Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bob.bernstein

Texture sizes

Recommended Posts

Hi Mike Johnson!You're post makes excellant sense to me, sorry if I over did my reference to the default. I do, however, think you go astray in this paragraph:<>From my knothole, all developers work as wisely as they know how. I doubt you could find any evedence anywhere that says a given developer knew how to do something better and just didn't. At Devcon, a portion of one of the talks highlighted the fact that "high poly counts and lots of big textures" are NOT the problem they used to be because graphics memory is commonly large now. No one doubts that you can still overwhelm performance with graphic workload, its just no longer the one and only focus issue. Whats more, the difference between poly count and pixel count was taught as an extremely significant factor, which was new to me. The same number of polygons can have a very different impact on performance depending on whether the vertices are fractured (each vertex that fractures presents to the graphics card as two vertices). The large texture sheets are a good way to design without fractured vertices. Whether or not people employed this thinking to your satisfaction, its way off base to assert that developers are lazy if they choose to design this way.<> This is probably the one sentence I agree with most in your post. I think this is very much true, and will continue to be true as long as people buy the products and the reputation of the product is that of high fidelity. Perhaps you can begin to review products for multi-player friendliness, or perhaps this thread could motivate the avsim reviews to focus on this factor. Its the pull of the market that will drive developers to focus on the needs of mulitplayer over single use play. As soon as top market share is awarded to "best multiplayer aircraft", more friendly multiplayer aircraft will appear.So, as I continue to suggest, the people to talk to are users and reviewers, not developers.Best,Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These last 3 posts are exactly what I was hoping for since the beginning.I want to thank Bob, Bill and Mike for these responses for their continued clarification of their backgrounds and positions.and I agree that there has been "light" in this topic.Bob in what I do there is very little margin for error. When I request that a client spend his/her hard earned money I have little room for playing around.So "my way or the highway" is pretty apt LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Michael Greenblatt,>>Thanks for the info, but you should give info about this in a>tag, as this is a none commercial forum.>>Ulf B>Personally I don't feel he should have to post his business affiliation, this post had nothing to do with his business, but about gaining some info on the sim and making other users aware of it.I agree that awareness is the key. It was posted that users/customers demand detail and as such developers do what they do to accommodate. Problem is, most users have no idea what is involved or what they will give up to have the detail they cry for. Look at FSX performance, many of us demanded all these nifty new features and now that we have them, performance goes down and the whining starts.The more knowledge users have, the better buying decisions they can make. A certain developer is working on a new F-16 and is constantly boasting about taking the poly counts to the limit because they can. I have a hard time respecting a company that is not using it's brain, especially when they have other products that are designed more efficiently. Same goes for textures, I can think of a couple of vendors I shy away from because they are inefficient in this area consistently.This was/is an informative thread, especially since I have been experimenting with texture sizes and formats for my scenery objects since you need to reply more on the texture for detail over the modeling of it, so thanks for the info guys!Regards, MichaelKDFW

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD

Best, Michael

KDFW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Bob in what I do there is very little margin for error. When I>request that a client spend his/her hard earned money I have>little room for playing around.>>So "my way or the highway" is pretty apt LOL You know Michael, in that context it makes perfect sense. After all, you know the "big picture" and how seemingly unrelated settings, et cetera act in "concert" to affect the end result.Even if you were willing to explicate all the naunces of every step, it would (a) take far too much time and (:( most likely whiz over your client's heads anyway. They'd be none the wiser and you would have wasted valuable time... ;)Now, turning this back to the original set of assumptions and questions, there are literally thousands of variables and design decisions involved in authoring a complete model (aircraft, textures, flight dynamics, sounds, and gauge system). It is rare to find any single person who understands how all of these elements function as a unit. Decades ago Robert Heinlein* postulated that eventually society would need "Synthesists" to coordinate all the activities of the "Specialists." That is, we need folks who know a little bit about a lot of things... a generalist...I would submit that you -in your chosen field- are just such a "Synthesist." Similarly, my goal is to become a "Synthesist" in the field of FS design. I'm not even close to being such yet, but nonetheless that is my ultimate aim.A seemingly innocent, but nonetheless poor design decision at the onset of any given project can frequently have a cascade effect on many -if not all- of the other elements in the overall project.As a result, it isn't really all that useful to limit focus to any specific point in the entire process as though it were the most critical of all...There are simply too many things at play simultaneously to make any sweeping generalizations - it is an exercise in reductio ad absurdum as the saying goes.Bob mentioned "fractured vertices" in his previous post. What he didn't mention is the concommitant issue of "fractured UVW vertices" which are in addition to, mesh vertices, and not always as a result of "fractured (mesh) vertices."Hence, both how we model and how we UVW Map will determine the total vertex count of any given model. As Bob mentioned, one of the primary reasons for the larger texture sheets is to optimize (i.e., lessen) the total vertex impact as much as possible. Making the model easier to texture is merely a side benefit of this technique, but is by no means the principle reason to use it...* "


