FSXA Problem with DXTBMP!

[JPetroSS]

Hey guys,

I have this problem with DXTBMP.
When I convert my BMP+Alpha to DXT5, I get a really low quality-dithered texture which is really not what I want.

I tried some other settings but no results.

Any thoughts?

 

[Deleted member 1281]

How do you get your BMP plus alpha? Is this a single 32-bit graphic and looks OK? Or do you add the alpha into DXtBmp?

 

[JPetroSS]

I open a BMP file and I use 'Import Alpha Channel'...mostly for repaints

 

[n4gix]

Use the FSX SDK version of Imagetool.exe... That's what it's for...

 

[Deleted member 1281]

Not if you have the alpha channel as a separate file...and we don't all have Photoshop.

JPetroSS, you are certain that your BMP isn't dithered already, via some export process? You are not by any chance editing an original working copy of texture from within DXTBmp (mustn't do that). And in DxtBmp you are Saving As DDS DXt5, not DDS 256 color or something like that?

What size (pixels) is your picture in BMP and what file size is it as BMP and as DDS DXT5?

 

[n4gix]

Not if you have the alpha channel as a separate file...and we don't all have Photoshop.

The simple solution is to use DXTBMP to add the Alpha channel image, then Save As / Targa with Alpha.

Load the .tga file into ImageTool, then Save As DDS/DXT5 bitmap.

 

[Deleted member 1281]

Simpler than loading the alpha in DxtBmp and then saving as dds dxt5 in DxtBmp?

The reason you say this is that you believe DxtBmp does not work for FS. And you will probably say that this thread is proof of it.

 

[n4gix]

Simpler than loading the alpha in DxtBmp and then saving as dds dxt5 in DxtBmp?

The reason you say this is that you believe DxtBmp does not work for FS. And you will probably say that this thread is proof of it.

No, the OP's observation is all that's required here. The simple fact is that DXTBMP's DDS/DXTx conversions are less than stellar quality, not to mention annoyingly inconsistent.

Many times when I've tried to use DXTBMP to generate a DDS/DXTx file the end result was a completely useless bitmap that wouldn't load in FSX at all. The few times that it did "sort of work," the end result was as described by the OP, dithered badly and looking like crap.

It appears that you are more interested in somehow "putting me in my place" than you are in actually being helpful. If so, that's uncalled for.

 

[Deleted member 1281]

No offence meant.

Compare:

One is a dds created via DxtBmp, another created via FSX Imagetool, another created using the Nvidia Plugin for Photoshop, another using DxTex. All are dds dxt5 with a white alpha. No MIPs. All are 65,664 bytes. Which is which?

[In order to show the results here, I loaded the original dds's into IrfanView, re-flipped the Imagetool version, and saved-as bmp.]

P.S. I am attaching the original bmp (test1.bmp) for anyone to try to replicate the above on the their own machine.

 

[hairyspin]

I notice this is a 256x256 file: perhaps it would help if we knew what size of bitmap JPetroSS was converting.

 

[mmann]

After performing many tests with some of the tools available for converting to FSX dds format, I have found that the order from best to worst is as follows:

1. DxTex from the DirectX SDK from Microsoft
2. NVIDIA Plug-in for Adobe Photoshop
3. DXTBmp
4. Image Tool

This is just my opinion and insofar as all four tools are available for free I highly recommend that you try a few and pick your own favourite conversion tool.

 

[hairyspin]

Thanks for that Mike, if only my painting skills were up to showing a difference between them! That said, Vitus's tutorials are teaching me a lot so I'll keep plugging away.

 

[Deleted member 1281]

Edited my post above presenting all four options mentioned by Mike.

Which is which?

 

[n4gix]

No offence meant.

One is a dds created via DxtBmp, another created via FSX Imagetool, another created using the Nvidia Plugin for Photoshop, another using DxTex. All are dds dxt5 with a white alpha. No MIPs. All are 65,664 bytes. Which is which?

Okay then, perhaps I was just being to sensitive and reading into it something non-existent.

Given the number of times that DXTBMP.exe has completely failed to create a viable DDS/DXT5 image that would actually get loaded and displayed in FSX at all, I use the nVidia plugin almost exclusively.

