On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 21:44 +0200, Adrian Musceac wrote: > 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.
What I meant was to lower the pixel-resolution to a point where it starts to make a difference, not to lower the cover area of the texture. Erik ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
