TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=?

#1
Hi there, just recently learned that this setting actually increases - decreases the texture quality in FS. Have been setting it to 4096 since 3 years without actually understanding what it did, (thought it was for removing the blur-ness at edges). Did a little research and found out that it can either be 256 - 512 - 1024 by default and 2048 - 4096 for high resolution if you want to make it look ultra realistic. But that does lead to OOMs and lags. My question is, does the changes between these affect the rendering A LOT? Or not very significant? If I make changes to this, will it affect my cloud textures too much from HD to like 240 pixels? :D. And, which setting is recommended for my graphics card, a poor one, NVIDIA GeForce 710M, can anyone say?
 

dave hoeffgen

Resource contributor
#3
but if you have high resolution textures like 4096x4096 and you set TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=1024 they will be rendered as if they were only 1024x1024
 
Last edited:

Dutcheeseblend

Resource contributor
#4
In fact, this setting determines at which maximum size, the texture will be loaded. Setting it to 1024 (default), will load:

- 4096pix textures as 1024
- 2048pix textures as 1024
- 1024pix textures as 1024
- 512pix textures as 512
- 256pix textures as 256

Remember that a 4096 sheet is four times bigger than a 2048 sheet, and a 2048 sheet is four times bigger than a 1024 sheet. For myself, I haven't encountered performance problems, but my PC is hi-end. Low-end systems will have difficulties, I guess...
 
#9
AFAIK, there are some important considerations both for- and against- use of MIPMAPs which merit review.

Additionally, there are some important related considerations involving LODs, user aircraft viewing distance from textured objects, and one's TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD (aka "TML") Cfg file setting ...which also merit review. :idea:


FYI: The Blog post by ACES "polypoke" Owen Hewitt stating one must "enable" 4096x4096 textures in MS-FSX:

https://polypoke.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/fsx-cfg-tweaks/

"[GRAPHICS] tweak

Those of you who benefit from a cutting edge graphics card that has 1 Gig+ RAM onboard will be able to benefit from the following tweak more so than others. There are some recent add-on’s that employ ultra high resolution graphics (2048×2048 and 4096×4096). With this setting, you allow the full resolution to be experienced in-game.

TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=4096 (for 4096×4096 textures)
TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=2048 (for 2048×2048 textures)
TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=1024 (default value when global texture resolution is set to 'very high')
"


FYI: Some interesting posts by Jim Robinson (or, as I'd respectfully call him on this topic, the "MIP-Meister") :D


* Regarding the question as to whether use of a "higher" 'TML' setting might still 'work' if MIPMAPS are not utilized:

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/445555...ez-to-4096-as-your-new-default-setting/page-3


http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/fs9-to-fsxa.432022/


Jim also describes this usually rare scenario: (Warning: this option 'forces' a burden onto end user systems ! :alert:)

"Some developers force HD by leaving mips out of the textures, then TML=1024 for example has no effect, the sim has no choice but to load the full 4096 px texture. They do this so they don't have to require the user to manually edit the .cfg (TML=4096)"

http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?292095-Where-would-TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD-be-most-noticable



* Regarding whether use of a "higher" 'TML' setting might still 'work' with and without MIPMAPS being utilized:

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/1024x1024-rock-textures.426477/

http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?292095-Where-would-TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD-be-most-noticable


BTW: Similar tests can be done in FSX with ex: 4096x4096 pixel MIPs as done with FS9 in the above example threads.


Note: Jim points out one's distance from a textured object causes switching of MIPMAP (and LOD) display:

http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showt..._LOAD-be-most-noticable&p=1935373#post1935373


Note: Jim points out the utility used to process texture images impacts visual quality of MIPMAP display:

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/411317-hd-ground-textures-in-fs9-continued/page-3#entry2696320



And, as Jim has elsewhere pointed out, in many cases the LOD-19, LOD-20, and LOD-21 aerial imagery seen on many (but not all) tile servers ...is apparently only LOD-18 which has been digitally sharpened and enlarged. ;)


As an example of visual display quality as a function of distance, LOD, and MIPMAP "optical image sharpness", please note in the following image that, although the ability to resolve LOD-19 aerial imagery apparently was extended by use of a 'higher' FSX- or P3D- Cfg file setting for LOD_Radius, the quality of the LOD-19 imagery appears 'higher', IMHO, due more-so to its greater "optical image sharpness" ...than for its being "LOD-19" pixel resolution.





< ...above image linked from the following thread at FSDeveloper: >

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/lod19-photoscenery-worth-the-price.425664/


< ...as cited within the context of this discussion on aerial imagery display and "LOD_Radius": >

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/global-mapper-export-question.434552/page-3


[EDITED]

NOTE: Reproducing the above screenshot image at LFOZ airport looking to the SE with a comparable "spatial field of view" coverage in a 'tilted' Google Earth 3D mode session, required an approximate vertical distance "Eye Altitude" of 800 Feet and a estimated 200 Feet horizontal distance of the camera "Eye" position ...from the center of view in the screenshot area depicted.

IIUC, that would have required a FS user aircraft camera position located at a distance of approximately (1/3) LOD-13 quad tile span in the FS terrain grid ...from the center of view in the screenshot area depicted.

