On Tuesday, November 22, 2011 19:09:27 Erik Hofman wrote: > That sounds about right. > > > I think the new work from Emilian/Vivian needs some new policy for the > > .dds files. I see formats up to 2048 x 2048 pixel size. > > That might be a good idea, but it's also a good idea to check if it is > actually necessary to make them 2048x2048 or that maybe a smaller size > will look (almost) as good. > > Erik >
The problem with small textures is that patterns on them become very visible at high altitudes. On the other hand, good textures with no visible repeating features are quite hard to obtain. I've tested on my setup with up to 4096x4096, mapped on a correspondingly high area. This gives very good results at high or low altitudes and almost eliminates the need for more than one texture per material, but the size of the textures becomes a problem. Anyway, I think it would be a good idea to keep the high detail textures for the future, or as an option for those who can afford it now, and scale them appropriately for default usage. Cheers, Adrian ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
