Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

PebbleBeach

FS2004 and 1024x1024 Textures

Recommended Posts

Hello all.

 

I have the St. Louis International Airport (STL) produced by Taxi2gate. It is without doubt one of the better US airports for Fs9. I was admiring the grass textures as well as other terrain textures they use and how wonderfully clear and realistic they are at altitude. In fact, I actually copied them to a new folder and converted them so I could look closer using Photoshop. I was perplexed to find that all of the, were 1024x1024. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was always under the impression FS9 was restrained to 512x512 texture size. So how is it that Taxi2gate was able to get these beautiful textures to display at 1024x1024? And yet a better question is, if 1024x1024 is usable in FS9, then why isn't GEP designed using these size textures as they have done for FSX????

 

Anyone with insight into this?

 

Thanks,

 

Mitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

So don't really understand either why nobody has released an update for the world textures considering they can look better then default.

There are several payware products that do just that.

 

Given the scope of work required to redraw all of the different classes I would not expect there to be much freeware.

 

There are some freeware that update certain classes, and of course there are several freeware water texture sets available.

 

regards,

Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


And yet a better question is, if 1024x1024 is usable in FS9, then why isn't GEP designed using these size textures as they have done for FSX????

 

Because each file would be 4 times as large and when you are dealing with over 2000 textures per set you are talking about a large increase in storage size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Landclass textures are limited to 256x256. GePro is just that, landclass textures, that's why they aren't any larger. They look far better than the defaults though.

Most other textures (aircraft, buildings, clouds...) can be up to 1024x1024.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon_aus, on 24 Jun 2013 - 10:52 PM, said:

Other textures are at 256x256...

So don't really understand either why nobody has released an update for the world textures considering they can look better then default.

 

JSkorna, on 25 Jun 2013 - 09:24 AM, said:

Because each file would be 4 times as large and when you are dealing with over 2000 textures per set you are talking about a large increase in storage size.

Actually 1024x1024 textures are 16 times larger than 256x256.

 

regards,

Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at FS computer right now, but what about file size? I admit I don't have much to compare to at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jim,

 

Continuing with my original post, I tried an experiment today. And please let me first say that this topic has probably been discussed here and elsewhere over and over. If this is the case, please excuse my ignorance.

 

Anyway, I copied all of my GEPX night textures from FSX and placed them into a temp folder. I then compared the file names of these with the night textures of FS9. After writing down the file names for FS9, I then verified these same names were identical with the FSX ones. In most cases they were. A couple I had to change and several I had to delete as they are not in FS9 nor do the file types exceed 7. I then copied these FSX night files 1024 x 1024 into FS9 without changing the file format (size, channel, etc.). Booted the sim and bingo. They display very nicely and in my opinion look much better and realistic than the GEP (FS9) ones.

 

So basically what I did is just copy FSX's night files into FS9 without changing anything other than the file name in some cases.

 

It looks so good that I am now going to do all of the summer daytime files as see how it looks.

 

I have heard before that folks had taken FSX files and reduced them to the size that FS9 calls for and were not happy. I on the other hand left the size intact at 1024 x 1024 after seeing how awesome the Taxi2gate terrain files looked. And no, Taxi2gate's 1024 x 1024 files are not just runway and airport types. All of the textures I looked at were 1024 x 1024 to include terrain areas outside of the airport facility. Files you see while on approach. And honestly they look superb!

 

I know that FS9 are not displaying these files in the 1024 x 1024 format. Having said that however, perhaps leaving the files this size allows FS9 to somehow compact and display more vividly than if the files were reduced in size. I dont know. I just know the night textures look fantastic and noticed zero performance hit. I am now anxious to continue this test using the summer FSX files. I'll let you know.

 

Mitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitch,

 

Find jon_aus recent thread on rock textures.

 

This will explain how MipMaps work and give you a better understanding of what you see.

 

And yes, a 1024 x 1024 DXT1 texture is approx 16x the size of a 256 x 256, for no benefit and much larger resource consumption (bloat)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitch,

I have read these types of threads before; and it does have me curious.

Please let us know the results of your experient with the summer textures.  If it works, I might buy FSX just for the texture files!

Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe:

I call it GEPX. Not sure what its called. It's the FSX version of Ground Environment Professional.

 

Hcornea:

I disagree to the no benefit. Placebo effect? No sir. The night textures looked vastly better than what I had. And as I mentioned above, I noticed zero system hit. And understand, this is on a simulator that has one PC running (2) Triplehead2Go's for a total of 7 screens. Three view windows in the front, one view window left, one view window right. In addition, there is a instrument screen for the LevelD ADI, HSI, Speed, RMI, Altimeter, VSI, Clock as well as the seventh screen displaying upper and lower EICAS and flap gauge. Trust me, I would have noticed a performance hit. Now you understand why I use FS9. Could never run this on FSX.