Again, if I am interpreting this correctly, that FS user aircraft camera position would have been located at a distance of approximately (20) LOD-19 quad tile spans ...from the center of view in the screenshot area depicted.

I would consider it quite probable that the above screenshot may show a G-Poly textured with aerial imagery that did NOT use MIPMAPs, and which thereby "forced" a higher (full ? :scratchch) resolution texture to display at the camera viewing distance (providing the FS configuration settings utilized in that flight had allowed that texture to be properly rendered at run time).

[END_EDIT]



PS: A pertinent discussion of options and reasons for use of aerial imagery MIPMAPs with G-Polys:

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/how-to-optimize-textured-ground-polygons.434101/



Hope these ideas help when working with textures for 3D objects, terrain, and with configuring MSFS / P3D. :)

GaryGB
 

Attachments

Last edited:
#11
The Steam Edition of FSX has "4096" set as the default value.
Thanks for the heads-up on that Tom; I have not yet acquired / used the Steam Edition of FSX, and did not notice that new Cfg setting from forum threads on that "newer" version of MS-FSX. :)


I suppose it is a "good problem" that we now have multiple versions of "FSX" available to the FS Community:

* FSX Microsoft Game Studios "Boxed Edition" (aka "FSX_MS")

* FSX Steam Edition (aka "FSX_SE")

* Lockheed-Martin Prepar3d version 1.4 (aka "P3Dv1.x")

* Lockheed-Martin Prepar3d version 2.5 (aka"P3Dv2.x")


And to think that back in January 2010, ACES was disbanded, and the future of FSX was looking rather bleak ! :D

GaryGB
 

Heretic

Resource contributor
#12
Thanks for the heads-up on that Tom; I have not yet acquired / used the Steam Edition of FSX, and did not notice that new Cfg setting from forum threads on that "newer" version of MS-FSX. :)
I'm pretty sure Tom (Hairyspin) will appreciate the "Thank you". ;)
 
#13
Is there a wiki here that one might refer to when confusing a "Heretic" with a "Hairyspin" ? :laughing:

Thanks for the courteous correction. ;)

GaryGB
 

krispy1001

Resource contributor
#16
MipMaps, from an aircraft developers standpoint, are useless. Unless you're designing AI or something like that.

- Joseph
Hi fsxar177!

I have been testing textures in FSX and I have found that MIP maps are very important not only for AI aircraft. I have found so far that MIP maps are used in the following ways:

1. MIP maps are used to control a texture of an aircraft determined by FSX global texture resolution. You can test this by applying a texture to an aircraft without MIP maps. Then change your global texture resolution to very low, and your aircraft texture changes very little if any from the original quality. Now repeat the same test with an aircraft that uses MIP maps. You will see that the texture changes considerably.

2. MIP maps are used in connection with LOD's for aircraft that are being flown from the tower and top-down views.

These are just some of the things that I have found testing MIP maps at this time.

Thanks, Kris:)
 
Last edited:
#17
MipMaps, from an aircraft developers standpoint, are useless. Unless you're designing AI or something like that.

- Joseph
I add mipmaps to all my aircraft textures, primarily so that they are visible at a greated distance in Multiplayer. Since I only fly in a multiplayer environment I also reduce all textures, other than those for my aircraft, to 1024 x 1024, mips = 8. I have 85 A2A B-17G textures sets for the aircraft flown by members of the 91st Bombardment Group, With 8 to 16 aircraft flying together in formation, 4096 textures would take a tremendous toll on VAS and frame rates also, I believe.

Paul
 
#18
Hi guys!

By 'AI' I was also referring to multiplayer. So, in Gypsy's case, it very beneficial.

From, from a developer's standpoint, who needs the product to look 100% stellar, he wouldn't want someone with their settings at 1024, to have mips, and therefore not see the product as advertised.

- Joseph
 

=rk=

Resource contributor
#20
"Bumped" for edits to my post above in this thread: ;)
If you are bumping to encourage discussion of your edit, then you should probably consider some observations about your attached image.
As an example of visual display quality as a function of distance, LOD, and MIPMAP "optical image sharpness", please note in the following image that, although the ability to resolve LOD-19 aerial imagery was extended by use of a 'higher' FSX- or P3D- Cfg file setting for LOD_Radius, the quality of the LOD-19 imagery appears 'higher', IMHO, due more-so to its greater "optical image sharpness" ...than for its being "LOD-19" pixel resolution.
Your term optical image sharpness is probably very accurate, but probably for very simple reasons that are unrelated to tml or mip maps. The first stark thing to notice is that the cultivated field is green in one "LOD state" and brown in the other. The images were obviously recorded at different times and seasons and it is entirely possible, likely even, that the images were captured from completely different devices, using different algorithms and image qualities. Basically, Visual Earth's LOD 18 will not be the same quality as Landsat's LOD 18 and that is just the way it is. You see this a lot outside the continental US where coverage drops off and they have a mishmash of "as close as it gets." Ultimately, unless you can specifically confirm source quality across separate images, you are comparing apples to oranges, in regards to how one version of LOD 18 or 19 stands against a different version of LOD 18 or 19.
 
Top