As I mentioned in another thread, I've begun research into DDS textures. This thread is intended to be a place we can all look to and use to communicate as some of us (like yours truly) try to get up to speed on DDS textures in advance of the FSX release.First, you need to realize that I pulled the below from Wikipedia (or however you spell that). This means that it could have been written by *anyone*. So could someone who knows about this format please confirm or debunk the below quotes? Feeble little inquiring minds like mine want to know!From:http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Celestia:Text...re_File_Formats************************"DDS comes in various flavours, relevant for Celestia are DXT1, DXT3 and DXT5. DDS is different than JPEG or PNG in some ways, as it's not a image format typically used to store images. Instead it's designed to be used by 3D hardware, i.e. directly by your graphics card.""It...doesn't compress very well, e.g. 1:6 for DXT1. Why is it used then?""Because the compression of DDS textures also works after the image was loaded. Let's take a 2048x1024 image as an example. As PNG or JPEG the image may take little space on the harddisk (200 kB for JPEG, 1-2 MB for PNG), but once they are loaded into memory, they take width*height*3 Bytes = 6MB. A DDS image will take only 1/6th of this, on disk as well as in memory. So you can use more or higher resolution textures without hurting performance. Furthermore, DDS images don't have to be decompressed by the CPU, so loading is considerably faster too.""However, because of their low quality and the kind of artifacts the compression causes, DDS textures are generally unsuited for Normalmaps."************************So, taking the above in good faith, I'd think that pros and cons are something along these lines:Pros:-Huge reduction in CPU load by transferring much of the work to the graphics hardware. This is a great idea considering that most people have a graphics card that spends a lot of time waiting for the CPU / Main board / System RAM to catch up. I saw a recent review of new generation PCIe cards where the biggest complaint the reviewing company had was that they needed to borrow computers from AMD that were so advanced that they were nearly prototypes before they could even start to tax the capabilities of the new gen graphics hardware... both nVidia and ATI. The fact is that commonly available graphics hardware is several steps ahead of the rest of the common person's system... and this should at least start to utilize some of that as-yet untapped capability.- The more we utilize DDS, the more CPU and RAM resources are freed for other things such as dynamic things in the sim, voice coms, etc. etc.Cons:- Lower resolution quality makes it not the most suitable format for up-close work such as VC's and panels.- It's supposedly not a great format for normal maps (aka "Bump maps") according to the Wiki entry above. Normal maps are going to be revolutionary in MSFS if utilized to their full capability.I noticed that the formats described are supposedly not the only forms that DDS can take. Is there a DDS format that has better quality than those listed above? I'm specifically thinking of detailed work on up-close objects that utilize normal maps in place of extra polys for 3d imaging.***Edit: I just realized the implications of: "A DDS image will take only 1/6th of this, on disk as well as in memory. So you can use more or higher resolution textures without hurting performance." .If I'm not mistaken, that in itself answers my concerns. Correct?***Thanks for any insight on this!Scott / Vorlin

http://eliteforce2.filefront.com/file/DDS_Converter;29412copy the whole line above to get the program..stupid filter.Get use to using a program like this... I've been using it for years.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but FS2004 already uses some form of DDS textures. Many of the aircraft released today are mapped in bitmaps compressed in DXT3 format. There are also some textures in the main flight simulator texture folder that are DXT1 format. I generally use DXT3 format images in most if not all of my texture art work. So are DDS textures different from what we have been using already? _______________________________________Nick Preston :-kewl AVSIM Staff ReviewerEaglesoft Development Group, Texture Artist

"So are DDS textures different from what we>have been using already? "Not really.The extended BMP file format we've been using for a while is basically the same. There really isn't that much to be concerned with regard to whether it's called a DDS or BMP. Cheers,Jason

Thanks Jason, that clears up any confusion on my part. :D_______________________________________Nick Preston :-kewl AVSIM Staff ReviewerEaglesoft Development Group, Texture Artist

Thanks Jason, was wondering about this thread also as we have been using DXT BMPs since FS2002, why a round table now?I'm looking forward to using normal maps for bumpmapping (supported yes or no?). SIMS2 uses them as well as DXT5 formats and you can do some neat things with them.Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/mcdcvabanner.jpgCalVirAir International

Michael, I started the roundtable because I knew nothing about DDS textures and figured that I can't be the only one. If DXT bitmaps also work the same way (video card rendered, etc.) then my next question is what would be the best formats to use for high resolution detail work in the VC, including bump maps?Would it be a particular variant of DXT, a different format altogether or would it be best to use a double-sized DXT image in our normal formats and use the panel.cfg to scale things down?To Micheal specifically: I'm usually on HC TS all day if I'm home, which is most days lately. It'd be great to shoot the breeze sometime. Pop by if you could? Thanks.Scott / Vorlin