Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Guest cschmokel

I can see clearly now.

Recommended Posts

MannyIf you read the blog, it's pretty likely that 1024 x 1024 is the standard resolution they are using. At least that's the impression I got from it. Jason W. about says so, when he replies to Andreas's post about 1024 using a lot of memory, but then Jason replies that the difference between 512 x 512 and 1024 x 1024 is like wearing glasses and not.All I can say is, wow. 1024 x 1024!!! If you have a 256 meg vid card, that should be fine.Rhett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Horst

Hello,I am not a MS FSX developer.So I can add only this thing.You have a texture size slider in FS9, using lower mips from the textures.So it is only a kind of data amount. (except: to make outstanding textures, and

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong. If the resolution were 1024 x 1024 wouldn'tone need a monitor that supported that same resolution?Craig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Correct me if I'm wrong. If the resolution were 1024 x 1024>wouldn't>one need a monitor that supported that same resolution?>>CraigI don't believe so.. but even if it were true... Would you want to cut your feet to fit into the shoe that you have now?:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Correct me if I'm wrong. If the resolution were 1024 x 1024 wouldn'tone need a monitor that supported that same resolution?I'll have to correct you then . Texture resolution has nothing to do with screen resolution. It means FSX will use far more pixels to represent the same surface than FS9 does, which means the surface will remain much sharper and contain more detail and depth when you get closer to it. When you have over a million pixels to draw a surface (as with a 1024 x 1024 resolution), you can put much more detail into it than when only have 65.536 pixels (as with a 256 x 256 resolution) to render the same surface.The same principle will apply to your screen resolution, but in a different way. A low screen resolution will result in an overall loss of detail, and produce jagged edges in stead of smooth lines and the disappearance or blurring of very fine details.To put it in a differnt way: if the resolution of for instance a grass texture is so high that you can see individual grass blades, you only have to come close enough and you will see the blades no matter what resolution your screen has. But with a higher resolution screen, you'll see the blades sooner, when you're still farther away from the surface of the grass.Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear no name,I asked a polite and resonable question. If you can't offer an explanation then please don't waste my time or anyone else'sby posting a non answer.Thanks,Craig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest cschmokel

Hmm, I think 1m/pixel is a shoe in :) The only thing that concerns me is that in order for high res texture tiles to really pay off, the development team will need to improve upon the FS2004 algorithm for pre-loading textures in order to avoid "blurries".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

and you got it. If you don't understand the figure of speech used don't assume it's part of an impolite or useless answer.In general if you don't like the answer you get to a question don't assume the person providing the answer is attacking you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tdragger

>>Manny>>If you read the blog, it's pretty likely that 1024 x 1024 is>the standard resolution they are using. At least that's the>impression I got from it. Jason W. about says so, when he>replies to Andreas's post about 1024 using a lot of memory,>but then Jason replies that the difference between 512 x 512>and 1024 x 1024 is like wearing glasses and not.>>All I can say is, wow. 1024 x 1024!!! If you have a 256 meg>vid card, that should be fine.>>RhettFlight Simulator already uses a dynamic LOD scheme for all textures. After a developer creates textures he/she runs them through an app called imagetool that creates lower resolution versions embedded in the file. When trying to load textures to the video card if the card runs out of memory it automatically drops back to a lower MIP level. So, while the original textures may increase in resolution the engine will always fall back based on the hardware you have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe i assumed anything. I've been a member of AVSIM since it's inception and have found answers to many questions I've had over the years.99 out of 100 times I've been able to find someone who could answer a reasonable question and if they couldn't at least they would point mein the right direction.As one who has used FS since it's inception I find that more and more members of the FS community simply post things just to see something in print.I prefer to use the Forums as they were intended. To either seek or provide information.If folks can't contribute by helping one another I believe they should just not post at all.I'm not posting question(s) to be psychoanalyzed by other folks.I'm posting them to seek an answer.Perhaps if everyone would quit playing games in the Forums and simply provide an answer instead of witicisms it would be a much nicer place.Apparently there is always someone who has nothing better to do than ignite the old flame....don't understand it... and want no part of itso I'll let this be my last word on that.All I ask is an informed answer to a question. If someone can't answer then tell me I'm dumb and point me in the right direction.Don't however give me a non-answer.Thank you,CraigCraig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

You got an answer. You didn't understand that answer (or chose not to understand it because you didn't like it).Then you went on to assume that the answer was meant as an insult to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest jrobert

