I can see clearly now.

[Manny 1,293]

http://blogs.technet.com/pixelpoke/archive.../21/417847.aspxThis was posted on the Megascenary forum.Its a blog of MS FSX developers.I wish they would do the 1028 X 1028 and leave it to individuals to select a lower resolution if their system can't take it. I hope they won't fall for the LEast common denominator.

[Mace 1,927]

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

[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

[FTD1949 0]

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

[Manny 1,293]

>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?:)

[PaulVR 0]

>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

[FTD1949 0]

Paul,Thanks for the explanation. Just a bit more in depth than the firstresponse. Craig

[FTD1949 0]

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

[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".

[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.

[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.

[FTD1949 0]

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

[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.

[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

[n4gix 4,947]

>"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... ;)