High Res. textures , do they exist?

[Leen3131cs 107]

Yes they exist, nevertheless is a vage phenomena.

Some days ago  I saw a plane being advertised as "having High Resolution textures."
I downloaded hopefully a set of textures for the plane and was terribly disappointed.
The cabin-windows had a size of 22x26 pixels , text on the plane was hardly readable.

How come? This was advertised as High Res Textures.

The explanation is simple and disappointing the same time.
The publisher has no idea what he is talking about

Using 4096x4096 texture-sheets is not per definition HighRes/High Defintion it depends on how many pixel per meter aircraft is available.
Yes, we should not speak about texturesizes, we only should speak about " definition "

This aircraft, I am talking about, has a definition of approx 55 pixels per meter wich is a very low definition.
When we have aan airplane of about 75 meter fuselage-length) and we use 4096 pixels to paint it on , it leaves us with a definition of approx 55 pixels per meter.
Ohh yes, another thing , what is High Resolution.
In X-Plane today its 4096x , in X-Plane yesterday it was 2048x, in FlyII-Legacy its 8192x and in industrial and art photography its....................you name it.
High Resolution does not say a thing.

Its all about DEFINITION

Some examples of planes for X-Plane and their definition:

The Saab 340 by LES is approx 300 pixels per meter wich is high definition. (largest used texturesheet = 4096x)

The ATR72-500 by McPhat is approx 400 pixels per meter wich is very high definition.( largest used texturesheet = 2048x )

The B200 Beechcraft by Carenado is approx 520 pixels per meter..............UHDT  Ultra High Definition Textures ( largest used texturesheet = 4096x)

We can use one huge texturefile for a complete fuselage and or can use five ( or more ) smaller texturesheets for it.
Its all up to the developer how he want to make things.

BUT !!!!
Publishers should specify their definition in pixels per meter , saying something is HighRes because its made of large texturesheets gives no idea about the expected quality and level of detail of the excraft-textures.

Please do not sell us nonsense, never ever talk about texturesizes.
Just tell us "  "Texture-definition is   .... pixels per meter"   pix/mtr=     or pix/feet=

No need to say is that, the larger the planes are the more difficult it will get to make it in an acceptable definition.
Most airliners available  for X-Plane have a definition between 50-100 pix/mtr wich in fact limits their beauty.
Sometimes for small text-parts there are separate text-textures available for the various plackards, detailed paintwork stays problematic.

So saying, my Carenado is high resolution and my Boeing 777 is high resolution too can give us false hope.

Better said , my Carenado has a definition of 500pix/mtr and my Boeing 777 has a definition of 85pix/mtr.
Then we get a better idea of what we can expect..




Leen de Jager

[JGregory 76]

Great explanation. 

[tonywob 4,768]

Thanks for the information. I'm surprised publishers have advertised in this way, i.e. A large texture does not equal high res. In scenery development land, I've used a single 2048x2048 texture to represent around 150 buildings, and those buildings are low-resolution (on purpose for performance). 

[Leen3131cs 107]

Thanks for the information. I'm surprised publishers have advertised in this way,

 

In fact most publishers do mix up the terms texture-resolution and definition.

By mistake or for commercial reasons, its hard to judge about that.

It took a long time before I became aware myself.

 

I am confident developers/vendors will advertise their product stating its quality by pix/mtr of pix/feet shortly.

 

[alpilotx 505]

I think, the first, and most important reason is pure marketing blah-blah ... and how that can easily be pushed into peoples heads (something that carries a psychological, imaginary value which makes people to "want"). "High resolutio" just sound like "wow" ... and is directed to the "average", normal consumer.

 

The second reason is, that what you describe is something technical .... something that guys like you or me understand very well ... but maybe a lot of the customers would not understand (the ones who belong to the main audience of the advertisement ... as described in my first "paragraph").

 

So, maybe the best solution would be something like it is with food in Europe. You are free to make it as colorful as you want (and print words on it to your liking), but you MUST declare a detailed list of ingredients very precisely. So, yes, maybe the aircraft could all have fancy names and colorful advertisement, as long as there are a few line describing the hard technical facts (so users like you can look it up, and understand whats really going on) .... But I doubt that something like this will happen very soon (as there is maybe not too much incentive for the developers to write about these facts).

[Pascal_LSGC 298]

Hi Leen,

 

I'm sorry, but I'm tempted to put the cat among the pigeons. I see where you come from, but I don't agree with the rationale about definition, even if your definition seems rational... (pun intended)

 

You forget the scale. A C172 and a B777 are worlds apart when you compare the size. You can admire a C172 from 3 meters or so. You don't usually do that with a B777.

 

25 pixels per square centimeter makes sense for a small aircraft. It's overkill and irrealistic performance wise for an airliner.

 

Esthetically, the eye judges the plane as a whole, and the impression of fine details, the richness of the visuals, comes from the amount of pixels used.

 

So, IMHO, the number of textures used and their size is a good reference. Only need to know that one 4096 texture is equivalent to four 2048 textures.

In other words, the total (uncompressed) weight of the textures is a reliable information.

 

But, above all, the developer must still make good use of all those pixels, and that's all about artistic skill. Not mesurable, but appreciable. And of course, they should use the pixels cleverly. An aircraft with every rivet but blurry instruments doesn't make any sense.

 

Pascal

[Leen3131cs 107]

When I am at an airport or in a museum, or where-ever I look as close as I can to the things who interest me.
Yes even a Jumbo I have a very close look at, I want to see the details.
X-Plane gives us the opportunity to zoom in just as in real life.

 

The consumer has absolutely nothing to do with total fileweight and texturesizes, it gives him NONE information.
He does not know how many files of a certain size are used, nor their fileweigh and nor their impact on the model and its FPS.
That all depends on how efficient the modeler made it, his own hardware etc.
 

 

If we are informed about pix/mtr we know what level of detail we can expect visually.

When a vendor advertises high resolution its says nothing except wich texturesizes he uses.

When Carenado advertises "high resolution" and someone offering a 747-800 says its high resolution too , the customer gets the false impression he can see the screws in a fuelcap on the Jumbo likewise he can see them in the fuelcap on the Bonanza.

Resolution is telling us the size of the used textures only, wich is of NO importance for the consumer as I said before.

Definition gives us a clear idea about the level of detail and is not misleading in expectations.

 

Zooming in on an airliner can be very interesting,

When a vendor presents something as high quality high definition at 300pix/mtr or more, you can expect to see a real detailed aircaft

 

When a vendor offers something in "High Resolution" wich appears to be 55 pix/mtr...............................I am disappointed.

When he says its 55pix/mtr , I might buy the model anyways, because I know what that limitations comes from.

 

Today we cannot achieve this for big planes in X-Plane( we are getting closer every day) and I am spending much time on the issue.

Some years ago I left FSX and started as a hobby working for X-Plane, smearing some paint here and there.
I am a big fan of X-Plane and do not want to go back to FSX.....................................................................but this I am stil missing