Since we were making tremendous headway in the other thread on this subject (FS9 is STILL the #1 flight simulator for 'heavy' operations!), I'd like to continue the discussion here.  It seems some have found with great success how to get more out of the ground scenery than we once thought was possible.  This is the last major evolution FS9 needs to insure it stands the test of time going into the future. It will give a decent alternative to FSX until Microsoft get's their head out of their you know what... 

This WOULD be the holy grail for FS9, if only the rumor was true.

The generic ground textures we're talking about here, have a maximum size of 256x256 pixels and only those sitting on the FS9 source code could change that.

Sure, you can start with higer res textures and resize them down to 256x256 and try whatever to make them as sharp as possible, but they're still low resolution.

 

Wouldn't it be great though if we got a final service pack for FS9 that gave us this...

This WOULD be the holy grail for FS9, if only the rumor was true.

The generic ground textures we're talking about here, have a maximum size of 256x256 pixels and only those sitting on the FS9 source code could change that.

Sure, you can start with higer res textures and resize them down to 256x256 and try whatever to make them as sharp as possible, but they're still low resolution.

 

Wouldn't it be great though if we got a final service pack for FS9 that gave us this...

 

 

If I read the other thread correctly you can use a resolution higher than 256x256.  Something in the 1024 range.  All I care about at this point is city textures, everything else looks fine to me.

According to the thread I have been following at FSDeveloper about this same topic, FS9 is limited to 256px on ground textures. Aircraft and building textures can go as high as 1024px.

When we talk about ground textures, what we really mean is landclass textures, i.e. grassland, desert, forest, cities etc...

These are sadly limited to 256x256 in FS9.

The only way to have high resolution cities is to create polygons (mesh) with 1024x1024 textures that goes on top of the landclass, just like the high quality airport addons.

A with the rock textures i posted, resizing HD textures improves the look vastly. It's already been done.

 

 

You and Peter_Pan might have to repost screenshots of your results for those with a short memory. 

Subscribed

Where do you find the rock textures from Aime Leclercq ?

I found nothing about rock in the Avsim library under his name ..

EDITED:

Ok found at flightsim ..

So the question I have is this:

Is it the resizing that is causing you to think things look better or just that the other textures were better to begin with and just look better at any resolution?  I am just wondering if the other textures would look better even if they were originally the same size...

I think this thread should be closed as once again false information is spread and some people just don't seem to want to accept and/or understand the limits of FS9.

 

The screenshots clearly shows no difference in RESOLUTION. They are better looking, sure, but thats only because they are better pictures of rock.

 

I read the thread over at FSDeveloper and JRobinson explains everything very well with proof to boot. http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=426477

 

You are reducing the performance and wasting diskspace using 1024x1024 landclass textures as only mip 256 and downwards will be used.

 

It's perfecly ok to reduce higher resolution textures for FS9, but reduce them to 256x256 dxt1 with mipmaps and you'll have the best possible result without wasting diskspace and resources.

I think this thread should be closed as once again false information is spread and some people just don't seem to want to accept and/or understand the limits of FS9.

 

The screenshots clearly shows no difference in RESOLUTION. They are better looking, sure, but thats only because they are better pictures of rock.

 

I read the thread over at FSDeveloper and JRobinson explains everything very well with proof to boot. http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=426477

 

You are reducing the performance and wasting diskspace using 1024x1024 landclass textures as only mip 256 and downwards will be used.

 

It's perfecly ok to reduce higher resolution textures for FS9, but reduce them to 256x256 dxt1 with mipmaps and you'll have the best possible result without wasting diskspace and resources.

I have to say I agree with Neumanix about the screenshots, I see no difference in resolution, I see different textures, hence my question above...

 

I don't think it is the resizing that is changing things, I think it is just different textures that happen to look better.  

Yeah......and? It's not false information. Like I said over there, I jus picked a tile that said 1024 and used that.

 

 

And yes...they're better looking. That's the whole point!

 

 

So if somebody re-did ALL the world textures in the same way, what would you have? A FAR better fs9 over default....and even BETTER in some respects to FSX default. (Yes for some thing I've compared)

 

 

Hang on....somebody already HAS done it.....just not sure on the legality.....yet.....

Jon, I have to say again that I don't think it is the resizing that is making them look better, I think it is that they were better textures to begin with...  I see no difference in resolution, just better textures.  So I think the point here is being missed.  It is not 1024 v 256 it is how to you take a "better" texture at 4096 or 1024 and make it work at 256x256...  

Just my opinion.

And yes, the only reason they look better is because 4096 textures won't show in fs9.

 

 

 

Like I said.....they look better.....again, that's the point. < read that 1000 times to sink in.

Ok, I am done, you can take your childish attitude elsewhere if you can't have a constructive conversation...  <Read that 1000 times to sink in....

 

 

And yes...they're better looking. That's the whole point! (Not what resolution they show at)

 

That's NOT the whole point!

 

You're right that they look better but what I'm trying to get across is that you're gaining nothing by using 1024x1024 resolution when the first two mip levels (1024 & 512) are skipped and the

first mip level used is 256.

 

You said that you don't know what mipmaps are... well maybe you should do some reading on the subject as it's essential to understand when developing for FS.

Downsampling (reducing size) preserves the image quality the best it can. You have more information than you need to begin with so to speak.

So going from 1024 -> 256 or 4096 -> 256 or 8192 -> 256 will look the same.

Upsampling (increasing size) can never preserve the image quality as you have less information to begin with.

This is basic digital image knowledge.

 

So regarding the landclass textures, you have 256x256 = 65536 pixels to be creative with.

 

You can have a blurry image or a sharp image, bad looking rock or better looking rock, but all within the limitation of 256x256 pixels.

 

A little about mipmaps... a mipmapped texture contains several different resolutions of the same image in the same file. Maybe it has 7 levels and is 1024x1024 in size.

Then the first level is the full res (1024x1024), the second 512x512, the third 256x256, the fourth 128x128, the fifth 64xz64, the sixth 32x32, and the last 16x16 pixels.

 

The texture switches to the lower levels the further in the distance the texture is displayed.

Now since FS9's landclass can only show 256x256 and downwards, the first two levels (the largest ones that take up video memory and load slower) are skipped altogether.

 

Do yourself a favour and do the resizing again, this time straight to 256x256 dxt1 with mipmaps and you'll see the same result.

John, Have you compared your downsized textures using 256 x 256 against 1024.

 

As I have explained to you (and have many others, it would seem) this is the technical question at hand.

 

Great, if it looks better, but the 'bloat' factor is enormous if you are using textures 16x greater in size than they will display.

 

So .. to prove your point: two screenshots:

 

One with new texture resized 4096 to 1024

One with new texture resized 4096 to 256

 

Easy!

 

The contention (JimR and others) is that you will see NO difference.

If the 1024 textures look better, then your point is proven.

 

PS .. I don't think anyone is disputing that working from a higher resolution master gives a better result(the recording industry has been doing this for many years with sound!). This is a result of sampling itself. But I think it is quite a stretch to say that you'll see a benefit from markedly 'oversized' textures compared with the end product.