>Hi All, there is no need to resize the textures, if you set>your ; >>Global Max Resolution - very high>>and >>texture resolution to 2m/pixel;>You're correct that in a perfect world adjusting the texture resolution should do the same thing. But, there are some ways resizing the textures can still help.1) Hard Drive workload - Even though video card will use the smaller mip, I'm pretty sure the entire texture still has to be loaded off the hard drive to be processed. Each resized texture is 500k smaller than the default texture. Multiply 500k x the 100s of textures that get loaded.....2) There may be some overhead on the video card to process the 1024x1024 texture and extract the mips even though once it's processed the largest mip doesn't remain in memory.3) We don't know how efficiently the FSX code deals with the texture resolution slider and figuring out which mip to use.Anyway, the main reason I created this is because I'm sure I'm not the only one out there that's willing to try just about anything to get a little more performance out of FSX. My suggestion would be to try it before saying it doesn't make any difference. Also, for those of us that aren't setting texture resultion to less than 2 meters per pixel, there is probably no reason NOT to use these.Matt

>HI Matt,> The texture resolution slider don't control the size>of the BMP terrain to render in FX? >Yes, but see my response to Anthony above.I have no idea how helpful the resized textures will be to people. I'm just trying out different things and figured there are probably others out there thinking about doing this so I thought I'd make it easy.Maybe it will make no difference and maybe it will. Only way to find out is to have a bunch of people try it and post results to this topic. Of course if everyone responds that it makes no difference then fine, I won't argue about it.Cheers,Matt

>For anyone thinking of resizing their generic ground>textures, I created a batch file to do this automatically. >There are about 6,700 of them in FSX and each is 1024x1024. >This batch file will reduce them down to 512x512 using>ImageTool and Nconvert. Entire process will probably take an>hour or two. This would probably be a good mod for anyone>with 128 meg video card. Not sure how much help it would be>for 256 or 512 meg cards. The other thing this will do is>help with load times.>>Don't forget to backup your files before doing this. Let me>know if there are any problems with it. If someone has a>better way of doing this, please do.>>Detailed instructions on how to do this can be found here>>http://www.fox-fam.com/wordpress/?page_id=41>>Matt this one of my important tweaks for performance reasons a lot of overhead...However the pixel ratio with the ground textures and a lot of test I prefer the 1024 * 1024 for sharpness but there are a lot of other textures wich can be reduced in size and format to gain a lot of bandwith and rendering :-) and performance :-)Don't like imagetool because the quality loss have far better tools for this :-)Image format converter 4.00.6 from the DXTBMP company :-lolhttp://www.mnwright.btinternet.co.uk/Ideal for batch conversions :-)Imagetool is just a bad tool ;-)Going to look at my just installed RT version for performance gain...Look also at the Ocean bitmap fields and a lot of textures with a lot of overhead...Andr

>Don't like imagetool because the quality loss have far better>tools for this :-)>Image format converter 4.00.6 from the DXTBMP company :-lol>http://www.mnwright.btinternet.co.uk/>Ideal for batch conversions :-)>>Thanks, is there a way to use the Image Format Convertor to add mip maps? I've been using XN View to do the conversion and just using Imagetool to add the mip maps since XN View doesn't do mip maps.Also, I tried converting a BMP with Image Format Convertor and the new texture won't even load in Imagetool. Is that normal?Matt

>>Don't like imagetool because the quality loss have far>better>>tools for this :-)>>Image format converter 4.00.6 from the DXTBMP company :-lol>>http://www.mnwright.btinternet.co.uk/>>Ideal for batch conversions :-)>>>>>>Thanks, is there a way to use the Image Format Convertor to>add mip maps? I've been using XN View to do the conversion>and just using Imagetool to add the mip maps since XN View>doesn't do mip maps.>>Also, I tried converting a BMP with Image Format Convertor and>the new texture won't even load in Imagetool. Is that>normal?>>Matt>Matt besides my CS2 I use the following tools for FSX:- DXTBMP saves direct in DDS :-) great conversion to without almost quality loss...- DDS converter 2 (found this one a long time ago at the net :-)Great tool also for building up mips and converting in batch from DDS to other format and back to DDS :-)- Image format converter 4.00.6 After conversion imagetool should be able to read the texture however some textures without the ratio range 128 * 128 or 256 * 256 or 512 * 512 or 1024 * 1024 could be corrupted after conversion...So that could be the reason and make sure outside the gauge / panel stuff never use 24 bit bcz FS9 or FSX will crash ;-)I'm surprised about the large airport texture sizes which will bring many systems FPS down ;-) runway for example at 1024 * 1024The slider thing don't work for me bcz I have a different texture sizes for different reasons ;-)They should have make the consideration of a smaller texture format for DX9...Also the Autogen texture size and format...Traffic toolbox in the SDK is also very interresting...Andr

