Hi,Just thought I would ask this question.When I first started painting, I was under the impression that 32-bit textures gave a better "finish" in the sim.Now I know this is not the case, with a small amount of editing before compression, a DXT3 textures looks pretty much identical (at least as long as you don't get your magnifying glass out).Not only is the quality comparible, they are 4 times smaller in size, leading to less bandwidth for both host and client, and using less space on your HDD, and have a very benificial effect on performance in the sim.So my question is why do people still use 32-bit textures?Dan.

I don't know Dan. The first thing I do is look at textures and change all 32 bit to DXT3. My old box just won't cut the 32 bit textures and my old tired eyes can't tell the difference. I guess mabey their for screen shots??Farmer

Same thing to me. I really don't mind the small difference, because there IS a quality difference between 32bit and DXT3 textures, but unless you really don't zoom in a lot there's not much to tell, especially if you don't use the "Massive size" textures option in FS.Besides getting better frame rates DXT3 textures are also excellent for virtual cockpits because you won't be waiting 10 seconds to get them all loaded when you switch from the panel view to a side view.Most addons ship with 32bit textures like PSS, PMDG, FSD (but they have alternative DXT3 on their site), Flight1 and so on, sometimes it's a bit frustrating converting all the textures manually (Flight1 textomatic is very handy though) but I understand that some people prefer the 32bit textures on their high end machines, especially as been said for the eye candy or screenshots.There's just one point however. I wonder how many of those people complaining about textures loading times or frame rates know about the possibility of converting to DXT3, and so in my opinion all addons should be delivered with DXT3 textures because it's easy to understand that not everybody is a computer expert or simply because some people don't want to spend 1 hour converting textures.Much the same could be said about virtual cabins or animated passengers, though those are (fortunately) an option and can be disabled.

"because there IS a quality difference between 32bit and DXT3 textures"Thats just the thing, if you just add a sharpen filter to the flattened BMP file BEFORE converting to a DXT3, the quality difference is extremely small.It is quite a pain to have to manually convert all the textures, plus the added bandwidth in having to DL files that can be up to 3 times bigger.I just think the quality differential is so small that is makes 32-bit uneeded.Dan.

Well I can understand panel developers who start out with using 32-bit and then when all is complete as a last step convert to DXT3. But then in real life you can achieve higher quality by using DXT3 because it allows you to put in more detail when the performance hit goes down.Also there is ways to totally eliminate the detail loss by using DXT compression. ATI with their X800 have invented a lossless 3dc compression of normal maps which is used to give characters in fps games like Doom 3, Far Cry Serious SAM 2 etc a look that fools you that they are a lot more detailed than they really are. Now this technique should be perfectly possible to implement in FS 2006 as well. What they do is that they create objects with 100 000 polygons or something. Then create a normal map that consists of a fraction of that number of polygons. Then you compress that with 3dc which is similar to DXT5 but DXT5 causes some corruption so 3dc is better and ATI have support for it in their hardware. Could be used for autogen or airplane models to increase performance and/or image quality.I don

Pretty slick lil Skyvan Dan. Good for first one, and no 32 bittextures. Whats next?Farmer old man in N. Texas

What's next?, good question!!!I am currently making a small addon pack for the Skyvan, that will add the Skyliner PAX version, and also a VC.After that, its anyone's guess.........I did look at the IAI Arava, but information is scarce.Dan.

<<<>>>Well, horses for courses I guess, Dan. I see a significant difference in 32-bit against DXT3 with certain finishes. Active Camera, particularly, gets us to places we've never been before! It's a trade-off; people with more modern machines have no issue with it, but those with older boxes - particularly if flying multiplayer, which I do with 15 or so others a few times a week - are sensible to reduce key textures to DXT3.When Jan Visser released the MAAM-SIM R4-D textures they were all 32-bit. He has since decided to release all 'painted' aircraft as DXT3, but keep the bare metal ladies as 32-bit. My latest repaints for the floatie are all 32-bit externals (and where there is fine detail inside) but with instructions included as to how to reduce textures if required. The size difference is substantial, as you say, and matters to many if they want a smooth sim.Mark "Dark Moment" Beaumonthttp://www.swiremariners.com/newlogo.jpg

I have a fast box, but I still prefer the smoother, quicker loading DXT3 textures. I'm all about fluidity in the sim and I do think the pauses and jolts when heavy 32 bit textures load is annoying. Besides, I don't fly with a magnifying glass!Lee:-)

How can I determine whether the textures associated with a particular a/c are 32 bit or dxt3.Thanks Barry

Hi, Default aircraft is in DXT3 format, 32 bits will reduce aircraft loading and performance on any system, any higher format will take more time to load, higher format, will doubletripple the amount of MB for each texture for a low % change in visual, that's are going in the video cards, plus it decrease the frame rate, stutters and some will have trouble on the ground rendering etc.Using imagetool.exe from Ms to see the texture format, you can change to DTX3 format easly.Consider this is only one BMP, if there is many others add the % of KB vs MB1024x1024 Dxt1=682KB Dxt3=1.33Mb 32 bit=5.33MB <----------- rediculous amount for a low % on visual increase 512x512 DXT1=170Kb DXT3=341kb 32 bit=1MB ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

Yeah I have to agree. I always convert the 32 bit textures to DXT3 (or even occasionally DXT1 for some textures) and I'm hard-pressed to tell the difference even when I zoom in and look closely. It just seems to me that the cost in performance far outweighs the visual benefit of 32 bit textures.

>Yeah I have to agree. I always convert the 32 bit textures>to DXT3 (or even occasionally DXT1 for some textures) and I'm>hard-pressed to tell the difference even when I zoom in and>look closely. It just seems to me that the cost in>performance far outweighs the visual benefit of 32 bit>textures. I also agree with this. Seems like a huge price to pay for something that is barely noticable.

Hello, "I also agree with this. Seems like a huge price to pay for something that is barely noticable. I agree, NOT worthed for the performance decrease!BestEric

If you have lots of gradients and effects such as highlights on the textures, going from 32bit to DXT will make them look worse. But this is mostly to those people like painters who can detect the difference. Certain colors just don't come out looking right in DXT either.I can see the difference between DXT and 32bit looking at the texture, but in the sim I can't tell the difference.