Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Geofa

Why do texture settings above 1m sharpen 1m textures?

Recommended Posts

I've been playing with FTX a bit, which I might add is by far the best scenery product to date, and I've noticed the ground textures get slightly sharper when moving to 60cm, 30cm, and 15cm. I'm sure its not noticeable without doing a direct SS comparison, but the textures seem to have a softer look when set to the 1m setting.FTX appears to use 15cm road textures as I do not see any increase in road resolution when moving to 7cm. The difference between 1m roads and 15cm roads is massive, so make sure you are using 15cm if not maxing the texture slider.Here's 1m compared to 15cm. If you open both and flip back and forth you can see even the ground textures are a bit sharper at 15cm. http://sio.midco.net/silly22/FTXroad1.jpghttp://sio.midco.net/silly22/FTXroad2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Funny, I didn't notice that before... But you are right. Railways even have visible sleepers (or ties in american english).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had not noticed any difference at all in the sharpness of the ground textures, but people sometimes see strange things:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/186322.gifhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/186325.gifOf course, any difference would be impossible to see in these highly compressed jpeg images.Even if there is a benefit from the higher resolution roads, this is more than balanced by the extra processor load required, so performance will be affected by setting texture resolution higher than the default 1 meter.Best regards.Luis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly-a few including me have reported that performance actually seems to go up with the texture setting set to the highest level. I know it defies logic-but results are results.The roads do sharpen up-but on my machine performance also does-and since it looks great I leave it there.http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geoff,Agreed, 7cm looks great and actually seems to perform better. It appears to help reduce any blurries too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Priority to the function?In other words, its not that it makes a 1m texture appear higher res, it places a higher priority on the application to that system, and, in the process removes priority from another in FSX that was dragging the system down.However streets are better at 7cm... I recall reading vector roads are higher resI only run 7cm as well and I put all systems on 7cm when tuning, no matter what they are..Ask SteveLewis about that on a P4 and 256MB video cardthere is the theory/design and calculation, and, how -one part- of the system works.. and then there is the real world where the -combined requests- and total application/system is applied to get the result, which with MSFS usually goes against the grain of the theoryLOLI run a TBM of 80, otherwise I see minor texture blurs here and there... and all the experts who know the theory say thats BAD. Well , its not bad.. its the combination of my hardware ability, the settings I use and the clock I run. Bottom line, the science and the real world are 2 different things and since MS does not spend time in developing the "best" settings for system X, we do that insteadAnd just like the people that use the tune-up list I posted and followed it right, many cant believe the result of making a few settings changes and optimizing the file calls correctly. You are not going to find a list like that at MS... its done by taking the theory/science and extrapolating an outcome based on the 'big picture" instead of how the engineer designed one part of that system to workits called thinking outside 'the box':)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the general rules of the universe: If it seems too good to be true, then it isn't.It really makes no sense to push texture resolution beyond the 1 meter default, except of course in order to get higher resolution roads or if one has higher resolution custom ground. There is no doubt that pushing all those textures through extra filters will degrade performance.However, if somebody has a sufficiently powerful computer, it is quite reasonable to suppose that they will not notice any discernible degradation.To each his own.Best regards.Luis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luis-You got me interested so I went and took a shot at the highest res (7 cm) and then 1m while keeping it on pause. The roads looked much better at 7-the fps were very close within 3 so pretty hard to tell-though I will concede it makes more sense the higher would cost a few fps.What I was interested in was when comparing the pictures-the autogen in the higher res close in was smaller than the autogen in the lower res. Not only did it look more real, but perhaps that would an answer for a performance difference? Am I seeing things-I haven't had any beer yet! This was with the ftx add in but both shots with ftx.http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geoff, did you ask John Venema this over at the FTX forums?The one thing I love about FTX is the low level flying. Okay, not "real", but darn good.I like to buzz around in the Extra 300 over it. Lotsa fun! :)Well, they say it is a "Revolution" and I am not about to argue that point with them. ;)The best part of FTX "Blue" is that it is just the start, and having spent some serious time talking in person with Mr. Venema I suspect that the future will even be much better than what we see now.Go pay them a visit at their forums and ask away.Regards,http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...R_FORUM_LOU.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Geoff, did you ask John Venema this over at the FTX forums?>>The one thing I love about FTX is the low level flying. Okay,>not "real", but darn good.>>I like to buzz around in the Extra 300 over it. Lotsa fun! :)>>Well, they say it is a "Revolution" and I am not about to>argue that point with them. ;)>>The best part of FTX "Blue" is that it is just the start, and>having spent some serious time talking in person with Mr.