Hi,I had read awhile back a comment concerning those high resolution textures (those above 1024) which are offered up by a number of companies. A comment had been stated, that one could produce the same amount of detail in 1024 textures if the right tools were used, and those tools were in the right hands. Since I am waiting for a download I thought I would see if there is any validity to this.RegardsBob

Completely different topics. Detail vs. resolution are completely unrelated, other than the fact that if you have, let's say, a 4096 texture, the details within that image will be more crisp than a resolution of 1024.

I see them as obsolete and maybe too taxing for the now stressed FSX engine, running current addons in combination. I also don't see the difference those things should make on e. g. clouds. But maybe that's just my mixed up eyesight. Clearly personal preference when it comes to the optical benefits.However, some devs generate a performance benefit out of it as they use one 'giant' 4096 texture part to replace the sixteen calls for the 1024 equivalent on scenery. At least that's how I understood it at the new FSDT airports.

Resolution 1024 vs 4096. I understand resolution per se, so maybe I am missing what these numbers really mean. A 4096 texture has a much larger file size, so it must be the amount of information that can be contained per pixel because my screen resolution remains constant.Bob

one could produce the same amount of detail in 1024 textures if the right tools were used, and those tools were in the right hands

In some cases textures are made to be 'tiled'…they are repeated and the effect is as if they were hi-res.But I think the point they mean to make is just that artistic skill accounts for a lot.As you'd expect as resolution goes up the detail goes up.But 4096 is a massive texture.It takes up 16 times more memory than a 1024.Ok if it indeed replaces 16 textures. Not so good if the old textures are simply grown to that size.Some people have the hardware to use such big textures, but not me ;)My 3D editor can't even load something that big.CoolIP is right that fewer texture files are better for performance, so that's a good use for 4096.Combining textures into a single file like that is known as atlasing.