• Which the release of FS2020 we see an explosition of activity on the forun and of course we are very happy to see this. But having all questions about FS2020 in one forum becomes a bit messy. So therefore we would like to ask you all to use the following guidelines when posting your questions:

    • Tag FS2020 specific questions with the MSFS2020 tag.
    • Questions about making 3D assets can be posted in the 3D asset design forum. Either post them in the subforum of the modelling tool you use or in the general forum if they are general.
    • Questions about aircraft design can be posted in the Aircraft design forum
    • Questions about airport design can be posted in the FS2020 airport design forum. Once airport development tools have been updated for FS2020 you can post tool speciifc questions in the subforums of those tools as well of course.
    • Questions about terrain design can be posted in the FS2020 terrain design forum.
    • Questions about SimConnect can be posted in the SimConnect forum.

    Any other question that is not specific to an aspect of development or tool can be posted in the General chat forum.

    By following these guidelines we make sure that the forums remain easy to read for everybody and also that the right people can find your post to answer it.

FS2004 1024x1024 rock textures


Resource contributor
Just curious John .. what does that pic look like if you reduce the 4096 texture to 256 instead of 1024?

That, of course, is the real comparison.
Just curious John .. what does that pic look like if you reduce the 4096 texture to 256 instead of 1024?

That, of course, is the real comparison.

Yeah converting all my (Aime's) textures just before - 1100+! - and was a difference. Overall look probably the same. Very hard to tell for quality. Colour was slightly different which was un-expected. Not sure because of the difference in dxt thingy I saved them in. Possibly one was 8 but, other dxt1. Don't know what either means....:eek:

To me it's not the real comparison. The improvement over default is. And higher res textures formatted to fs9 format is a vast improvement.

Like I said, somebody has done the whole world scenery. Short clip here of results of fields that way better then even what I had with GePro etc.



Resource contributor
The point, in technical terms, is this:

If FS9 is only displaying up to the 256 x 256 MipMap in your 1024x1024 textures (as Jim's Tests seem to show it is), then your texture set is 4 times the size it needs to be, with the same visual appearance.
ie the 1024 downscaled textures will look THE SAME as the 1/16 sized 256 x 256 textures, but occupy 4x the disc space / memory.
The performance implications for this with the 1100+ textures in your complete set is self-evident.

1100 x 682 kb = 732 Mb (1024 textures with MipMaps)


1100 x 42 kb = 45.11 Mb (256 textures with MipMaps)

Nearly 20x the memory load for the same visual result ?

At the end of the day, if you are happy, that's fine ... but it might be worth researching MipMaps a little more, or even try Jim's texture on your system to convince yourself of what you are seeing.
Post a screenshot showing that 1024 Red lettering on the rockfaces, and you'll know you're on a winner. Otherwise, you should be resizing the textures to 256 (anything else is simply placebo)

Can't help here with the testing, haven't had FS9 installed for over 7 years (other than the FS9 SDK) !
Last edited:
Understand. I've only been concerned with the texture appearance so far. And I've only installed it in the Glacier Bay region so only loading in that area. Still got some sorting to do with a dodgy texture tile but other then that...all good!

I've had FSX installed for month and gave it away to somebody else. Not worth it!
Well, I thought making something more for FS2004, but Jonathan has inspired me to test these textures too.

So I picked the textures I made ​​for FSX and I converted to 256x256, taking care to respect the Holger Sandmann's table FSX/FS2004 matches.

You can see the results on these videos:



If you are interresting, you can download the textures here:

It is experimental and I do not know if I'll upload them on Avsim. Everything will depend on the reception you'll be doing.


Last edited:
Well, excellent, is really all I can say! A shot in the arm of good ol FS9 it seems.

I understand you are now downsizing to 256 and the quality is exactly as in your original 1024-based screenshots, validating the size-related points made earlier in this thread?

Upload by all means, the FS9 community will be most grateful for it!
I understand you are now downsizing to 256 and the quality is exactly as in your original 1024-based screenshots, validating the size-related points made earlier in this thread?
Yes, I've resized to 256 but without any optimisation because the bmp looks to smooth.
Did a little test on your experiment:

(I have blown them all up to 161% using IrfanView's zoom function to better see the differences.)