>Hi,>>About resizing textures, I'm wondering the following:>>Since FS9 (and also FSX) I compress my entire FS folder (incl.>sub-folders)>This will reduce the disk acces time since a file is first>loaded in memory from disk before it is decompressed.>I wonder what is the best: >Physically resizing textures with some loss of texture quality>or compressing FS folders without any loss of texture quality.>>>>Hi Egbert:I had read that Microsoft says a computer with a 1 GHz or faster CPU can easily accomodate using compressed folders in Windows XP without a significantly perceptible performance hit when decompressing on the fly. I had been interested in seeing what this might do for Megascenery/photorealistic scenery load times in FS9, but had not yet had an opportunity to test this out.I also wondered if this was still of additional benefit when used with the higher level compression formats that began to be used in newer scenery and aircraft texture bitmaps, *.cab file types of panel gauges for FS9, and the new compressed bitmaps and panel structures used in CFS3 and FSX. The question which also crossed my mind was whether using NTFS folder compressison might end up slowing performance if the file contained within a compressed NTFS folder is itself already compressed in these newer high compression formats?This reminds me of the old days of modem communications with DOS BBS systems, when modems began offering 'hardware' compression (ex: MNP5 etc.). When files that were already compressed (ex: zip formats etc.) needed to be sent, it was found that turning on modem hardware compression in anticipation of increased throughput actually ended costing an extra 8-12% of throughput time delay as the file was read for structure, and the conclusion was ultimately reached that the file could not be compressed further (since it was already compressed) and the system then turned off hardware compression to actually send the file after analyzing the file to no net benefit, and in fact to a loss of throughput instead!One might wonder if the same principle applies with accessing and loading already-compressed files off the NTFS compressed hard disk and into FS9/FSX. Mike Gilbert/tdragger has indicated that texture (and I'm assuming other compressed file) loading has been delegated to another thread outside the main rendering thread which can run on another CPU core in FSX on multi-core machines, but this has proven thus far among multi-core CPU FSX users to do little as far as increasing the overall speed of the FS endering engine (which itself can only run on a single core in its current state of programming!).And one might wonder if the separate texture decompression/loading thread (whether on another core or not) is getting a chance to run optimally if it has to wait for the NTFS compressed folder subsystem in Windows XP to expand the compressed FS file before the FS rendering engine thread further expands the texture/panel file into working memory locations. (Note: a thread reportedly can run effectively concurrent with other threads on a single core CPU also; it is just usually expected to be more efficient depending on the type of program spawning and using the separate thread when it is offloaded to another core if available).So like you, I am curious if one can/should use compressed folders with the new compressed file architecture now implemented in FSX when concerned with maximizing even a few extra frame rates of performance on our computers to deliver the best FSX performance we can get.Remembering that "as real as it gets" requires optimized software and hardware performance in order for the sim to deliver that experience, perhaps Mike/tdragger or one of the other ACES staff would be kind enough to comment on this NTFS compressed folder issue here?And if there are others here who have a reasonably authoritative insight on this process, could you share your insights and suggestions too?Thanks for your input on this everyone! :-) GaryGB

Well. Did FSX install difference sets of texture for different mip? If it uses the texture and resize them on the flight, that is not so good, is it? I am trying this out just for the heck of it.

.OKSO, I downloaded the small version of XnView by mistake and it has to be the 7Meg installer down below that contains the NConvert.exe file.That is wht I initially was not getting any conversions... using the wrong fileFor anyone else interested and making that error like me.doing it now allen

This helpful trick may very well be a magic bullet:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) I just finished a flight into KBWI at sunset, using 1L, and with autogen at Normal, this was a great experience.The city is really coolThe airport is really really coolI would recommend anyone trying this fix.But be careful to get the right file at XnView site (the large one on the bottom)allen:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

wooopssythat was KDCA, I was gonna land at KBWI and changed destinations...sorry

>This helpful trick may very well be a magic bullet>>:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)>:-) >>I just finished a flight into KBWI at sunset, using 1L, and>with autogen at Normal, this was a great experience.>The city is really cool>The airport is really really cool>>I would recommend anyone trying this fix.>>But be careful to get the right file at XnView site (the large>one on the bottom)>>>allen>:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)>:-) What exactly does this trick do?? Does it improve resolution of ground textures?? That is my main problem. I don't really care about FPS. I care more about graphics and it looks awful when I look down at the ground. The ground looks all blurred almost like it's a zoomed in satellite photo. Can you post some screenshots?? Thanx...

The textool from directx sdk does both operation in one pass but as far I know it can't be shared. So it implies a large D/L just for one exe.Jos

>What exactly does this trick do?? Does it improve resolution>of ground textures?? That is my main problem. I don't really>care about FPS. I care more about graphics and it looks awful>when I look down at the ground. The ground looks all blurred>almost like it's a zoomed in satellite photo. Can you post>some screenshots?? Thanx...It resizes to 512x512 from 1924x1024Although I found this only increased my fps by about 3, (from 9 to 12), it was smoother, and the night-time cityscapes seemed clearer, less of a mushy mess. The rivers, I was flying south in Maryland, were drawn better, and roads were clearer. This was at night. At sunset I landed at KDCA with scenery high, autogen normal, textures at 7cm, and it was a delight.I think this liberates having to load the larger files, making the blurries less a mess.but of course Id prefer less orange cities at night, some white and occasional colors would be nice.allen

Anything to help with graphics. The ground looks all blurry no matter what I do it's just plain awful. All blurry ground and then a house which isn't too pretty and then the same over and over again. I want to be able to look down from the plane and see excellent high resolution scenery.

>>What exactly does this trick do?? Does it improve resolution>of ground textures?? That is my main problem. I don't really>care about FPS. I care more about graphics and it looks awful>when I look down at the ground. The ground looks all blurred>almost like it's a zoomed in satellite photo. Can you post>some screenshots?? Thanx...Sounds like one way or another you need to reduce your texture resolutions. Either by adjusting the sliders down or downloading replacements at lower resolution. 128-meg video cards simply aren't enough to be able to use FSX with high resolution textures. This weekend I think I'm going to go buy a 256 or 512 meg card.Matt