What I do use DXTBMP.exe for of course is FS9, where it is indespensible! I also use it to convert FS9 extended BMP files to TARGA format, so I can load them up in Photoshop for conversion to DDS/DXT5 format to use in FSX.

 

[Deleted member 1281]

Given the number of times that DXTBMP.exe has completely failed to create a viable DDS/DXT5 image that would actually get loaded and displayed in FSX at all, I use the nVidia plugin almost exclusively.

Might it be an idea then to document such rogue productions (ie post originals and faulty dds's) and see whether the factors that might have caused them can be isolated, possibly even passed on to Martin Wright, who has a forum for that purpose and usually acts on feedback?

That's one of the reasons, too, why I'd be very interested to get a hands-on look at JPetroSS's files...

Incidentally, in his forum Martin Wright is on record for stating,

DXTBmp uses the nVidia DDS library to output textures. The Photoshop plugin uses the same libraries and I wouldn`t be surprised if the other programs also use code based on the nVidia library. I would expect all these methods to create very similar results

Edit: Just seen that the rating of DxtBmp in our Wiki is three stars as opposed to five for ImageTool. And there's a footnote saying:

DXTBmp - Not suitable for generating FSX DDS textures, (incompatible type output).

 

[JPetroSS]

Thank you guys! I think I sorted it out

 

[Deleted member 1281]

Have you actually read the latest posts? Surely you must know then that there is some interest in what exactly went wrong and how you sorted it?

We've spent some time and effort discussing your problem ...

 

[Deleted member 1281]

Well seems a clear case of asks, questions, and runs. And not a newbie either. This way we'll never find out why DxtBmp gets such a bad press.

So, which was which?

Even though test1.bmp to test4.bmp (henceforth just 1, 2, 3, 4) may look very similar they are not identical. Or let's say some are and some aren't. Clearly, 2 sticks out immediately because the circular gradient is more banded (having fewer transitions) than 1, 3, and 4, which look better in that respect.

Now for a good look at the pixel level let us blow them up to 500%. I am working on the assumption that no random process is involved either in the original algorithms or in the format conversions that I used for displaying the results.

One can see that 2 has some areas affected in some sort of color bleed (a) not present in 1, 3, and 4. Also, the bottom outline of the 'e' is rather faded compared to what the others have (b). Some holes and angles acquire a bit of shading (c), again in contrast to the others, which are likely to appear "sharper" there.

Comparing 3 and 4 with respect to area (e) one can see they are not quite identical either, but the difference much more marginal.

As far as I can make out, 1 and 3 are identical.

One area of concern in 1, 3 and 4 are the 'spikes' on the back of the letter 'e' and elsewhere. These are considerably darker and hence more noticeable than in 2, so that must count as a point in 2's favor. Also the holes in the upstroke of the 's' have a bleedthrough of the outline color (d) and are bigger and more distortive in 1,3,4 as opposed to 2.

To let the cat out of the bag --

1 is DxTex
2 is ImageTool
3 is DxtBmp
4 is Nvidia

Handlingwise DxTex is nice because it can be run as a batch process and can auto-include separate alpha files. Unfortunately it can only be got at by downloading a huge SDK.* Imagetool is great for being batchable, too, and for auto-flipping the textures. DxtBmp supports a wide range of formats, can be used for analysing texture files and has a fairly friendly GUI, but you have to import the alpha and flip manually and not forget to "reload" the image after editing. Nvidia is great as a plugin for Photoshop users, avoiding the need for intermediary files.

* or by checking the attachment which I have inadvertently included in this post.

 

[robystar]

Hi,

Can only tell you the following from my proper experience:
Using Imagetool for conversion gives me a lot less quality than by using DXTBMP. However, in the last case I have to rework the alpha channel and import it again in a seperate step.
I do not know why this is so but when N4gix pointed out the (call it) Targa method some time ago already, I started using that one and the outcome is just fine.

 

[n4gix]

There is one feature of DXTBMP.exe that should be avoided at all costs, as they will seriously degrade your artwork, and that is the "Send To" (editor of your choice).

Using it once only may do no harm, but using it more than once, such as:

1. Send To
2. Edit
3. Reload From
4. Send To
5. Edit
6. Reload From

Will introduce some truly abysmal pixellation into your (formerly) pristine artwork.