Fr. Bill    

AOPA Member: 07141481 AARP Member: 3209010556


     Avsim Board of Directors | Avsim Forums Moderator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Bob. I do agree with some of what you say, and yes every developer brings a different skill set to the table for sure. Some are more efficient modelers than others, and all have different priorities. I am probably biased since my career was based around building the most from the absolute least number of polys possible, by necessity, for a very long time hehe. Such is the world of console development. You have to build a ship in a thimble, you don't get the luxury of an actual bottle. ;)As for the draw calls issue and the information that Aces gave at the Devcon, I think the importance of draw calls and fractured vertices may have been slightly overstated (for aircraft) and the importance of large texture/high poly issues possibly understated. The bottom line is that any cpu/videocard setup is only capable of pushing so many polys and pixels at a given framerate, and draw calls, like texture stripes from the PS2 days, is simply a way to offset the hit somewhat. It packages the individual hits into bigger chunks for greater throughput, but the size of those chunks still matter. It's a question of efficiency but with everything else going on in the sim (which is a lot!) it's still so incredibly easy to overload even a very very fast machine.On the multiplayer issue, that is a real stumper. Multiplayer has only just come into its own with FSX, albeit with a few very big speedbumps haha. FS9's version of it and the ones that preceded were what one would call 'functional' at best and so I don't blame developers for overlooking it. However given the huge rise in popularity of multiplayer flight with FSX and the fact that future versions will likely be even more popular, I do hope developers start to design with that situation in mind. After two years of nonstop multi flight I can absolutely state that there is a generation gap at work there too. On the whole the users of multiplayer tend to be younger, singleplayer tend to be older. There are of course exceptions, but the way I see it the future is ultimately with multi. It may take a few years to get there, but I hope the planning and consideration for it can start now. Aces left a nice little blueprint for that with the default aircraft, one which I have studied very closely during the development of my own. :)One thing I hope to see that would really ease the burden for the next version of FS is the ability to specify substitution models for multiplayer. If developers are given the ability to create and specify a separate lower poly external model that will show only in the multiplayer/ai environment then I think everyone would be able to have their cake and eat it too, multi and singleplayer lovers alike.The one advantage of designing for multi from the start though is that if it works well there it's absolutely guaranteed to sing in the singleplayer environment, with ridiculously high settings, and that's good for every kind of user, not to mention the scenery designers.Cheers,-mike


Mike Johnson - Lotus Simulations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest -BeNt-

I'm no modeler, I've dabbed in scenery design here and there, and in textures here and there, but I'm by far no professional anything for those products. But purely from a customers point of view I obviously want the most realistic representation of a plane, airport, and world that I can get. That's a given because everyone wants 'as real as it gets'. But coming from that customer standpoint if I look at two version of the same product one with everything maxed out to the breaking point, and one that looks stunning, has all my options I could ask for and is optimized for the FSX world and gives me performance over that extra fuel truck sitting there, or what not, then I will end up buying the one that performs better. I do vote with my wallet, in FS9 I purchased everything PMDG put out the door I loved those planes and flew them quite a bit but by the time their 747 hit for me I had a machine strong enough to brute force my way through any performance issues, and when the 747-X came along performance was an issue. When I had a chance to see that plane perform on a top notch machine and it ran like complete crap, I didn't purchase the aircraft. And to top it off they have an MD-11 I have been waiting for for longer than that 747 and I will probably not buy it unless their modeling, texturing, and attitude when you try to help them changes. I'm not alone in this assumption that, that aircraft will run like garbage either I know I'm not. Are we the majority? By no means I don't think. In fact this goes back to the beginning of the thread, people right now assume that FSX just runs bad, so when they buy that new MD-11 it will possibly run like the 747 and people will come back here just screaming about how great it is, and the cycle continues.I would like to thank Bill, Michael, Mike, and whomever else is getting this shook-up because this really needs to be addressed. But the issue is at avsim or any other flight website if you try to bring this stuff up it turns into personal attacks and flame wars. And this isn't what this community should be, it should be everyone working for one common goal here. Making your sim act, perform, and look like the real world. And when I go up in the real world in a Cessna it doesn't stutter on take off, especially when I'm looking at the airport out the window.As a side note, guys lets try to keep this thread legit and moving, maybe someone or everyone will see it and things will start to change, because right now is the time to do it. Keep the blue side up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greenblatt writes:<>Ok, I was going to stay out of this since I have great respect for what you accomplish and as you know we still need to set a time for you and I to "optimize" my setup...:-)Your statements really do a diservice to the majority of 3PDs including my team.Your ASSUMPTION that 3PDs haven't "rolled up" their sleeves and that 3PDs don't quite know what they are doing is a gross misrepresentation of facts. I can't speak for others but can say that we leave no stone unturned when it comes to optimizing projects but we will not go deeper into these processes in public than has already been stated.The last part of your statement:"The reality is that most developers have gone the opposite direction, with really high poly counts and lots of big textures." is simply untrue and should be recinded. The facts are that MOST 3PDs are busting their tails to provide the best products available. Consider that there is no justification or financial incentive for any 3PD to provide less than their best to the market.