>You got an answer. You didn't understand that answer (or>chose not to understand it because you didn't like it).>Then you went on to assume that the answer was meant as an>insult to you.>Yes, he got an answer but I think he was insulted by the non-answer post by Manny who wrote this in response to Craigs original post:"I don't believe so.. but even if it were true... Would you want to cut your feet to fit into the shoe that you have now?"To tell the truth, I can't even understand what Manny meant by that unlike Pauls response which was very informative and to the point.Regards,Joshua Robertson (creator of FS Real Time)3D Softworks Design Studioshttp://www.3dsoftworks.net

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>"I don't believe so.. but even if it were true... Would you>want to cut your feet to fit into the shoe that you have>now?">>To tell the truth, I can't even understand what Manny meant by>that unlike Pauls response which was very informative and to>the point.I thought the meaning is quite transparent: if your hardware can't support the feature, would you cut the feature to fit the hardware (thus penalizing everyone else)...It really isn't very difficult to understand... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest jrobert

>I thought the meaning is quite transparent: if your hardware>can't support the feature, would you cut the feature to fit>the hardware (thus penalizing everyone else)...When its put that way, then yes, "I can see clearly now" - as the this posts subject-line puts it.>It really isn't very difficult to understand... ;)>You're right. It isn't very difficult at all. However, the ability to comprehend what was said (or implied) is a point of view and to others the meaning of what was originally said may not have been that clear and needed additional explaining. It happens - from time to time.Regards,Joshua Robertson (creator of FS Real Time)3D Softworks Design Studioshttp://www.3dsoftworks.net

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>You're right. It isn't very difficult at all. However, the>ability to comprehend what was said (or implied) is a point of>view and to others the meaning of what was originally said may>not have been that clear and needed additional explaining. It>happens - from time to time.Yes, it does. I've fallen victim to my own methods of expression from time to time. I suppose that in all fairness I should remember that I've had a lifetime of "translating" idiomatic expressions from all walks of life and nationalities.Quite often, folks will use an expression that makes perfect sense in their native language, but reads like gibberish when translated... ;) Even without knowing the details, I suspect that particular aphorism to be of Dutch origin, perhaps originally referencing wooden shoes. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>You're right. It isn't very difficult at all. However, the>ability to comprehend what was said (or implied) is a point of>view and to others the meaning of what was originally said may>not have been that clear and needed additional explaining. It>happens - from time to time.If that was the case, then a more appropriate response would have been to seek further clarificarion rather than..."I asked a polite and resonable question. If you can't offer an explanation then please don't waste my time or anyone else'sby posting a non answer." which in itself seemed to be rather impolite and less than reasonable...Cheers,Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern Australia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad they're upping the texture resolution. 256x256 just doesn't cut it any more. People used to argue about 256x256 vs 512x512 back in the Voodoo vs TNT days..when was that? 1998? Remember those cards had like 16 or 32MB of memory onboard. Generally most games since then have used at least 512x512. Except FS.As for memory requirements, they won't be big at all. As " tdragger" points out, FS already uses dynamic LOD for its textures. Even when the effect is so subtle that you barely notice it, it saves massive amounts of video RAM. Also, FS uses DXT3 compression for its textures, reducing file size to something like 1/6th of the original size. I think a 128MB card would be enough for those textures (though 128MB cards tend to have slower core and memory speeds so they may not cope with the additional shaders and increased polycount they're putting in as well)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Also, FS>uses DXT3 compression for its textures, reducing file sizeJimmiDoes stock FS2004 use DXT textures? I have always thought that with FS2004, DXT textures were only present in add-ons, such as the popular, "DXT clouds for higher framerates.". Anyway, it will be good to have FSX use them, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,I think that many default scenery textures are found in DXT1 format, not sure about DXT3 (not really needed, since a grayscale alpha channel isn't typically used in scenery (yet)).Take care,--Tom GibsonCal Classic Propliner Page: http://www.calclassic.comFreeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.comDrop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pixelpoke_from_MSFT

>>Also, FS>>uses DXT3 compression for its textures, reducing file size>>Jimmi>>Does stock FS2004 use DXT textures? I have always thought>that with FS2004, DXT textures were only present in add-ons,>such as the popular, "DXT clouds for higher framerates.". >>Anyway, it will be good to have FSX use them, too. All the default textures across the board (except a very few special 32-bit exceptions) were compressed: either as 8-bit, 16-bit, DXT1 or DXT 3, depending on the need.DXT1 is used for textures with 1-bit alpha and textures with no alpha at all. The terrain textures in FS 2004 were DXT1DXT3 offers more range of alphaDXT5 (which FS does not support) offer even better alpha.Cheers,J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Dear no name,>>I asked a polite and resonable question. If you can't offer>an >explanation then please don't waste my time or anyone else's>by posting a non answer.>>Thanks,>>CraigCraig,Didn't mean to be rude bud.. Just a figure of speech like Bill there said..Take it easy.. no offense.Manny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...