>Venema I suspect that the future will even be much better than>what we see now.>>Go pay them a visit at their forums and ask away.>This isn't limited to FTX, this tip also improves the roads in UTUSA, (And probably default as well)! Here's a sampleThanks sillyeagle for finding this! Never realized it before.UTUSAX 1m Texture Resolutionhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/186339.jpgUTUSAX 7cm Texture Resolutionhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/186340.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>>>>I run a TBM of 80, otherwise I see minor texture blurs here>and there... and all the experts who know the theory say>thats BAD. Well , its not bad.. its the combination of my>hardware ability, the settings I use and the clock I run.>Bottom line, the science and the real world are 2 different>things and since MS does not spend time in developing the>"best" settings for system X, we do that instead>Funny you mentioned that. I run FSX on a 2 ghz box here so there has been plenty of tweaking here to get a balance of everything acceptable. After I popped my TBM up to 100 I was able to start using Anti Aliasing for some reason. With UTX the scenery textures really snap into place alot quicker. I also notice a faster loading time when starting up a flight.DaveESSB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On my single core P4 3.4Ghz, I actually get better performance from FSX in general if I slam all Scenery sliders to the right EXCEPT for water set to 2Low.xNick could possibly explain that, but I sure can not.Mitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>This isn't limited to FTX, this tip also improves the roads in>UTUSA, (And probably default as well)! Here's a sampleAll vector based graphics (like roads, railroads, shorelines) are 7cm in FSX. This is indeed not a FTX or UTX exclusive: it's like that with FSX out of the box. I have textures at 7cm all the time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question is not about the roads but about autogen. Interesting in the shots above it looks identical-however it seems to be different on my rig. In ftx is is more apparent-however I tried also gex,utx and also saw a difference. (Fuzzy because of jpg compression but check the difference in the trees-1st shot 7cm -2nd 1m).http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/186355.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/186356.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Interestingly-a few including me have reported that>performance actually seems to go up with the texture setting>set to the highest level. I know it defies logic-but results>are results.>>The roads do sharpen up-but on my machine performance also>does-and since it looks great I leave it there.>http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpg>>My blog:>http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/Hi Geoff,You are absolutely right!! And I have to give credit to 'Sillyeagle' for the heads-up in his post to this amazing little tweak too.Went for a test run over Brisbane in the Trike, just to make sure that I would be able to clearly observe the difference, and by jingo's!!What an amazing result, it may defy the maths of FSX as you mentioned, but it does work and like you, I'm definitely keeping this setting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually yes, I can explain it and keep it simple tooIf you were to put my system side by side with yours and look at the monitors with both running the same settings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, there really is a difference! Although not every tree is smaller: some are bigger. It's mostly different, which is still weird because I thought autogen always was the same...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the post, Nick. Got it.BTW, what is TBM and what MESH would you recommend?Mitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBM = Texture_Bandwidth_Multiplier inthe FSX.cfg fileMesh = FSGenesis 10m mesh and the World mesh that goes with itNote: If you are not a real stickler for details.. such as mountain range peaks and ridges in the right locations and valleys/gullys having a bit more realism to their real world counterparts.. install mesh is not going to make your eyes pop out..Its a wireframe the textures land on and better mesh means better match to real world but its not going to make the sim run better and unless you are obserbvant, its not going to make you jump up and down... its a realism factor, not a high end graphics upgrade.here is a post about landclass, mesh and textureshttp://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=25569UTX is a landclass upgrade but it does not cover all areas. I use several other payware landclass products WITH UTX to put the finishing touches on things that UTX does not cover.. FSGenesis USASceneryTech North Americaetc.. Those are installed and placed in the scenery.cfg with UTX (correctly) and I only enable ONE at a time based on the area I am in. They will provide the data to GEXn textures to add things to the sim UTX does not cover.. like small one horse towns in the middle of nowhere, etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Geof,Strange about the autogen, perhaps you could take screenshots and document this behavior. It seems unlikely that autogen would change like that. Instead, it is more probable that the autogen varies somewhat and that the exact same objects are not always displayed in the same place.As for the small variation that you noticed, perhaps we could attempt to clearly understand what is happening.First, though, let me say that just like everybody else here, I do not know how Flight Simulator works. Like everybody else, my statements are pure conjecture, assumptions. And like everybody else, I like to think that they are logical and reflect basic common sense and therefore come close to the truth. However, this does not mean that they are correct, and I would urge everyone to come to their own conclusions and not blindly believe my claims or those of anybody else.Having said that, what exactly does the texture resolution