Sign in to follow this  
styckx

MipMaps actually work right! [pictures]

Recommended Posts

I saw in another thread A2A is telling people to disable cockpit panel mips which got my brain churning... FSX is notoriously awful handing Mips and no one uses them.  Does this mean??? YES!

  

MIPMAPS ACTUALLY FUNCTION OUT OF THE BOX IN V2!! NO BLUR!

 

I converted the textures of a Carenado 182T textures w/ Mips and edited each layer (except the top layer) of the mip chain with a different color.

 

lYsmrJb.jpg

 

z8THxl7.jpg

 

WDvihZ0.jpg

 

sUF8EMU.jpg

 

Zb4P0n3.jpg

 

This is best news out of V2 I've seen yet!!

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I'm soooooooo stoked about this..  Converting my hanger is going to be a long process but it will be completely worth the effort. Oh happy days!!  :dance:​ 

Share this post


Link to post

The second picture looks stunning. B)

 

How did you convert a Carenado 182T to use Mips?

Share this post


Link to post

The second picture looks stunning. B)

 

How did you convert a Carenado 182T to use Mips?

 

Just do exactly the opposite of what all the repaint guides tell you not to do.. Actually save your texture with Mips.. This alone warrants strictly v2 only planes.. And v2 only repaints..     :Hypnotized:   :yahoo:

 

2wJPz4M.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

Those images look really nice, but what does MipMap exactly do in this case? Or what is MipMap anyway? Sorry for my ignorance...    Never mind, I did some google and I now understand what kind of the test Bill was doing.

Share this post


Link to post

Those images look really nice, but what does MipMap exactly do in this case? Or what is MipMap anyway? Sorry for my ignorance...

 

I'm using a cat picture as an example because I think it would be rude to post a developers default unedited texture.

 

Imagine the left most image is 4096x4096

 

Currently.. No matter if the camera is 1inch away from your plane, or 100ft away.. It's still rendering that 4096x4096 texture which is just wasteful and can cause aliasing.   Now, as you move away from the object it transitions to the lower resolution textures to the right..  Hence the blending of colors in my first post.

 

Direct link to picture: http://i.imgur.com/U4jLZK4.jpg

 

Edit: Just saw your edit.. I'll leave this post here for others who might not understand.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


Edit: Just saw your edit.. I'll leave this post here for others who might not understand.

 

Thanks for that! ^_^

Share this post


Link to post

Wow.....very good work!  Congratulations on discovering a new element.

Share this post


Link to post

I am curious about the jaggy shadow of the rear tail wing in the second picture - is that an artifact of the MIPS process?

Share this post


Link to post

So from a performance standpoint, is this beneficial?

Share this post


Link to post

I am curious about the jaggy shadow of the rear tail wing in the second picture - is that an artifact of the MIPS process?

 

No. That's a side affect of the plane itself in DX11 shadows. Not all are like this.. (I actually deleted and reinstalled it to verify after you pointed that shadow out)

 

For example.. Here is the Carenado 210 that I just installed. It has the same problem and I've yet to convert..  The wing shadows though are straight as an arrow. The DX11 shadows might be picking up the little ridges in the control surfaces..

 

LtFEdFG.jpg

 

 

So from a performance standpoint, is this beneficial?

 

 

You're not going to go from 9FPS to 9000FPS by any means..  You may see no actual performance differences. It's just less overhead, more efficient and less likely to see shimmering..   This is how aircraft textures should have been in FSX but unfortunately adding mips to  aircraft in FSX cause it to be super blurry. It never showed the top mip layer no matter what you did.

Share this post


Link to post

No. That's a side affect of the plane itself in DX11 shadows. Not all are like this.. (I actually deleted and reinstalled it to verify after you pointed that shadow out)

 

For example.. Here is the Carenado 210 that I just installed. It has the same problem and I've yet to convert..  The wing shadows though are straight as an arrow. The DX11 shadows might be picking up the little ridges in the control surfaces..

 

LtFEdFG.jpg

 

 

 

 

You're not going to go from 9FPS to 9000FPS by any means..  You may see no actual performance differences. It's just less overhead, more efficient and less likely to see shimmering..   This is how aircraft textures should have been in FSX but unfortunately adding mips to  aircraft in FSX cause it to be super blurry. It never showed the top mip layer no matter what you did.

 

Showing my absolute lack of knowledge here. Would this potentially give a performance boost (i.e. less overhead) to correctly detailed AI traffic?

Share this post


Link to post

Showing my absolute lack of knowledge here. Would this potentially give a performance boost (i.e. less overhead) to correctly detailed AI traffic?

 

Somewhat.

 

There was a batch file to mipmap all UT2 aircraft in FSX. It looked better (way less shimmering on liveries like American) and performed a little better.

Share this post


Link to post

And on user aircraft..  Some of these  aircraft have like six 2048/4096 textures just for the interior alone.. Mipping them out balances things out better.. Same for the outside... You don't need a 4096x4096 texture in a spot view 45ft feet away from your aircraft, that's ridiculous. 

 

I know I'm nerding out over it but I'm completely game for anything that makes this simulator more efficient..  If the plane I'm using now previously had nine 4096x4096 unmipped textures that can now use mipmaps correctly.. I'm alll over it

Share this post


Link to post

I had no Idea that mipmaps were considered a problem in FSX. I converted all of the UT2 AI planes once, (shimmering was absolutely awful otherwise) and FSX took it just fine......

