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.
Actually it's just the opposite. I was having trouble with every hangar texture I had until I remembered the mips. I went back and resaved all of them without the mips and all are clear and crisp. They may be handy at times, but with scenery that will be viewed close up and scrutinized as this project will, mips are a no-no. Same goes for aircraft textures.. . . . .Textures without mipmaps can cause issues like blurry textures in fs.
Actually it's just the opposite. I was having trouble with every hangar texture I had until I remembered the mips. I went back and resaved all of them without the mips and all are clear and crisp. They may be handy at times, but with scenery that will be viewed close up and scrutinized as this project will, mips are a no-no. Same goes for aircraft textures.
removing mips is bad idea imo. Not only you will waste GPU memory by drawing full resolution at all times, but you ll also have problems with shimmering at distance due to lack of filtering.
If smth is to be scrutinized from close by, then removing the mips will not offer any help at all since mips are only used in distance.
All the textures I used are the same resolution. This is an FSX project. I understand the passion that some folks have about mip maps and I admit that I am far from expert in any of this, I am learning. . .or trying to, but for me, the proof is in what I see with my own eyes and as far as I'm concerned, while mips have a following, with the way PC's have grown in their ability to display our Sim World. . .their importance is greatly exaggerated. I've seen them cause more problems than solve them. If mips are used only for distance and all the textures are set at the same resolution, then why, when I remove them does the texture go from blurry to sharp? It's cause and effect as far as I'm concerned. Sorry to be so vehement in my objection to the suggestions here, but this has been a long project, a very good learning process to be sure, but given the nature and importance of this Aerodrome, it's imperative that all the textures be sharp and removing the mips has done that.Removing mipmaps is for sure not always the best idea. Is this for FS2004 or FSX?
In FS2004 there are many threads about the entire scenery going blurry. 9 out of 10 times this is caused by the texture without mipmaps. Adding them solves this issue.
When the textures do not display sharp with mipmaps that can also be caused by bad texture design. If you mix elements with a very different resolution it seems FS has trouble to pick the right mipmap. For example one half of your texture is mapped on a 10 meter big object and the other half on a 1 meter object. The 10 meter big objects needs to show a more detailed resolution from a greater distance than the 1 meter one (assuming they are both covered by the same amount of pixels). The engine does not handle this well, so it is better to make sure the resolution (pixels/meter) is rouhgly the same for all parts of your texture.
So despite the claim that mips are only for distance and have no effect on the textures close-up, it would appear that this is not always the case.
Interesting. . . .This is not a claim, it is how the GPU works. It gradually switches to lower mip levels as you move away from the texture.
If your textures are only good without mips, this means that your initial resolution is not good enough.A big texture sheet (2048 or 4096) does not always mean good resolution. what is important is the px/cm ratio on your models.
If your textures are only good without mips, this means that your initial resolution is not good enough.A big texture sheet (2048 or 4096) does not always mean good resolution. what is important is the px/cm ratio on your models.