Interesting, no? Aimé, your 056C2Su5 is gray, not at all like the original brownish FS9 (changed that, did you?), but has much better detail. Also compare with the reduced original FSX texture, which I did on the spur of the moment, which is also miles better than its FS9 counterpart.

Conclusion: reducing FSX textures to 256 yields better quality than using the original FS9 set. Proof of concept, I suppose, but without any slur on FSX, as you will never reach its true 1024 quality.

Two things to note, 1) you could use the multiple-stage reduction method for even better results, 2) you could convert a whole folder of like-formatted texture files using the commandline options of IrfanView and ImageTool.
Aimé, your 056C2Su5 is gray, not at all like the original brownish FS9 (changed that, did you?)
I increased the saturation of these textures.

A more complete overview of textures with areas like order;
Switzerland, Corsica, Morocco, Mexico, the Rocky Mountains, the Grand Canyon, Mount Rainier ...


The complet pack with correction.


This is a restored version of the original post above, that opened this interesting and informative thread:



Freeware 4096x4096 FSX textures (not mine)reduced to 1024x1024. Much better then the boring lower resolution textures fs9 mostly uses. A bit embarrassed to post them when the showroom forum says its to 'show off your hard work'. Not really hard work. Just a few mouse clicks and copy and paste! :eek:

Anyway, some around Juneau using the cool Glacier Bay add-on.



Not as sharp zoomed in closer, but WAY better then stock.


Also done the same with some HD grass. Bit of a fan of clover!!

This is a restored version of the original post above, which includes the original images:



Allright boys here's the proof:

I made a custom texture, 024b2Su3.bmp to be exact, copied it at 1024px from my FSX installation and added custom mips for the demonstration. Here's what it looks like in Imagetool:


So then I fired up FS9 for a look, you'll notice you don't see "1024" or "512" anywhere in the screenshot:


...and since someone will undoubtedly say "you're too far away to see the full resolution, you're seeing the 256 mip level because of the distance", here's a shot from the ground (and you're correct about the blurry mess Björn):


...and since I'm sure you're all still doubting my global max texture resolution, here's a shot from the hardware tab:


There you have it, FS9 is limited to 256px on ground textures, yes, aircraft and building textures can go as high as 1024px. Contrary to popular belief I was speaking from experience with my comment above (and the one over at flightsim.com a few weeks back), I went down this road myself several years ago...

This is a restored version of the original post above, which includes the original images, and Jim Robinson's texture image ZIP:



No it does not Ian, the apparent difference being that FSX is capable of 4096 textures (beyond the normal range of the global max texture size slider) with the TML tweak where FS9 couldn't care less what you assign as a TML value beyond 1024. Given that logic I have to question whether 4096 landclass textures would actually display the full resolution in FSX, or would that be limited to 1024 as FS9 is limited to 256? Must test this out as I'm now curious...

In FS9 a 1024 landclass texture without mips actually doesn't show at all:


@Jon, here is the specially mipped texture I used for the demonstration, I added 128 and 64px custom mips and color coded each level:



It looks like this now in Imagetool:


Back up your 024b2su3.bmp in FS9\Scenery\World\Texture and replace it temporarily with this one. Go to a forested area in the US and you should be able to find the colored text without much trouble. Slew closer/farther and you'll see the mip levels change between 256, 128, and 64. The idea is, mips unload part of the memory requirements in the sim when you're far enough away from these textures that the extra resolution would be of no value anyway. Basically they're just smaller versions of the same texture embedded into the .bmp and most editors capable of exporting directX compliant textures will generate mips automatically unless you specify otherwise.

Also note that what I'm saying re: resolution limitation @256px only applies to FS9's landclass (ground) textures. Aircraft textures, scenery model textures, and your detail1.bmp (grass detail) for example can all go as high as 1024px.



Last edited:
This is a restored version of the original post above, which includes the original images:




About the textures 056a2su1 to 7:

I noticed that rock is in reality very clear and contains vegetation.
It's a Alps rock type, like this picture below.

You can download this update here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/79445204/056a2Update.zip


They simply are not. It is not a "breakthrough", it's BS pure and simple. Just because someone will sell you a 4096 texture for FS9 doesn't mean you will see the full 4096 resolution.
Everyone!! Listen to Jim, he knows. His advise when I first stared helped get me to where I am now. That's my :twocents:.