FSX-MS Zinertek HD Airport Graphics Update

[Capt Speirs 52]

HD would imply that the texture size would be 1920 x 1080 or a picture having 2073600 pixels.  A 1024 x 1024 texture sheet would be 1048576 pixels - about half as much as HD. So in truth , in game terms for it to be HD it would have to have 2048 x 2048 texture sheets, or whatever multiplier the game lets you load them in....HD has really become nothing more than a marketing term these days anyways.

 

At least with Carenado aircraft they advertise as HD, the density of pixels is higher than HD quality on their textures cause they use 2048x2048 textures

Exactly, and that is why I will never trust Zinertek again. Hope they choke on my $16.00. 

[Pe11e 812]

I've sent an e-mail directly to Zinertek erlier today and got the answer. The most important part of the anwer is:

 

As you can see in the graphic above, the default air_w10.dds texture is only 64x64 pixels in resolution. Our air_w10.dds texture is four times the resolution as the original.  256x256 may not sound impressive but we classify it as HD because of how much clear it is when compared to default.

 

Now you are probably wondering why we didn't create the ALL of the airport building textures in 512x512 or 1024x1024 resolution. The reason is because we wanted all users to have good FPS performance. Secondly and most importantly, we needed to keep the total size of the airport textures reasonable due to the VAS (Virtual Address Space) issues.

 

 

As I thought, VAS was biggest issue and probably FPS. I do understand all of that, and in that case it's better than an eye candy OOM solution, that some of payware airport developers are using.

Still, they classified it as HD because of how much clear it is when compared to default. Misleading! Carenado, REX, Cielosim, etc, are true HD, 2048/4096 textures. Users think different when they see HD in the title. In Zinertek's case, the textures are twice tthe size in most cases, or 4 times the size in extreme cases (some default terminal textures). That still does not mean the textures are HD. Case closed.   

[Zinertek 75]

Hello folks,

 

This is Maurice Roenick from Zinertek to address your issues regarding the texture size:

 

 

Why do you want to uninstall something that in fact looks way better than default? Hd or not hd. Even the performance with airport vehicles is better with this addon. Maybe they have tested higher resolution textures and VAS was higher so they got back to 256p.

 

Pe11e hit the nail in the head.

 

You are probably wondering why we didn't include the ALL of the airport textures in 512x512 or 1024x1024 resolution. The reason is because we wanted all users to have good FPS performance. Secondly and most importantly, we needed to keep the total size of the airport textures reasonable due to the VAS (Virtual Address Space) concerns.

 

Nowadays with users installing so many add-ons that enhance clouds, textures, sceneries, airports and aircraft VAS has become a big issue. 

 

FSX has about 4GB of memory reserved for sceneries, airports, textures, clouds, etc...and as you fly from point A from point B, FSX loads all the textures of said add-ons within a certain radius of your aircraft. 

 

Problem is that there are thousands of default airports scattered in FSX and Prepar3D and as you fly near them from point A to point B, FSX loads all their textures which slowly diminishes your VAS. If you were to fly over several payware airports (which normally are hundreds of megabytes in size) along your route, your VAS will run out quickly resulting in FSX crashing with an Out of Memory Error.

 

We didn't want this to happen with our product. If we had set all the default airport textures to 512x512 or 1024x1024 in size, your VAS would take a huge hit especially on long flights. 

 

So here's a graph comparing our textures with the default ones:

 

 

As you can see in the graphic above, the default air_w10.dds texture is only 64x64 pixels in resolution. Our air_w10.dds texture is 256x256 and yet is four times the resolution of the original. 256x256 may not sound impressive but we classify it as HD in the sense that it's much clearer and defined when compared to default. 

 

Resolution not always tells the story. Over the years I have seen textures 512x512 and 1024x1024 in size and still look blurry. So you can have a huge blurry texture or you can have smaller yet sharper texture. 

 

That being said, with our product the most important elements of the airports are in high resolution. This includes the taxiway lines, airport signs, hangars, parking spaces, jetways, runways, and ground textures which are all in 1024x1024 resolution (runways are 2048x2048). The main terminals most often used by FSX and the control towers are all in 512x512 resolution. 

 

Some of the other airport textures were kept to 256x256 for VAS/performance reasons explained above 

 

While I'm sure some of you were disappointed to see some textures 256x256 resolution please understand that we are not trying to mislead anyone. We want to provide a product that is high quality and yet FPS/VAS friendly. 