Share this post


Link to post

I had no Idea that mipmaps were considered a problem in FSX. I converted all of the UT2 AI planes once, (shimmering was absolutely awful otherwise) and FSX took it just fine......

 

Yep.. If I dropped the same textures I'm using for these Carenado aircraft in P3D into FSX and went to the same outside view as the first three  pictures in the first post it would look like I just took a screenshots of an aircraft modeled in 2006 with 1024 textures..  I've never opened a DDS file of someones aircraft to see it mip-mapped..  

 

Scenery on the other hand is a different story

Share this post


Link to post

I can't find the MIPMAP utility in the nVidia tools area. Can you post a link?

Share this post


Link to post

So I just learned something and am really disappointed and embarrassed..... If any of you give a hoot about your FSX or Prepar3D performance I would read this.. 

 

TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=4096

 

^ We've all heard that repeated constantly about being "a must have tweak"... 

 

"You need to set TML of 4096 in FSX cfg to use HD planes". 

 

"It will display 1024 but you will still suffer the performance of 4096"

 

I've heard this a bajillion times... You have too.. For god sakes I've actually repeated this non-sense..  And it never clicked until now the dog and pony show this was the entire time..

 

This is only true if if the planes actually use mipmaps.. Which nearly none of them do. Can anyone actually name one? If an aircraft is using unmipped 4096 textures.. FSX (or Prepar3D) doesn't care what TML you are set at.. It j will just display the 4096 textures  because it has no other stupid choice.  So it makes sense when I kept saying "FSX blurs when you use mipmaps" because I never set 4096 in FSX's cfg because like most others I never saw a lick of difference when I did or didn't... So when I converted to mipmaps it was only showing the 1024x1024  or lower chain of that mip-map. at all times in FSX..

 

In P3D I set 2048/4096 from day one because I don't need to waste my time checking if it reset itself like FSX..  I only set it to 2048/4096 because I was trained to and P3D made it easy. And let's face it.. I had no idea what it actually did.. Either did a lot of you I bet.

 

Long story short... FSX used mip-maps right the entire time if you just set 4096 in the config but FSX aircraft developers cheated you out of performance because instead of using mip-maps like they should have from day one and telling you explicitly to set TML of 4096 they just skipped the mips, and used 4096 or 2048 unmipped textures instead assuming no one would ever read instructions to set TML of 4096..

 

Who here honestly ever saw a difference with aircraft in FSX between a tml of 4096 and 1024?????  Exactly.. Because it was all a farce..  The only honest people have been airport and scenery designers.. I'm beyond annoyed and embarrassed just finding this out....  So much performance, and overhead lost to stupid non-sense. Over 7 years of playing with and repainting textures in Photoshop and I got sucked into this now obvious old wives tale... Just embarrassing.. 

Share this post


Link to post

Who here honestly ever saw a difference with aircraft in FSX between a tml of 4096 and 1024????? Exactly.. Because it was all a farce..

Really!

Well just to name one example this guys work you have to set TML to 4096, he even does a low res version because if you have it set to anything less that 4096 it is really bad.

Anyway I could give a huge list but it would in your words get "embarrassing".

http://www.lockonfiles.com/files/file/1627-fsx-b-17g-memphis-belle/

 

Anyway never mind you gave it a good try. :biggrin:

 

 

The wing shadows though are straight as an arrow. The DX11 shadows might be picking up the little ridges in the control surfaces..

Sorry I disagree it's just really bad AA, Nothing Straight as an arrow there.

Share this post


Link to post

Really!

Well just to name one example this guys work you have to set TML to 4096, he even does a low res version because if you have it set to anything less that 4096 it is really bad.

Anyway I could give a huge list but it would in your words get "embarrassing".

http://www.lockonfiles.com/files/file/1627-fsx-b-17g-memphis-belle/

 

Anyway never mind you gave it a good try. :biggrin:

 

 

Sorry I disagree it's just really bad AA, Nothing Straight as an arrow there.

 

And I can make huge list of those who don't..    

 

Does that look like a wing to you? Again.. THE FUSELAGE jaggies might be picking up the ridges on the control surfaces. 

 

uITfBPH.jpg

 

Ugh.. Matter of fact.. Look ma, no jaggies at a different angle in the sun..

 

ut46V1s.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

Bill I bet you can make a big list but it was you saying we never see it. So no need to get shirty, you made the statement.

 

 

Again.. THE FUSELAGE jaggies might be picking up the ridges on the control surfaces.

Nope it bad AA

4l5tN.jpg

 

Yes the jaggies are a lot better in those 2 SS unlike the one you stated as "straight as an arrow." We could only work on the example you posted.

Ugh.. Matter of fact.. Look ma, no jaggies at a different angle in the sun..

Really! very mature, and we could see these before?

Share this post


Link to post

Bill, and how about the cloud textures?

Having mipmapped textures for planes is not a big deal when we talk about performance, but mipmapped clouds should make a big difference in heavy weather.

 

Hope this question is not so stupid...  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

It's not stupid..  :)  Cloud textures are mipmapped as far as I can tell ie: REX etc. As long as you use DXT5 Optimization..  There is no fool proof way to know though since REX uses Extended BMP for DXT5 optimized files and DXTBMP doesn't tell you if it contains mips or not.. The only way I could tell was re-saving the textures REX generated with and without mips and comparing file sizes.. (Mipped textures will always be larger than the same one un-mipped) I'm just more than ever trying to optimize my install. So plane mips are important to me even if it's a small difference.  I'm over the FSX philosophy of brute forcing performance.. 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this