iPetroSS 542 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 So I decided to work on HD textures for the A321 initially. Everything looks sharp with 4096 x 4096 textures, but there are still parts which I'm searching textures for. Hope you don't mind me giving a try at some higher-resolution textures for this bird. I did not notice any decrease in fps so far. Enjoy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DetCord 1539 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Like I said in the Screen thread, I like the idea of a HD kit, but I don't really see the point given how low poly the fuselage is. I mean the more HiDef the paint kit, the more the abrupt angles of the model will stand out, which is already pretty evident on the 318/319 with its 2K res. Still, its great work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iPetroSS 542 Posted April 22, 2015 Author Share Posted April 22, 2015 As far as I know, the more polygons you have in the model, the heavier the toll it will take on fps. So I believe this is done in order to balance quality and performance right? I don't mind the polygon count on the fuselage, but I always wanted HD textures. I'm experimenting with that, let's see how it turns out in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafal Haczek 1612 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 As far as I know, the more polygons you have in the model, the heavier the toll it will take on fps. Yes, but I guess the same (plus VAS usage) can be said about the 4096 x 4096 textures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iPetroSS 542 Posted April 22, 2015 Author Share Posted April 22, 2015 Well, as I said its more like an experiment to me...as long as I see it works good I'll be making some paints. Should this create any issues, I'll get back to the original texture size Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Glanville 821 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Just one thing to add , textures measuring 4096 X 4098 are 16 times larger than 1024 X 1024 and each repaint could need up to 12 textures in HD meaning that a texture becomes 192 MB instead of 15 MB now . Even after zipping will mean a large increase in the size of your download . Not everyone has unlimited bandwith with their internet provider . John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iPetroSS 542 Posted April 23, 2015 Author Share Posted April 23, 2015 Just one thing to add , textures measuring 4096 X 4098 are 16 times larger than 1024 X 1024 and each repaint could need up to 12 textures in HD meaning that a texture becomes 192 MB instead of 15 MB now . Even after zipping will mean a large increase in the size of your download . Not everyone has unlimited bandwith with their internet provider . John I'm afraid there's nothing I can do about this...nothing that I know of. I guess its the price for having ultra-HD textures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Glanville 821 Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 It wasn't a criticism , just a fact , I think that most painters have experimented with higher resolutions and in my case I did not notice any large drops in fps , so that is not a problem as such . The main drawback as I tried to point out in my previous post is just the sheer size of the repaints when you are uploading . Reducing the textures in size before uploading is not the way to go as this defeats the whole purpose of creating high def paints in the first place . John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iPetroSS 542 Posted April 25, 2015 Author Share Posted April 25, 2015 No problem John. Its true that the size is quite bigger for this kind of textures. Reducing the size would just result in a blurry mess, while my purpose it to create crisp, NGX-like textures on the Airbus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Glanville 821 Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 Like I said before we ( painters ) have all tried it and I did not notice any real drop in frames and for your own use it's up to you . I just don't think that anyone really wants a 200MB download for every paint . Another drawback if you do reduce the size of textures after enlarging to 4096 or 2048 , any lines that have an uneven row of pixels ( could ) give you a mismatch in alignment when viewing in the sim , a half a pixel just doesn't exist ( divide 21 by 2 or 4 ) . John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafal Haczek 1612 Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 I did not notice any real drop in frames Right but it is the invisible FS killer VAS that will be a worse side effect than FPS. Hence the more and more popular scenery configurators where you can choose what size of textures you want. As I am not a top expert, let me quote Kosta from his famous blog: 'Keep away from really high quality textures, as much as you can – I know they are looking nice and beautiful. If you know what you’re doing, by all means, load them up, but flying NGX with McPhat HD textures over ORBX into UK2000 EGLL with 4096 clouds is not a possibility, so much I can tell you.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Glanville 821 Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 Maybe that's why Aerosoft never implemented a HD paintkit in the first place . I wrote earlier that myself and I assume other painters have experimented with this but I abandoned it back in 2010 with the AirbusX and never uploaded any HD textures . What a lot of people forget is that you also have to edit the fsx.cfg for HD paints to even work and you have to do this every time you alter any settings in the sim ( or inatall a programme to do it for you ) . As for flying , I rarely have time for that and spend most of the time just checking any paintwork , so the sim is never working for long enough for VAS to rear it's ugly head . Far be it for me to rain on " Petro's " parade , if he's happy with HD paints , fair enough but I do not think that others will be willing to download 200MB repaints anytime soon however " good " they are . John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roelio 159 Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 Right but it is the invisible FS killer VAS that will be a worse side effect than FPS. Hence the more and more popular scenery configurators where you can choose what size of textures you want. As I am not a top expert, let me quote Kosta from his famous blog: 'Keep away from really high quality textures, as much as you can – I know they are looking nice and beautiful. If you know what you’re doing, by all means, load them up, but flying NGX with McPhat HD textures over ORBX into UK2000 EGLL with 4096 clouds is not a possibility, so much I can tell you.' Well I don't agree with you entirely. I flown the NGX with McPhat textures from Aerosoft Amsterdam to Aerosoft Munich multiple times. I also have NL2000 (all of the Netherlands) + 2 VFR Germany regions installed. And of course REX4 with all textures at max resolution. In FSX this gives an OOM sometimes, but in P3D I never had an OOM on a normal flight. And both Amsterdam and Munich aren't really optimized for today's sim. Also, my settings are quite high except for autogen since I don't really care if I see a lot of houses or trees when I'm cruising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iPetroSS 542 Posted April 26, 2015 Author Share Posted April 26, 2015 Like Roelio, I'm using MCPhatStudios ultra HD textures on the PMDG MD-11, 747 and NGX and so far no problems with OOM or anything like that. I'll finish this paint now, and see how it goes anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafal Haczek 1612 Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 Well I don't agree with you entirely. And with which particular point of my post don't you agree entirely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roelio 159 Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 And with which particular point of my post don't you agree entirely? The part that you should stay away from really high quality textures and that flying with the NGX + McPhat textures over EGLL with ORBX England, REX HD textures is not a possibility. Because Kosta says so, doesn't always mean it's right. I do think Kosta is one of the most knowledgeable people when it comes to finetuning FSX, but the fact that he didn't consider anything else like P3D makes the statement a bit incomplete, since P3D should handle that scenerio without too much trouble. The fact that you talk about choices is something I defintely agree on. That's why I like FSDT Vancouver so much, you have three options for texturesizes (1024, 2048 and 4096) So in the end I might be more disagreeing with Kosta, than with you actually now that I think about it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.