Unfortunately this topic is suddenly moved from the screenshot forum to the PMDG forum... Indeed I know better and actually PMDG is the first on this resolution what I like they did great work and performance on my hardware ;-) But my comments where based on someone is shouting in the screen shot forum the difference is huge, actually when not zooming in to macro level it's less different and peoplewith less powerful hardware can enjoy and avoid blurriness at other places in FSX or out of memory errors due to high extra huge load into memory.Hence it's so much easier to created stunning content on very huge mappings 4096 * 4096 as on default ACES mappings for FSX which are 1024 * 1024.Ouch lol, guess why as you pointed out "irritatingly low res (think 767 VC mod)" was done at that time 5 years ago (less powerful hardware lot of 32 bit systems do the math ;-))Even still today there is hardware out there which would benefit for a default ACES mapping size or smaller version and that was my point in this topic...But then again there is more to it then mapping sizes for performance reasons like draw calls and far more things etc...Remember not everybody has the same hardware for obvious reasons.

I know, Andre! The 767 mod, in it's time, was one of my favorite user created mods ever. My comment was more in light of today's advancements, as you know. I made the comment knowing full well what restrictions you had at the time of the 76's texture mod. You may not know me, but I've known your name for years thanks to your contributions. Sorry I came across as brash, I'd edit the post but that would screw up the flow of this thread.

I know, Andre! The 767 mod, in it's time, was one of my favorite user created mods ever. My comment was more in light of today's advancements, as you know. I made the comment knowing full well what restrictions you had at the time of the 76's texture mod. You may not know me, but I've known your name for years thanks to your contributions. Sorry I came across as brash, I'd edit the post but that would screw up the flow of this thread.

No problem Zach I know you too and believe me we had dreams back then and had already the knowledge what was possible from ACES direct ;-)But it still holds today that users with less powerful hardware can enjoy FSX with less larger mappings and memory load... FSX is all about a balance act and is different at the local PC hardware and settings...I'm a graphical guy, but the most important stuff for most of us is the smooth flying part which is with the current hardware a true enjoyment. Find it only inconvenient that this topic has moved from the screenshot forum to the support forum which in basis isn't a support topic...Well leave it at this and happy to discuss further via PM enjoy this peace of art ;-)

Unfortunately this topic is suddenly moved from the screenshot forum to the PMDG forum...

This post was moved to the forum where it belongs. ( where the mods think it belongs you might say )It is a poll about changes to textures for the NGX , not a regular screenshot-forum-item.If PMDG wants to move this topic elswhere no problem. I strongly disapprove the removal of posts during a forum discussion.Its very strange (and disrespectfull to the other participants of the discussion) removing posts from a discussion after the topic has been moved. Things said on the screenshotforum can be placed here too , if not ,they should not have been said in the first place. (anywhere) Leen PS

and only 4096 is good

Nobody said that.The only thing wich was stated is the fact 4096 textures offer more detail and these details get lost when reducing their resolution.

The only thing resizing will do is to reduce the memory load. Should have zero effect on framerate.I reduced the size of the exterior textures of the plane I fly the most. "Southwest"Chopped them in half from 4096 to 2048. Just makes them load maybe a tad faster,and less memory use. But.. I also tweaked the paint job... :/ To me, the blue on theSouthwest paint was slightly too dark.. So I lightened the blue just a wee tad, andbrightened the red/orange just a wee tad.. Almost perfect now. :) Yes, I am a tad anal,but I see Southwest jets in person quite often, and also take lots of photos of them,and to me, the blue was just a tad too dark. Just didn't look quite right..Also, the conversion cut the window shimmering. So overall, I much prefer theconverted textures over the original. :) But.. I didn't mess with the VC textures.. Why? Because the file size is prettysmall on those, and I couldn't see the point.. Where as the outside textures arepretty large file sizes, and makes it worth it for me, when I'm trying to save memory.Changing texture size should not effect frame rate.My modified Southwest jet.. I'm not at too high a res in the sim, "1280xwhatever"I think. The details up close are actually still pretty sharp, and better than theylook in this picture. And the lightening of the blue is not major.. Just a tad..But I think it's a bit closer to real.. Like I say, I see these jets all the time in thereal world, and the original was just a tad bit dark I thought.. These thingseven fly over my house if going into KHOU 12R or runway 04..BTW, I will not give these textures out to anyone, so don't bother asking.. :(I don't think PMDG would like that too much. I'm probably going to reducethe size on some of the others I run.. It did reduce memory load a noticeableamount. Not huge, but enough to notice in task manager.With the much smaller file size of the VC textures, I don't see much point,so I'm going to leave them as is.Mark Keith

The Texture Max Load setting controls the maximum size of the texture's mipmaps.... So when a texture does not have mipmaps the size will not change. 4096 will remain 4096.And as the VC textures do not have mipmaps you do not see a difference. What you need to do is resize the textures.

May I ask two questions in order to summarise in my brain those information given above?

• Did I understand it correctly that PMDG's 4096x4096 resolution will be always present (when zooming in) despite what is given in "Texture_Max_Load=xxxx" ?
• If so, why PMDG gives the recommendation for a setting that other add-on applications seems to dislike?

