[Eth]

Well, I recently "relearned" an old lesson and thought I would share the story.  A lot of you may already know this, but for those that don't...

In one of the original write ups on FS2 model texturing, a statement was made that textures  should be 256x256 max.  In looking at V's models I found that V used larger textures, over 1024 in one case (on freighters and cap ships that is).

On a recent fighter model I was messing around with I decided to try to use 512x512 textures to get better details.  I found out that while FS2 would use the textures (no debugger messages, no crashes), in game they did NOT "look right".  

So, I started doing a bit of experimenting using different size texture maps and comparing "in game" screen shots with the actual texture.  What I've finally concluded is that for _fighters and bombers_ the maximum _used_ texture size does indeed appear to be 256x256.  If the texture is larger than that, then the FS2 graphics engine appears to "shrink" the texture map down until the largest dimension is 256.  And it doesn't do a very good job of the shrink process.  What was a nice texture becomes quite "fugly"  

Note: this doesn't necessarily apply to capship/freighter texture maps.  I haven't taken the time to check that (yet), although as I said V did use quite large texture maps for some of their freighter/cap ship models (for example the science01-01a.pcx map is 1553x256 and cruiser01-01a is 512x668).

(side note, if anyone knows how to get around this apparent limitation or has contradictory info, please speak up)

[aldo_14]

This is very scary as my fighters were all using massive 1024*512 maps - but it does explain why the details are indistinct.

Hopefully I won't lose too much detail to anti-aliasing when resizing  

Thanks Eth, i was wondering why the maps seemed 'wrong'

[Pez]

I was checking the Vp for Fs1 last night and found that the VP files in FS1 there are maps that are pretty big: Lucifer 1452x1024, Athena 1024x889, Thoth 336x512. So it appears that you can use large maps for bombers and fighters, but maybe you need [V]'s converter tools. But I also remember that Kazan said that his converter doesn't care if the map are 256x256 or 800x600.

[aldo_14]

 

Originally posted by Pez:
I was checking the Vp for Fs1 last night and found that the VP files in FS1 there are maps that are pretty big: Lucifer 1452x1024, Athena 1024x889, Thoth 336x512. So it appears that you can use large maps for bombers and fighters, but maybe you need [V]'s converter tools. But I also remember that Kazan said that his converter doesn't care if the map are 256x256 or 800x600.

ah ,but this is apparently an engine limitation, rather than a convertor issue.  It seems you can make and use a 1024x512 map (like me), only the game engine temporarily resizes the map when it is loading, so it is 256 at widest / longest.

the main problem would appear (for me) to be resizing my maps to a decent size without losing too much detail.... or else I'll have to remap 3/4 fighter models  

[Taristin]

The jotun uses 512x512 maps...

[aldo_14]

 

Originally posted by Raa Tor'h:
The jotun uses 512x512 maps...

So it would be resized to 256x256 by the game - unless bombers have different conditions.

My problem is that I use 1024x512 maps, so they would be resized to 256x128 then...longest side to 256.... which explains why they seem indistinct.

[Pez]

This reminds me what I read in an interview with a guy from [V] about textures and modelling. Make the texture size the size it would be used in the game, e.g don't make the map 512x512 in you graphic program and then resize it to 256x256 (yes, I know it works for you Maeglamor  ).  

[Nico]

I think it's your video card the problem, rather than the game, coz ALL my ships now use 512*512 maps and work fine. I've done a lot of tests too, and it appears that on my computer, the game sizes down maps when they are 1024*1024 maps. But 512*512 maps works just fine. If I have the time, I'll take ingame screenshots to prove my point.
The pb is definitively not the game itself I think. It's the same thing for invisible colour ( perfect green). Some video cards will handle this fine, but others (the voodoo series to name it) will show a dull green map instead.

[aldo_14]

 

Originally posted by venom2506:
I think it's your video card the problem, rather than the game, coz ALL my ships now use 512*512 maps and work fine. I've done a lot of tests too, and it appears that on my computer, the game sizes down maps when they are 1024*1024 maps. But 512*512 maps works just fine. If I have the time, I'll take ingame screenshots to prove my point.
The pb is definitively not the game itself I think. It's the same thing for invisible colour ( perfect green). Some video cards will handle this fine, but others (the voodoo series to name it) will show a dull green map instead.

Well, I have a vodoo 4, and it seems to have probs with the green maps  -can you (or someone with a decent card) do me a favour and D/L one of my fighter model and take a screenshot so I can compare it?

Personally, I can't really tell the difference that much myself when i resize the maps - but it would explain a lot, as they appear pretty badly anti-aliased /blurred ingame.

