HD ground textures in FS9 (Continued...)

[Dillon 2,197]

Hi my freinds,

 

I see that you give a lot of trouble to convert my textures for FSX to FS9.

Know that I am working on a more complete verion of this convertion. With more textures specially developed and strong for FS9. These textures have been reworked to be compatible with FS9 taking into account the correspondence between FS9 and FSX (Tables Holger Sandmann). 

It is likely that my conversion mode gives slightly different results from yours.

 

For now, it's beta version (0.3) and you can download it here:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/79445204/GroundTextureFS2004_v0.3.zip

 

In this version, there are more intermediate zones and I specially reworked limestone rocks (as in the Alps).

 

Maybe I would not have the opportunity to respond immediately to your questions because I'm on vacation for two weeks.

 

Original french post:

http://www.pilote-virtuel.com/viewtopic.php?pid=564483#p564483

 

Regards

 

Aimé

 

 

Thanks so much for this. By all means join out discussion here:

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/413044-were-cracking-the-fs9-city-texture-problem/

 

 

As we are trying to do something with raising the bar with world city ground textures in FS9. I've contacted Zinertek to see if we can get a payware product in the works now that we know what's possible. Thanks again for this!

[rainerk 1]

 

 

An original image at 4096 > to 256 will look better then 1024 > to 256 because of the higher quality to begin with.

 

This is a useless debate because you don't understand what you are talking about.

Resolution or size of an image alone has nothing to do with quality. A bad texture is bad no matter what the resolution or size may be.

 

What you are trying to talk about is probably that you have some textures (FSX or whatever) which come as 4096x4096. So you scaled them down to 256x256. And you think they look better than FS9 default textures.

That may be so.

 

But please stop confusing people with claims that downsizing any 4096 (or 1024) textures to 256 gives "better" textures per se.

[rainerk 1]

You still don't understand.

If your source (at any resolution) is better than the default texture it will look better than FS9 default when you downsize it to 256. Because it's a better image to begin with.

That has nothing to do with downsizing.

Or more precisely: downsizing from a higher resolution doesn't make a better texture. Can't.

[rainerk 1]

Better image in a size FS9 can't show has to be scaled down to a size FS9 can handle.

If you are trying to say that we are in agreement.

 

But in post #2 you said:

 

Quote: "but the trick is to use higher resolution textures to begin with resized to a format fs9 will use".

 

That is technically nonsense.

[rainerk 1]

Sorry. Didn't want to come across like that.

 

One point I'm sure we're all in agreement with: FS9 could use some better textures.

I am eagerly awaiting what LeclerqA (Aime) will come up with.

[JSkorna 137]

 

 

resized to a format fs9 will use

 

This always seemed clear to me as to what Jon meant.

[ironbird 1]

Sorry, for getting later on that hot topic. I work with Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator for some good 10+ years now and do freelance graphic stuff on various occasions. I read that the most concern here is the texture size limit that FS9 brings. But apart from the size there is one more thing on which the image quality depends and that is the DPI (dots per inch resolution). The normal image comes with standard 72dpi, but you can change the dpi with various methods. What is important here is that an image with 256x256 size and 100dpi is better than 256x256 on 72dpi. So, you can still have 256 picture but with better resolution. The question here is, is FS9 capable of rendering more than 72dpi images? If so, we may can get to a breakthrough, probably.

[neumanix 113]

Stop right there! DPI has absolutely nothing to do with the images used as textures in computer games.

DPI stands for dots per inch and is only relevant when you are printing images or otherwise know you need a specific ammount of pixels for an area.

With 10+ years of photoshopping you should know better.

[ironbird 1]

You are very correct. DPI is needed when we have something to print on large formats. Though, an image that is 256x256 on 72dpi is two times smaller than an image 256x256 on 150dpi, obviously. Having this in mind, I was wondering if we can cheat FS that the two times larger image is still "normal" 256x256...

[neumanix 113]

:wacko: Give me strength...

 

 

 

DPI is needed when we have something to print on large formats.

 

You need to know about DPI when printing ANY format, large or small.

 

 

 

Though, an image that is 256x256 on 72dpi is two times smaller than an image 256x256 on 150dpi, obviously.

 

The concept of DPI is totally irrelevant when discussing game textures. It makes no sense what so ever.

A 256x256 image is exactly that ammount of pixels (65536). Only when you print it on paper will it matter if you choose 72dpi or 150dpi.

If you'd print it at 72dpi then it would end up 3.55 inches wide and tall (256/72) and look like crap.

If you'd print it at 150dpi it would be 1.70 inches wide and tall on the paper, and still look like crap btw :lol:

 

With textures we are only concerned about the pixels x * y, that's all.

 

 

 

I was wondering if we can cheat FS that the two times larger image is still "normal" 256x256...

 

Mention DPI to FS and it will go :blink:

[mmann 72]

 

 

I was wondering if we can cheat FS that the two times larger image is still "normal" 256x256...

 

Easy, just get a monitor that is twice as large as the one you're using now! :rolleyes:

[PebbleBeach 120]

Whoop whoop. The texture police are out issuing tickets again (and attempting to circumvent progress). LOL

[JSkorna 137]

At least they know what they are talking about.

[mmann 72]

Whoop whoop. The texture police are out issuing tickets again (and attempting to circumvent progress). LOL

 

Would it be more productive to try and circumvent reality. :rolleyes:

[Sidney Schwartz 11]

or now, it's beta version (0.3) and you can download it here:

 

 

 

Thank you so much for these great textures! I've used the Bird's Eye View and then FScene textures, and I like yours much better. Let the eggheads argue...I'm going to fly and enjoy the best view I've had so far in FS9.  :lol: