Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[StG77_HaDeS]

Hello all,
I hope Bombsaway will tolerate this little "reminder"
So guys you should always remember that:
When you do a map do Not Forget that for every single texture you make that does NOT have alpha-layers you Have to make it 8bit. And this applies to the map files as well like:
map_f.tga, ed_map.tga, etc, except those who are gray-scale files and the map_r.tga .

I have seen very nice maps, and this also applies to cockpits up to an extend, that are almost unplayable due to many 24bit textures that degrade performance so much.

[viking4570]

This also has the benefit of reducing by a factor of 4 the size of your map files (easier for people to download, takes up less space on the HD) makes maps load faster in the FMB, in addition to using less memory when in game.  In Gimp, set >image>mode>indexed with palette of 255 colors for all your textures and ed_maps.

Thanks, HaDes.

[SAS~Bombsaway]

Dont worry Hades, I never take offence to stuff like this:) Thanks for the tip.

[Neil Lowe]

Bonus is that 8bit terrain textures appear sharper at greater distance

Cheers, Neil

[farang65]

Just reading this now

This is what I do with textures that do not have alpha channels in them.

I make them 1024x1024 adjust colouring etc then index them.

8 bit I have seen something like this in Photoshop but nothing like this in Gimp.

Is the above ok or not?

Cheers Kirby

[Neil Lowe]

From what I've seen, original game tex are usually 512x512 for the *.tgb's and 256x256 for *.tga's.

1024x1024 can be used "sparingly" (for drawn airfields) but only if used for *.tgb and only if 512x512 is supplied as *.tga all in 8bit of course

The use of Zuti's friction mod also helps to by removing the load from using so many airfield plates.

Cheers, Neil

[agracier]

I'm getting a bit confused.

I know that normally, in older maps and such textures were 512 ... then some time ago, when new maps started appearing, made by modders, especially winter textured maps, 1024 textures were suddenly in use and heralded as being far superior in graphic detail to 512 textures ...

Since, I think it's been almost standard to make maps in 1024 textures ...

But, what's the best solution graphically? 512 or 1024 textures? Do 1024 texture supply more detail than 512 or is it immaterial?

I'm not asking about loading times for maps or downloading times for links, obviously the 512 textures will make the files smaller. But that is not a primary concern I think. If you want a good mod, well then, the difference between a 40mb or 60mb download should be immaterial ...

I'm just asking about how maps look in game. Which gives most detail and better looking maps: 512 or 1024 textures?

[StG77_HaDeS]

I would go for Game's native resolution 512 and 256. I have made the 352nd's map to use 512 and 256 size textures in my install. I am satisfied so far. In next UP maybe we will get these maps to have 512 and 256 textures. and maybe it would be wise to redo all the textures to these sizes.

[agracier]

I would go for Game's native resolution 512 and 256.

 I just resized the textures for a map from 1024 into 512 and at first sight there does not seem to be much difference ... both 1024 and 512 texture versions look more or less similar. But I do say at first glance, since I've obviously not had that much time to redo a number of maps to compare ... only one so far, but it did come as a surprise, and this puts things into a bit of confusion.

And ... when making maps this is an important point, as making 512 textures from GE is ever so much easier than making 1024 textures. Since textures are usually made from screencaps of satellite images, it is much more difficult to find suitable areas for a 1024 texture, which encompasses 4 times more land area than a 512 texture ... and is therefore so much more likely to contain disharmonious or unsuitable elements ...

So it would useful to try and find a general consensus on this - are 512 textures just as good as 1024 textures graphically?

[StG77_HaDeS]

Yeap. the 512 are as good as the 1024, remember game's engine is made for 512s textures so any higher than this it basically ruins performance and does not add to the "beauty" of the map.
So yes people, 512 and 256 resolution for textures is the way to go. And Canon can also make his textures-plates to 512/256 and gain significant in performance

[Blumax]

I was doing my textures at 512 but was gonna resize to 1024 so thanks for the advice you may have saved me a lot of work

[Neil Lowe]

I use a 1024 tex each for 3 airfields and 1 city. All are 8bit and saved as 'texname'.tgb. A 512 tex is also saved as 8bit and named 'texname'.tga. These are mapped once over a large area, not tiled repeatedly over and over.

All the rest of the tex for my map are 512, 8bit for the 'texname'.tgb and 256, 8bit for the 'texname'.tga

Cheers, Neil