[Shrike]

Interesting...... it works on background images as well, you know.  I made some nice 512x512 high res planets, and they looked like utter crap in game.

[CptWhite]

Ok with regard to the original post I'm going to clear a few things up.


It is your video card, not the game.  Older video cards (Voodoo, voodoo 2 , maybe even voodoo 3)  only support 256x256 max...thus when you make a 512x512 texture it is shrunk down.  Cards that support 512x512 are cards like TNT2 , GeForce family and above.

I know that some of the newer cards GeForce 3 i would imagine, support 1024x1024 res.

You say your maps dont look right, well they should -  alas more blurry...so if your talking about blurriness ignore this.

One of the first lessons i learnt was not to use d3d solid modelling in truespace for texture applying - as it shows the textures wrong.  you can only trust opengl solid modelling or if you cant use that rendering displays the textures correctly (with adding shine, lights etc - which can be annoying as it hides the texture)  This could be a reason the textures are misaligned.  

The babylon project uses a mixture of 256 and 512 texture sizes (depending on the texturer)  in some cases -  big models it is only possible to get the detail with big 512 maps so thoughs are used.  we dont use more than 512 though because the majority of people dont have access to a card of that nature.  if you playing freespace 2 you really want a TNT2 or GF2 Mx minimum anyway    hope this clears a few things up

[Eth]

Interesting...

Ok, anyone who _thinks_ their textures work that are larger than 256x256 _and_ are on a fighter or bomber model, I would love a link to the model and texture so that I could see for myself.

There are several reasons why I say _think_ they work.  Depending upon the detail in the maps themselves, they could _appear_ to work.

The other reason I'm skeptical is that it is _not_ a video card problem.  Directly from the tech specs on the graphics ASIC itself for the card I'm using to look at this:

• Texturing support:
  • Texture sizes up to 2048 x 2048
  • All texture formats are supported
  • non-square texture support
  • non-power of 2 texture support
  • Opaque Texture Surfaces
  • Texturing from local and AGP memory
  • Alpha in Texture Palettes
  • Texture transparency
  • Mip-map non-power of 2 textures

• Z-buffer support:
  • 16-bit
  • 32-bit
  • 24-bit plus 8-bit stencil buffer used for shadows,overlays, etc.

Also, in regards to TS not properly rendering them (and other proof it isn't the graphics card)... the models look the same and as they should when using D3D, OpenGL, and when rendered in TS.  They also look as they should when the models are viewed with ModelView32.  The _only_ place the texture reduction is apparent is in game with FS2.

Further note:  FS2 options are setup with all detail settings on _maximum_ across the board and setup to use 1024x768 32bit.

[CptWhite]

d3d can look right , but it isnt always right, trust me.  this is fact.  its normally when your using repts smaller than 1 on a small texture map that it looks dodgy.

the max texture res 2048x2048 is probably what it can handle the reduction of.  what you see in the game is then the 256 reduced version of the huge map...to test this make a map bigger than 2048....say 2560x512 -  this should crash the game if i'm correct.

All i know is you say your max res is 256 on fighters and bombers. i say that its 256 max on all the models for you, because your card is reducing them.

i know that 512x512 textures work on mine, cos my background planets are that size, and there quality isnt reduced.  512 textures work on capital ships, i havent seen seen a 512 map on a fighter, it shouldnt need it anyway, so you are posssibly correct there, but i doubt it. the game wont distinguish between a fighter and capital ship for the purposes of what we're discussing.

you havent mentioned what card you have, but i would bet good money its a voodoo3 or below or some other old 3d card.


as for textures appearing reduced in fs2 only...but retaining size in everything else.

2 possibilities:

i)  your wrong, the textures are reduced outside the game, but you just believe theyre not.  however am going to credit you with some half decent judgement   and suggest that this is not the case

ii) i believe that for some reason the card max texture limitation only applies to in-game, no idea why, so dont ask me.  this could be why it seems like its the game, but trust me, it definately isnt the gam, it is the graphics card, styxx has 1024x1024 maps working in game ......cos he has a GeForce 3.......want to tell me im still wrong ?


I'm just going to put a 512 map on a fighter to finally prove my point along with a 256 version...im put writing on it so you can clearly see the defination loss.  then thats the end of this debate ! unless it turns out im wrong of course !


