FS2004 inverse mip-map

[Nater]

So I just upgraded to the latest version, and now all of the sudden when I recompile my project, the inverse mips aren't working like they should....It seems as the effects are too big an not showing as if I position myself in the middle of the runway and look towards either end, I can see the effects near the end of the runway, but nothing near me....What am I doing wrong?

 

[gadgets]

Nater, since I don't know what you've done, I can't tell you what you've done wrong, if anything. I need your Project Folder and, if the stock airport is not a good representation of your current airport, the airport .bgl you are using.

First of all, a new version of AFLT is almost ready for release. So I suggest you hold off upgrading for a day or so and use the new release.

However, the new release won't do anything about your current issue since it doesn't make any changes to reverse mipmapped effects. You haven't indicated whether or not the reverse mip-maps were working properly before. Have you tried changing the size of the effect or the effect size multiplied? AFLT ships with default values that are reasonable, but may not provide good results in every case. Have you tried sung other light sources?

 

[Nater]

Thanks for getting back Don...here you go. This is the projects folder and the airport.bgl

 

[gadgets]

I compiled your project using default parameters and inverse mip-mapped effects with the new version of AFLT4. (Since I'll be releasing this version in the next day or so, I didn't see the value in "going back".) Please see the attached image.

I don't see a problem; though, in my opinion, BGL lights work better with this airport. But, a little fine-tuning may improve the inverse mipmapped display.

Your initial post indicated you weren't seeing the effects. During testing of the new version at large airports, I discovered there appears to be some internal limits in Flightsim when using effects. It may also be dependent on processing power. Your airport has approximately 1500 lights. That's a lot of effects. Nonetheless, my system (i5-8400) handles it with ease. Your system is a little older, so that may be the problem.

May I suggest you be patient for anothr day or so and give the new version a try when it's released.
Don

 

[Nater]

Ok Don...I think I fixed the issue (which was on my end....) I had been putzing around in the fs9.cfg and had changed texture_max_load to 4096 just to test. Changed it back to 1024 and all is good in the world....Thank you so much for taking a look into it.

 

[hgschnell]

"texture_max_load "
Is this the size or the number of textures?
just curious...

 

[Nater]

It was the size of the textures....When working on my KRSW project, a lot of my "working" textures were in 4096 and shorten the workload, I would save them as 32bit with mips so that they would show in FS. (Being as FS would only show the 1024 and lower mips. I didn't realize that it had an affect on the effects, as I didn't really fly at night....

 

[hgschnell]

That's good to know, I will have to check my scenery textures, if there are some with more than 1024.

 

[pinkjr]

Most developers do use textures up to 4096, so if your scenery requires to limit the textures to 1024 in the cfg file, some installed payware sceneries may suffer.

if you are trying to do 3D runway lights....in my vast experience in this sector.....inverse LOD method works best!

 

[tgibson]

AFAIK, even when you use textures larger than 1024 in FS2004 the sim only displays these larger textures at 1024 resolution anyway, so there is no real advantage to larger textures - again, only true for FS2004.

 

[Nater]

You are absolutely right Tom. The reason I bumped it up to to 4096 was the textures were being worked on in Photoshop and I wanted to reduce one step in resizing it every single time I adjusted something....So therefore, I bumped the max_texture_load up to 4096. Doing that and saving the working bmp with mips allowed FS to display it, and at the same time I could continue to tweak the textures.

 

[tgibson]

Glad that you understood that too. I was just being sure that others didn't think that such large textures were actually displayed in FS9.