Hello, thanks for the reply, but as it's is own words in the forum thread https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27476&start=75#p352037
"If you think the restrictions could be expanded or lifted, make it known on the Dev List. If you've the knowledge to improve fps whilst relaxing the restrictions, convince the developers." This sentence implies that it follows the instructions from the "core developper" I need some help to clearly find a way to keep nice texturing material. If you take the time to read the forum thread you will see that we are talking about a texture with 1024x1024 with a 511 Ko weight ... that no so heavy... I follow his advise looking as he request to look after some other model [ https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27476&start=75#p352039 ] .. all example he gave to me lead to model that does not have texture, or have texture 1024x1024 as i have stated on my answer [ https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27476&start=75#p352058 ] >From that moment, he just decide that he had not to justify the reject reason ... What i don't understand is that i have following all the rules : Model size is under 2 Mo [ it's static models ] and there is no clear rules for texture size [ nothing on the scenery website ] >From the moment I took it to fault, and if you take the trouble and time to read the thread of the forum in question I think you will agree, he began to be a spring. For I do not know what reasons he decided that he would not validate my models, while the examples they ask me to follow are in the same case [texture with resolution 1024x1024] For raising this point I follow insulted to be uncompromising while the one who refused the compromise and hear that it would destroy the consistency of buildings is Vic I do not see how I can keep a coherence and a nice rendering with 256x256 textures I think I provided on the forum enough of the work that he was wrong but he did not want to hear any pretext that he was just following the recommendations of the "core developper" I want to be wrong, as I said take a lesson, but not with bad example as he did. Finally it still does not answer the question why is it necessary to see so small so that FG could be so big cordially daweed Le ven. 23 août 2019 à 04:59, Scott <[email protected]> a écrit : > I'm aware of no such order coming from the core developers. Vic, being > the scenery moderator, has discretion to challenge any texture he feels is > excessively large or which is in need of further optimization. > On 8/22/19 1:14 PM, Daweed Le Fermier wrote: > > ello, > > I am encountering some problem with my scenery model. > > For a long time, there were no problem to submit texture with 1024x1024 > resolution [ content day/night ] > > To have a good quality on airport model [ i am designing the LFLL scenery > ] i need to keep this resolution. Recently 3 static model submitted have > been rejected and VicMar ask me to go down to 256x256 ... To have a good > quality it's clearly impossible to go to theese resolution > > So > > 1°) I would like to know why now texture resolution should be so low [ > 256x256 cannot be a used for enough details on hudge airport terminal / > building ] > > 2°) Why, as VicMar said that order come from the devel team, you want to > put so ugly texturing thing in Flightgear. FG > > > Flightgear deserved better than a world at the minecraft style it seems to > me. > > While waiting for your return, thank you in advance > > > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-scenery mailing > [email protected]https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-scenery > > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-scenery mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-scenery >
_______________________________________________ Flightgear-scenery mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-scenery