 

With all that said, if you purchased our product and would rather have ALL the master 512x512 and 1024x1024 airport textures that we created for our product before we had to resize some of them due to performance and VAS concerns, we'll gladly send them to you with the disclaimer that they could cause you a drop in FPS and/or possible VAS issues. 

 

To request them, send us your order number at support@zinertek.com

 

Thank you all for your support and If any of you have any other questions or concerns, don't hesitate to contact us.

 

Best Regards,

Maurice Roenick.

Zinertek Support.

[Zinertek 75]

UPDATE: 

 

After reviewing our customer feedback here in the forums, we have decided to release Version 3 of our product.

 

The new installer in Version 3 will include an option to install the original higher-res airport textures.

 

We'll get on it starting tomorrow. We will gather the higher-res airport textures and do some testing in FSX and P3D in order to make sure everything works as it should. 

 

We hope to have the new version ready for download in all stores within the next 3-5 days.

 

Once the installer is released, I will let you all know.

 

Thank you all for your patience and for your feedback.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Maurice Roenick.

Zinertek Support.

[brucets 94]

Great response and explanation, Maurice!! Very professional! Thank you!!

 

Bruce

[fakeflyer737 990]

When we use ORBX FreeWare Global Airports, are the terminals, hangars etc from ORBX or are they just Default and placed properly in the sim. I fly a lot into those freeware airport from ORBX (Global Freeware Airports) and would this product make a difference?

[Zinertek 75]

Great response and explanation, Maurice!! Very professional! Thank you!!

 

Bruce

 

No problem Bruce! We just wanted to clear everything up and make things right for everyone who purchased our product.

 

 

When we use ORBX FreeWare Global Airports, are the terminals, hangars etc from ORBX or are they just Default and placed properly in the sim. I fly a lot into those freeware airport from ORBX (Global Freeware Airports) and would this product make a difference?

 

Our product basically replaces all the default airport textures with detailed high-resolution textures. 

 

As far as we know, ORBX Global Freeware airports use the default airport textures, so yes, our product will definitely enhance all your ORBX Freeware airports.

[johnbla 30]

Maurice

Thanks for the update. Will ver 3 have an uninstaller so that of you get an oom error, you can uninstall them and then install the original HD textures.

 

Many thanks

John

[Pe11e 812]

Maurice

Thanks for the update. Will ver 3 have an uninstaller so that of you get an oom error, you can uninstall them and then install the original HD textures.

 

Many thanks

John

 

Just install the product again with the standard textures seleceted.

[addman 33]

No problem Bruce! We just wanted to clear everything up and make things right for everyone who purchased our product.

 

 

 

Our product basically replaces all the default airport textures with detailed high-resolution textures. 

 

As far as we know, ORBX Global Freeware airports use the default airport textures, so yes, our product will definitely enhance all your ORBX Freeware airports.

 

I'm pretty sure that FTX freeware airports use their own building textures and objects from their own Orbx library.

[Zinertek 75]

I'm pretty sure that FTX freeware airports use their own building textures and objects from their own Orbx library.

 

If that's the case, then our product will not enhance the FTX freeware airports. Thanks for correcting me.

 

Just install the product again with the standard textures seleceted.

 

THIS!

[Pe11e 812]

But in the case that someone doesn't like the product, I hope that during installation default FSX textures are backed up, so you can easily get back to default if you wish? 

[addman 33]

If that's the case, then our product will not enhance the FTX freeware airports. Thanks for correcting me.

 

 

THIS!

 

I think that's the case, your product will enhance everything default that isn't already FTX enhanced. In other words, no compatibility problems

[simmerhead 885]

What more can you ask. Thanks Zinertek!

[Capt Speirs 52]

UPDATE: 

 

After reviewing our customer feedback here in the forums, we have decided to release Version 3 of our product.

 

The new installer in Version 3 will include an option to install the original higher-res airport textures.

 

We'll get on it starting tomorrow. We will gather the higher-res airport textures and do some testing in FSX and P3D in order to make sure everything works as it should. 

 

We hope to have the new version ready for download in all stores within the next 3-5 days.

 

Once the installer is released, I will let you all know.

 

Thank you all for your patience and for your feedback.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Maurice Roenick.

Zinertek Support.

 

Wow, I am impressed! A developer that responded to a public forum and is going to address the concerns of its users, that is very impressive. You have renewed my faith in this product and I am looking forward to future developments. Thanks, Maurice for caring.