>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

>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. :)

>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

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)

>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.

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___

>>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

>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

no prob...I'm chilled :)