Is this true? I heard there are only 4096 pixel textures and therefore pretty hard on medium and low end computers. I was very close to buying it but this single statement completely turned me off from buying this airplane. Why in the world can't you also provide low res 1024 textures? I imagine there are more people running FSX/P3D on "normal" computers than some monster machines needed to run such hi res textures. Or is this information I heard wrong?

Even if there are only 4096 textures I believe the end result is set by you, the user. FSX should be able to rescale them to let's say 1024. Not the same quality, but on some of the aircraft with 4096 setting the texture resolution lower works for me.

Rescale yes, but FSX has to first load them in 4096 therefore putting load on the system. FSX doesn't rescale and save the lower texture files. No?

For example, I have set max texture load in FSX.cfg on 1024. But if I select 4096 textures in REX there is big performance impact even though FSX is displaying only 1024 px textures.

Back in the day my computer was THE machine but back then textures were in 1024. Today, with 4096 it struggles.

Basically my question is if this info I heard is correct. Only 4096 px textures?

Tomaz you are right and well spotted. The textures need to be modified at the source and REX, FSDT CYVR are good examples. I will also hold off until somebody can confirm it.

My computer parts are mostly from 2011, sandybridge era, and i get great performance in p3dv2, regardless of 4096 textures

GIMP with the nVidia plugin (both free) can easily load .dds files and allow you to downsize them to either 2048 or 1024 pixel sizes.

So I guess the information was correct.

 

Yes, I know I could do that but why should a customer do those things. OK, if I really, really wanted this bird than I'd go the extra mile and convert textures myself but I'm just not that interested. It would almost be an impulse buy for me but this piece of information stopped me. Maybe that's a sign to save my money for a new computer so I can run 4096 textures without problems

+1

-1

I'm pretty sure that if you go into the FSX CFG and find TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD and just change it to 1024 it makes that the max used, it will automatically downsize all of the textures of addons that use higher. IIRC the naked eye can't tell the difference between 2048 and 4096, not sure about 1024.

-1

???

Maybe anything more constructive to say?

 

 

I'm pretty sure that if you go into the FSX CFG and find TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD and just change it to 1024 it makes that the max used, it will automatically downsize all of the textures of addons that use higher. IIRC the naked eye can't tell the difference between 2048 and 4096, not sure about 1024.

It displays 1024px textures but 4096px textures are loaded first (because those are the only ones that actually exist on the hard disk), so putting pretty much the same load on the system as if it would display 4096px textures. Correct me if I'm wrong.

???

Maybe anything more constructive to say?

 

If I'd said +1 would you have considered it "constructive"?

If I'd said +1 would you have considered it "constructive"?

No, not really constructive. But I can imagine what would be the meaning of  +1 (probably he agrees with my reasons or he has the same question) but I can't even imagine what would -1 mean. That you don't care? Or you think my reasons are wrong? Either way, very strange comment of yours. That's why I was curious what you meant.

And I'm still curious, by the way... it's very strange you come here, give comment that you did and don't want to elaborate on it.

Let me ask you this: Have you checked with Bill to see if he would set you up with a set of downsized textures? Bill is one of the most approachable guys I know and I'd find it really hard to believe if he refused. If he did I'm certain he would have a good reason for it and he would explain the reason in detail. To me that would have been the logical thing to do, instead we have a typical Avsim thread, complete with bandwagon jumpers and a generally negative tone towards the developer. You state that you're not going to buy it because Bill hasn't read your mind and made a downsized texture set available? ...and then someone has to come along and +1 that sentiment? To be honest I doubt Bill has even given it a thought!

 

I could elaborate on the use of large texture sheets, TML, texture resolutions, their effect on drawcalls, etc., but some expert who once converted a sketchup warehouse model with MCX would just argue with me so what's the point?

 

I'm just offsetting the +1 is all.