 

Ron:

Yes I have read many threads on here before as well. And from so called experts. Quite honestly, I don't know what to think the majority of the time. If my memory serves me correctly, I've been reading Avsim since the mid 90's. In fact, have even gone to two of their conferences (Orlando & Reading, Pa). Having said this, I can only really remember two people that posted information regarding enhancements to FS9 that benefited me personally. NickN's well written instructions on setting up a PC etc etc. as well as FS9.cfg settings that PSolk shared with me some time ago. Not to undermine anyone at all. It is just that these two stick in my mind as posting information that actually panned out.

 

I'm not sure why the Taxi2gate's terrain textures look so good but I do know that when I converted all of them I was surprised to find they were 1024 x 1024. I'm not a software guy. I'm a builder and a hardware guy. The night textures look brilliant. And yes I will let you know how the summer experiment goes.

 

Best regards,

 

Mitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim, how bout being more forth coming than simply posting an animated gesture? Are you one of those experts I should be listening to? LMAO. Plz do tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim, how bout being more forth coming than simply posting an animated gesture? Are you one of those experts I should be listening to? LMAO. Plz do tell.

 

Let me ask you this - with your new 1024px textures installed, what happens when you go to KSTL and slew around the boundary where the addon scenery meets the landclass textures? Since you now have 1024px landclass textures, which are the same resolution as those supplied with the KSTL scenery, do you see the same sharp, clear resolution outside of the KSTL scenery boundary that you see inside, or do you see a distinct difference in resolution where the KSTL scenery ends and the landclass begins?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitch,

 

Can you provide a link to this GEPX?

 

I was not aware that there was anything like this for FSX!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitch,

 

Can you provide a link to this GEPX?

 

I was not aware that there was anything like this for FSX!

 

 

I call it GEPX. Not sure what its called. It's the FSX version of Ground Environment Professional.

 

The FSX version of Ground Environment Professional is Ground Environment X, so he should be using GEX as the abbreviation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK that I have access to.

 

FYI, that is one set of textures that are not modified as GEP does for FS04.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, well the summer daytime texture experiment didn't go so well. Kept getting CTD's every time I started the sim. I'm sure someone knows why.

 

At any rate, night time is now spectacular. Approaching cities from a distance is very realistic looking. Banking with a little over 200 degree visual system is breathtaking to say the least. Thank you Taxi2gate for the superb KSTL and for triggering this little experiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question is..., and I am asking this in the nicest way possible..

 

If all of you are trying so hard to make FS9 look more like FSX.. (Increased texture size... etc), why don't you just use FSX?

 

If you succeed in doing this to make FS9 look more like FSX, FS9 will perform the same as FSX..

 

FS9 isn't just "magically" faster... FSX loads wayy more stuff, higher textures... etc. Doesn't make sense..

 

 

Best Regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Because FSX is unstable.

 

2. Because FSX requires a super computer.

 

3. Because FSX requires constant tweaking.

 

4. Because many FS9 users have a ton of $$ tied up in add-ons, not counting all the fantastic freeware stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Because FSX is unstable.

 

2. Because FSX requires a super computer.

 

3. Because FSX requires constant tweaking.

 

4. Because many FS9 users have a ton of $$ tied up in add-ons, not counting all the fantastic freeware stuff.

+1 what Jim said. However, #1 doesn't apply to me. Just 2-4.

 

Also, my most used heavy/complex aircraft is the PMDG MD-11. I have both FS9 and FSX versions. No matter what I do, in FSX I get micro stutters in big airports like KJFK, KLAX, etc. even at very low settings. In FS9, it's always smooth sailing.

 

Unless I have a super computer, I won't even bother with FSX anymore. The only time I'm going back to it is when we can buy a PC that can run FSX super smooth with every single slider maxed out.

 

Another thing I really hate about FSX when flying heavies is the head momentum that can't be turned off and rarely comes back perfectly centered. I feel like a drunk pilot whenever I'm making a turn.

 

When we buy tons of add ons and enhancement, getting FS9 to look like FSX is not the goal. We know FS9's limitations and we just want to make it look as pretty as we can.

 

There are more reasons why I prefer FS9, but I'll leave it at that. I'm sure other members will chime in with their reasons for sticking with FS9.

 

If you succeed in doing this to make FS9 look more like FSX, FS9 will perform the same as FSX..

It won't. I've tried it. Try it on a big hub like Aerosoft's Madrid Barajas. Looks pretty much identical on both sims. 100% traffic with heavy weather in FS9 and it's still smooth. Try that in FSX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if you get FS9 with all of these improvements to get it to look like FSX, you will need a super computer to run FS9, just like FSX..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if you get FS9 with all of these improvements to get it to look like FSX, you will need a super computer to run FS9, just like FSX..

 

You don't.  Read the last part of my post before yours (last post page 1).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites