• 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.

Texture problem

Ciano35

Ciano35

Messages
14
Country
ireland
Hi everybody,

The texture I applied on to a box seems to double on itself? Its like the texture appears within the texture. Kind of hard to describe.

texture1221.jpg


I cant understand this, it didn't happen to any of the other textures in my airport. I used gmax.

Any help appreciated!

Regards,
Cian
 
Last edited:
Hi,

It is a bit hard to see what is wrong from this texture. Does it look correct in GMax? And how is the texture supposed to look?
 
Hi Arno,

The texture is supposed to look like this:

sdfsdv.jpg






But when exported to fsx it creates loads of the same texture in each texture again, if you understand what I mean.

Thanks,
Cian
 
Did you convert your texture to DXT compression format with mipmaps while using it in FS?
 
arno said:
Did you convert your texture to DXT compression format with mipmaps while using it in FS?
Click to expand...

Yeah i did. I tried all over again: I created mipmaps, converted to dxt1, save as .bmp and placed the texture in the addon scenery folder replacing the other one.

Converting to dxt1 isnt the issue is it? Should it be dxt3?

Thanks
 
I would not expect that the DXT compression gives such artefacts in your texture. But it might be worth to test without the DXT compression and see if that is it.
 
arno said:
I would not expect that the DXT compression gives such artefacts in your texture. But it might be worth to test without the DXT compression and see if that is it.
Click to expand...

Didnt work. I also tried saving as dds but nothing. Could it somehow be that the lines in the texture itself are exactly vertical and horizontal? There is no line in it that is at any slight angle, there all vertical/horizontal?
 
Maybe you can show us your texture file and MDL object for testing?
 
first prove to yourself that this is the problem. If you pull futher away, does the texture start to look correct?
 
I'd take a look at your mips a bit. Its hard to say which one is showing at a time.

One way might be to edit the mips so that you see a number, or a different color shade depending on which mip.

Once you find out which mips you want to see at that close spacing, it will be interesting to know which ones they are. For instance, if your base image is that which is showing at close range, then you may have simply insufficient resolution in the main image.

On the other hand, if a lower mip is what you are seeing, you could try deleting that particular mip to force a higher resolution image sooner.

Others may have more elegant approaches.

Bob
 
bob5568 said:
I'd take a look at your mips a bit. Its hard to say which one is showing at a time.

One way might be to edit the mips so that you see a number, or a different color shade depending on which mip.

Once you find out which mips you want to see at that close spacing, it will be interesting to know which ones they are. For instance, if your base image is that which is showing at close range, then you may have simply insufficient resolution in the main image.

On the other hand, if a lower mip is what you are seeing, you could try deleting that particular mip to force a higher resolution image sooner.

Others may have more elegant approaches.


Bob
Click to expand...

And for a newbie how would this be solved :o
 
I wrote the advice below about editing mips, and then had a new thought. My ideas are based on the logic that if you could see enough resolution up close, you will have a nice appearing object. That would be easiest to be sure of it you just remove the mips from your image as a first experiment. This should force fs to display whatever "full" resolution is. If you do this and it looks good, then the trick will be to force fs to display this version of the texture at the distance you show in the screen shot. That's when you may find it helpful to identifiy which mip is really displaying, and force fs to use a higher resolution mip instead.

If, on the other hand, you eliminate the mip maps and still find the image looks like you show up close, then its of no value trying to mess with mips. Its time to create a higher resolution source image.


Editting mips:___________________________________________________
Do you have a graphics software? Like paint shop pro? PHotoshop? Gimp?

My idea is to use the graphics software to do an experiment. I'm not in front of image tool right now, but if it provides the ability to edit a mip, then do so using your graphics software, and re-save with something added to the mip that will display in fs. Like a color shade. Remember this is just an experiment.

If image tool doesn't allow you to edit a mip, Martin Wright has provided a graphics utility that does permit idividual mips to be edited. http://www.btinternet.com/~mnwright/ Check out DXTbmp, I think that one permitted mips editing.

Once you figure out how to edit a mip, I would suggest you cast a unique color on each mip. So, the full image is your image, your first mip is colored red, your second yellow, etc.

Recompile using the test material. Now you get to see what mips you are looking at. One possibility is that you are never seeing the full image, which is why it looks crappy close up. You'll know this with the experimental mips, cuz it will remain red, no matter how close you get to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top