Best Regards,

Ron Hamilton PP|ASEL

Forumsig16.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron,I'm afraid that you have me mixed up with the other Mike.I didn't write those lines or make those statements.Nor did I address anything at your company or its developers.My signature is ramsa329.AND I CAN'T RECIND WHAT I DIDN'T WRITE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Ron,>>I'm afraid that you have me mixed up with the other Mike.>>I didn't write those lines or make those statements.>>Nor did I address anything at your company or its developers.>>My signature is ramsa329.>>AND I CAN'T RECIND WHAT I DIDN'T WRITE.Fair enough. Then I'll redirect my statements to the the proper Mike:-)


Best Regards,

Ron Hamilton PP|ASEL

Forumsig16.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest -BeNt-

LOL Ron we all know you guys are busting tail over there, and you have produced some wonderfully performing and looking airplanes. The group I fly with enjoys them almost daily in multiplayer. I think though the comments being made throughout this thread, as I think, shouldn't be took on a personal level they are a generalization of the people involved. Not necessarily your group specifically. Kinda like the comment made above saying most MP flyers are younger and single player flyers are older. I would have to partially disagree because the people I fly with are as old as a temple and have the attitudes of a crocodile ;)(That's probably really inside but I think we need to lighten up haha)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha Ha, you are correct. Generalized comments really do a diservice to the community. Glad to hear that many like yourself can discern the truth in these types of posts. Good advice on lightening up:-):-)


Best Regards,

Ron Hamilton PP|ASEL

Forumsig16.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Folks>Your ASSUMPTION that 3PDs haven't "rolled up" their sleeves>and that 3PDs don't quite know what they are doing>is a gross misrepresentation of facts.Ron -To be fair,that's an incorrect extrapolation of Mike's points which were primarily addressing performance optimisation, (rather the lack of), in the context of useage in the multiplayer environment.Not every developer is nescessarily as up to speed as your own team.I've also no idea how your team's models perform,being more into fling-wings & military things. ;-)To everyone -Raising vertex counts, texture sizes, and drawcalls,no matter whether through -intent, ignorance, or supposed delivery deadlines,has a negative knock-on effect for the end user.Whatever 'nicety' any modeler adds to their cockpit, or external viewpoints,e.g. guaranteeing VC legibility, by utilising the no MIPs,those techniques will negatively impact on the user's external scenery/experience.Additionally -following the initial dearth of sceneries for FSXas time progressesusers are understandably enhancing their FSX environment,by loading hi-res scenery & meshes,which only further increase loading the CPU.Furthermore -Given the substantial H/W specification increase required to run SP2and that only a small percentage, can afford to / will, upgrade their hardware,the latitude modelers had for such 'enhanced' aircraft modelsis further marginalised,and maximising their optimisation becomes even more critical.Yes, you can say that those specs are where the goalposts should have been all along,but doing so does nothing to change the hardware profiles of existing FSX users.That message on optimization isn't yet fully appreciated by all developers.Example -It's 20 months since FSX initial release,and yet models are still being released, which utilise pre-FSX techniques -e.g. - texture mirroring- mixed model texturing- multi material sheetsetc.and still their creators somehow believe it applicable to claim they're SP2 Native. ;-)Developers -For acceptable performance in the context each of -a) Single player:( MultiplayerWhere do you guys think the lines should be drawn ?In terms of -1) Texture total loading ?2) Drawcalls ?3) Vertex counts ?e.g.Given that 1,000 drawcalls is the recommended drawcall budget for the entire viewport.Assuming you're flying from the VC.Is > 70MB textures plus > 200 drawcalls,for the user aircraft alone,acceptable for single player ?Now for multiplayer,add in another user in the same a/c.Is a further > 65MB textures plus an additional > 300 drawcalls acceptable ?That's just for 1 paint, utilising a single model,and ignoring potential for user changing their viewpoint.What happens with 5 playerswith different model variations,and different repaint textures ?Bottom line -It's about user expectations.Modelers need to clearly delineateappropriate minimum hardware specsacceptable for their creations.They also need to highlight their multiplayer useability.HTHATBPaulResized logo pending ;-)http://www.fs-odg.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest -BeNt-

I wouldn't say a disservice more than a public service announcements. Maybe when people are flying around in their aircraft and notice for some reason one flys a lot better they themselves will look further into why and find out why. This was kinda, in my opinion, the whole idea of this thread for customer, the developers, and as a whole the community to look into optimizations that some people aren't doing, some people are and how differently the planes feel in game shy of the aircraft config.So as a whole I think this isn't a disservice at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...