This has some importance for me as I do find this figure quite often reset by FSX or an add-on to "1024" and I did not figure out the cause yet. It happens when closing FSX. Now I'm leaving the fsx.cfg open by Notepad++ in order to get the "warning question" that the file has been changed externally. Only UT2, FSC 9 or ASE could be the source. I don't think that Flight Environment X will do it as I tried it off-line while using my Notepad++ watchdog and nothing has happened. Distinct answers are very much appreciated. Thanks,Axel

May I ask two questions in order to summarise in my brain those information given above?

• Did I understand it correctly that PMDG's 4096x4096 resolution will be always present (when zooming in) despite what is given in "Texture_Max_Load=xxxx" ?
• If so, why PMDG gives the recommendation for a setting that other add-on applications seems to dislike?

If the terture_max-_oad setting is 1024 a file at 4096 will allways show up in the sim in 1024 quality.In other words the simulatorprogram will downscale the texture to 1024 before loading/reading by the graphic machine..If the texture_max_load setting is 4096 it will be read as a 4096 texture. To experience the full detail of a 4096 texture setting the max_load to 4096 is absolutely vital.As far as I know it has absolutely nothing to do with mips.4096 textures without mips show low res at texture_max-load setting 1024 To make sure FSX always starts with the texture_max_load settings at 4096 there is a handy tool calledTexture Max Load Editor. Moere information:http://forum.avsim.n...t-them-to-show/ Most likely seeing the texture_max_load value been reset to 1024 automaticly is not caused by other applications disliking higher settings.Many changes to the graphic settings , like level of detail , number of buildings etc ,anti aliasing,bloom etc will make FSX reset this setting.Probably also unknown things within the sim too.This automaticly setting back to 1024 also appears on a clean-complete install of FSX without any add-on software present.I have been testing that thoroughly some years ago during the early development of 4096 textures for FSX.

To make sure FSX always starts with the texture_max_load settings at 4096 there is a handy tool calledTexture Max Load Editor. Moere information:http://forum.avsim.n...t-them-to-show/

Thanks for the hint regarding "Texture Max Load Editor" and, of course, for your explanations. Unfortunately the site is for sale now and as it seems the author did not upload it to other sites. If someone could post a copy or a working link ... Regards,Axel

Just click on : Download file: HTTP (EU) http://www.avsimrus....ion=download

Thanks a lot, the link worked. Regards,Axel

If the terture_max-_oad setting is 1024 a file at 4096 will allways show up in the sim in 1024 quality.In other words the simulatorprogram will downscale the texture to 1024 before loading/reading by the graphic machine..If the texture_max_load setting is 4096 it will be read as a 4096 texture.

There is more to it. On my pc with one wide 5 feet view I can see the diffference between 4096x4096 with MTL set to 2048 and 2048x2048 with TML set to 2048.[GRAPHICS]TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=2048 Eg : when having a wingview I can see "No step" very sharp when the wing texture is 4096x4096. I cannot see the difference with TML set to 2048 or 4096. However when having resized the wing texture to 2048 and the tML set to 2048 "No step" is less shrap. Like I write before imho it is the setting that determines the maximum size for the mip mapped textures.... Here the 2 screenhots of the wing. Both with MTL set to 2048. However the first screenshot is with the wing texture resized to 2048x2048. The second screenshot is with the default wing texture, which is 4096x4096. Look at the words "No step". BTW : I have set TML to 4096, as I use the default wing and misc textures

I never have seen that , never looked at this combination I think.Always been busy with 4096 ,always having MTL set to 4096.MTL at 1024 and textures 4096 does not match anyway. MTL set at 2048 shows the NO STEP txt correctly , but that does not proof a thing.How should MTL 2048 have showed the same no step text at half its size?In other words , when something has pixels enough to show correctly at 2048 it wil not show much better when made on a 4096 resolution.Wich implicates such a text on a 4096 sheet will look good at a 2048 MTL setting too. Little test make a line of seven different colored pixels at a 4096.texture.look at this in the sim with MTL set to 4096you`ll recognise each individual colored pixelnow have a look at the same at MTL 2048 Thanks for the response

Some pilots are using Photoshop to change PMDGNGX textures from 4096 to 1024. I see having TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=1024 "appears" to do the same thing? Note: I read in this forum that PMDG may also make the lower resolutions available.

Some pilots are using Photoshop to change PMDGNGX textures from 4096 to 1024. I see having TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=1024 "appears" to do the same thing? Note: I read in this forum that PMDG may also make the lower resolutions available.

Internally yes, but then it loads the whole texture into memory, then downsizes it to 1024. By downsizing it in Photoshop, you don't have this extra load.

What is perhaps more important with reducing image resolution in Photoshop, is the fact that you can select the most suitable resolution reduction interpolation method when downsizing, which is not something you can really do if you leave it up to FSX and your graphics card, since it will probably rely solely on mip mapping, so that will almost certainly improve matters, as long as you pick the most suitable interpolation method for the texture you are downsizing, as it likely won't be the same one for every texture. Al

Tom and Al, Thanks a lot for the answers.After Bojotes "tweek" tool (testing) I was using 1024.I manually went to 4096.All cockpit displays are much sharper but 1024 is very usable (visually). For my own training using CS5 I may try the instructions (in other posts on this forum) to convert from 4096 to different lower resolutions (as Al mentioned for most suitable) as see quality/performance.