------------------

[CptWhite]

wow you appear to be right ....no point in posting the pics....the 512x512 version was reduced.  but like you say it only appears to be on fighters.  very wierd !

i wonder how the game distinguishes between a fighter/ bomber and a cap ship.......could be some kind of extended code hidden thats activated via the tbl ?  just a thought.

i should perform a second test -  i'll do this later to confirm this

------------------

[aldo_14]

 

Originally posted by CptWhite:
wow you appear to be right ....no point in posting the pics....the 512x512 version was reduced.  but like you say it only appears to be on fighters.  very wierd !

i wonder how the game distinguishes between a fighter/ bomber and a cap ship.......could be some kind of extended code hidden thats activated via the tbl ?  just a thought.

i should perform a second test -  i'll do this later to confirm this

Possibly the flags for cruiser, etc - I think there's a 'bomber+' tag - possibly that allows larger textures.  Certainly the tags do have some effect - for example, AAAf beams cannot be mounted as default on a 'sentry gun'  - this is obviously why the Mjolnir has a 'cruiser' tag.

If the VBB was working, I could try and pester / ask the staff on the Volition forum for a reference guide (unlikely).... possibly the tags serve a purpose beyond their use for the AI.

[Eth]

 

I'll tell you what I'll do.  I'll load up one of the models, slap on a high-res texture, then take screen shots in TS, ModelView32, and FS2 and email them to you.  Then you can let your own eyes tell the story  

Editted:  Ooops, guess there is no need now    BTW, ModelView32 uses OpenGL so if it had been a D3D issue that would have nixed it.  Also in TS _using_ D3D _or_ OpenGL they look correct.

On 2nd thought, since I alreay took most of the screenshots, I'll send em to you for grins  

[This message has been edited by Eth (edited 07-22-2001).]

[CptWhite]

Ok lessons we've learned:

fighter s appear to be limited to 256x256 texture maps - reduce them yourself cos you will do a better job than fs2 ( note: make it 256x256 exactly...the map may look stretched but it wont in game, this way you get maximum detail) - if you use PSP7 like me use "smart resize" option to get AA.

then reduce colour with "bright".


on everything else it appears the max res is the limitation of your 3d card, im pretty use about this, but not 100%.

when texturing in truespace confirm texture placement with rendering or use solid modelling with the openGL. DO NOT USE D3D AS IT ISNT ALWAYS CORRECT.

My apologises to Eth, it appears we were both right in different areas  

------------------

[Eth]

LOL, no need for apologies.  It isn't like you said I was a dirty, rotten scoundrel  

To be honest, I wish that I had missed something somewhere, a setting, ANYTHING.  I had spent a fair amount of time making some "weathered" metal textures from scratch and hate the idea that I can't use them for in game models as they are  

As an aside, I did say in my first post that the problem was restricted to fighters/bombers and that there were   textures for caps that were high resolution    I always go through very exhaustive testing when I think I have unearthed a problem and try to look at it from as many angles as possible.  Do I miss something sometime, you bet your a**.

Ah well, guess I'll have to save my high resolution metal textures for those cap ships I have waiting for some of my time  

Hopefully this entire subject will help someone else  

[aldo_14]

 

Originally posted by CptWhite:
Ok lessons we've learned:

fighter s appear to be limited to 256x256 texture maps - reduce them yourself cos you will do a better job than fs2 ( note: make it 256x256 exactly...the map may look stretched but it wont in game, this way you get maximum detail) - if you use PSP7 like me use "smart resize" option to get AA.

then reduce colour with "bright".


on everything else it appears the max res is the limitation of your 3d card, im pretty use about this, but not 100%.

when texturing in truespace confirm texture placement with rendering or use solid modelling with the openGL. DO NOT USE D3D AS IT ISNT ALWAYS CORRECT.

My apologises to Eth, it appears we were both right in different areas  

Bright?  Can't seem to find that on my PSP  

Nevermind..

Plus, is there a good way to minimise the detail loss ith smart resize?  My results with it aren't much better than when the game resizes, and I'd rather not have to redo the textures from scratch.

[Eth]

Aldo, I use PhotoShop, so I can't help you with PSP    But I will say depending upon the original texture size and detail size, nothing will do a good job of reduction.  For example, if you have 2 pixel wide details and try to shrink it from 1024 to 256, those details are gonna look like ... well, you know  

CplWhite... I would be VERY curious if you would do a similiar test on your system with a CAP ship and a high resolution texure, say 1024x1024 that has fine enough details to be able to readily distinguish an in game reduction.  Why you might ask??  Well... I took that fighter POF, put a 1024x1024 texture in the maps directory for it, and renamed the POF file so that it became a corvette and guess what...    Haven't tried a 512x512 yet... would kind of like to see what someone else sees with a different system.

Oh, I would add one VERY important thing to the "lessons learned" here...

Look at your textured models IN FS2 if you  want to see what they will REALLY look like.  It appears that nothing else gives an accurate picture of what they will look like when rendered by the FS2 engine.  

[This message has been edited by Eth (edited 07-22-2001).]