes a break through discovery. One thing you haven't mentioned is rather or not there is any benefit to doing this on current hardware.

Interesting, Sean. Thanks for sharing!

Yeah

I'm going to leave my NGX install alone unless someone makes a break through discovery. One thing you haven't mentioned is rather or not there is any benefit to doing this on current hardware.

Well, I dont know that I would call it a "break through discovery" since it doesn't alter the poly count, change the coding, or alter in anyway the guts of the a/c, but what I can say is that for people running 32bit systems with at or around 2GB of RAM, it helps the textures to load a lot faster when switching views. In some cases people in this thread http://forum.avsim.net/topic/343332-light-version/ claimed it that gave them a 5 to 10 FPS improvement. In my case, I didn't really see much of an FPS improvement as I am already getting a pretty solid 20 to 30 FPS in most cases, but it was a benefit when changing view points.As to your last question "is rather or not there is any benefit to doing this on current hardware.", well that's hard to say since I dont have another rig to try it on, but I will say this, when I build my next rig with the currently available hardware, I will still use standard 1024 resolution for both REX clouds as well as for exterior repaints and VC textures. The reason being is that I would rather free up some resources so that I can increase other display settings, be it autogen, car or AI traffic, etc., as well as the fact that since I can compare the difference and see that it it slight, I dont mind doing so.Unfortunateley the only way for one with the lastest and greatest hardware to know if there is a benefit for them would be to try it themselves if they are so inclined to do so. If not, then there isn't anyway for the said person to make a an objective call or quantify the difference between the two choices without giving it shot.Sean Campbell

Couldn't have said it better. Keep in mind that some folks read these threads and assume altering textures will give some sort of miracle performance increase, not understanding the reasons folks like you are actually altering these files. You summed it up nicely.

Helpful thread. Thanks to everyone for the replies. Either way, all I do is go into REX and turn everything down to 1024 x 1024 resolution and then go into my fsx.cfg and do the same to the texture max load. I rather not mess with the re-sizing BS :)

You basically summed up all of my thoughts exactly. When The OP posted the shots, my first instinct was to click "image info" and see the resolution. The OP vote is sort of a joke. Sorry for the thread revival, but I wanted to share my thoughts on how ridiculous it is to say there's no difference in 1024 vs 4096. Especially considering Andre has been so active in repaints, I would have thought he would have known this; though most (all) of the panel textures I've used of his were irritatingly low res (think 767 VC mod).

As I stated, I uploaded the shots at 1600, but like Sean also stated, for some reason it got downsized down to 1200x675. At the original screenshot resolution, the difference is minimal, as Sean also confirmed. I can still see the serial numbers, and the heat elements on the window, and see the dirt on the gauges. The text is also very readable. With my E6850 3.0Ghz system, it is a good compromise. What good is the high def cockpit doing me, if it causes load problems resulting in scenery blurries and the like. If I had a high powered I7 I probably wouldn't have (or needed to have) done this.

As I stated, I uploaded the shots at 1600, but like Sean also stated, for some reason it got downsized down to 1200x675. At the original screenshot resolution, the difference is minimal, as Sean also confirmed. I can still see the serial numbers, and the heat elements on the window, and see the dirt on the gauges. The text is also very readable. With my E6850 3.0Ghz system, it is a good compromise. What good is the high def cockpit doing me, if it causes load problems resulting in scenery blurries and the like. If I had a high powered I7 I probably wouldn't have (or needed to have) done this.

I know Tom. Sean did confirm. Apparently I had missed the whole point of the modification until Sean set me straight!

A is High. The difference is visible in right bottom side of the overhead picture!

Sorry for the thread revival, but I wanted to share my thoughts on how ridiculous it is to say there's no difference in 1024 vs 4096. Especially considering Andre has been so active in repaints, I would have thought he would have known this; though most (all) of the panel textures I've used of his were irritatingly low res (think 767 VC mod).

Unfortunately this topic is suddenly moved from the screenshot forum to the PMDG forum... Indeed I know better and actually PMDG is the first on this resolution what I like they did great work and performance on my hardware ;-) But my comments where based on someone is shouting in the screen shot forum the difference is huge and only 4096 is good, actually when not zooming in to macro level it's less different and peoplewith less powerful hardware can enjoy and avoid blurriness at other places in FSX or out of memory errors due to high extra huge load into memory.Hence it's so much easier to created stunning content on very huge mappings 4096 * 4096 as on default ACES mappings for FSX which are 1024 * 1024.Ouch lol, guess why as you pointed out "irritatingly low res (think 767 VC mod)" was done at that time 5 years ago (less powerful hardware lot of 32 bit systems do the math ;-))Would also avoid complaining fellow simmers for performance reasons back then lolEven still today there is hardware out there which would benefit for a default ACES mapping size or smaller version and that was my point in this topic...But then again there is more to it then mapping sizes for performance reasons like draw calls and far more things etc...Remember not everybody has the same hardware for obvious reasons. I leave it at that out of respect for PMDG and happy to discuss it via PM.