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.
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")
* 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 ! )
"
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 ? ) 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