slider do? As we can see from the above comparisons, there is no interpolation of lower-resolution ground textures to higher resolution at all. Any differences that people might see are purely due to display artifacts and the default ground textures display exactly the same at a setting of 15 cm. as at 1 meter.So, the slider simply seems to allow the selection of the maximum resolution MIP map to display. As I have shown various times before, all ground textures, in fact all textures in FS contain various bitmaps with different resolutions, for example:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/186379.jpgBy setting the slider to 1 meter, the maximum 1024 x 1024 pixel image will be displayed. If the slider is set to 2 meters, then the maximum resolution displayed in game will be the 512 x 512 pixel bitmap, and so on.What does this mean? Setting the slider to a higher resolution than 1 meter (for example, 30 cm. or 7 cm.) will not display higher resolution ground textures. Why? Because the texture itself only contains a highest resolution of 1 meter, and that is the most that can be displayed.This slider then is mainly useful for custom (photo-real) ground textures such as the Edwards AFB ground that contains a maximum resolution of 60 cm. per pixel. (All the other photo-real ground textures that ship with the game have a maximum resolution of 1 meter, by the way.)Also, the slider serves to display higher resolution road and railroad textures. I assume that this is an oversight on the part of the guys in Redmond, as it seems incongruous that the roads do not display at the same resolution as the ground textures. Perhaps this issue is just due to the development rush.Anyway, here is one of the road texture with some of its MIP maps:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/186381.jpgSetting the texture slider higher will display higher resolution bitmaps of the texture, and vice-versa.So, why do you not see a great difference in performance when setting the slider higher? Possibly there are a few reasons: - your brand new, extremely powerful computer can handle the larger textures without any problem. (The situation with my 5-year old computer is altogether different!) - these are not very large textures on the whole, nor are there very many of them, unlike the ground textures, so they are less demanding; - most importantly, you have not really placed yourself in a flight where you can adequately test this since the countryside in Michigan does not have a very dense amount of roads.I am not an expert on testing of code, again just like everybody else here, and that is why I consider any claims made in this forum to be essentially incidental and purely anecdotal.But, let us try to reason through the problem and find a situation that will give good test results.First, the flight must have a lot of roads, enough to stress the hardware when higher resolution road textures are displayed. This ensures that the results for different slider settings will show meaningful differences.Secondly, the test must isolate the element tested, the roads, and not allow any other factor, such as variable weather or traffic to affect the performance.So, I would suggest that if anybody is really interested in testing the effect of the texture slider on performance, they should do the following:1. choose a location with a very high density of roads, such as New York City or Los Angeles;2. slew to one thousand feet above the roads (probably not much more in order to ensure that lower resolution textures are not displayed because of greater distance.)3. remove the panel completely, only keep the forward view, do not on any account load VC, or any of the outside views;4. face North (press Control + Spacebar)5. Save the flight6. End the flight, in hopes that this will flush the cache7. Turn off anything that can affect performance, for example, all weather, also turn off weather variations, all shadows, bloom, water effects, all traffic of any sort8. Now, set the texture slider to a lower resolution, for example, 5 meter9. Load the flight and monitor frame rates (by the way, you do watch average fps and volatility, don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The write-up Luis provided is excellentits not that you are getting better texture resolution (except for streets) .. its that you are getting better priority placed on that part of FSX. Luis is absolutlely right.. you can not get better resolution than the texture installed. .. With settings changes is more time devoted to keeping things sharp and at the same time a side effect (depending on the system and how else it is set up) is FSX may be either skipping or removing other elements to provide that priority(rob Peter to pay Paul)the extra then goes to smooth flight instead of being directed at the activity the lower texture and mesh resolution allowedSaw it all the time with FS9. And I can put 2 systems side by side and have them show completely different views and responses on equal setttings, just different hardware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oppsss sorry sir!I was still on the topic of the threadIn your case, smaller AG?Hmmmmm I can tell by your shots the system is not rendering a lot of AG and the textures have an image of the AG on them.. could you be seeing the fact that the system is not keeping up or is not set up to display a lot of AG and because of that it may appear to you to be smaller?When you raise the tex res it does set the mesh res to 10m automatically and therefore it will pull priority from elsewhere to make that happen.. so AG may end up reduced in rendering but I cant see it reduced in scale.Or if there are smaller AG components and larger ones... perhaps the priority is going to render as much as it can, meaning the smaller houses and not the larger onesNot sure.. but I know the slider is not going to change the scale of the same AG buildingEDITunless there is something I am not aware of about FSX and the AG library has smaller AG definition scale components for higher res texture and mesh calls.. never tried it before, interesting experiment to look into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites