Re: FSDS and 512x512 textures

[leatzaw]

Dear all

I created a 512x512 texture for use with scenery (a very long building where I
wanted to preserve a detailed sense of the texture of corrugated iron.

When I went to map the texture to the object I found that FSDS recognised that
it was dealing with a large texture (the label 512x512 8 bit appeared below the






bitmap inmage)but it would not allow me to enter x,y coordinates beyond those
for a 256x256 texture.

Does anyone know what I'm doing wrong? Are 512x512 only able to be used for
aircraft and therefore not supported by the Standard (scenery only) version of
FSDS (the documentation certianly doesn't suggest this)?

I can probably hand edit the the .scm file to map the coordinates of the larger






texture .. but I'd prefer not to!

Any help appreciated.




Greg

PS Thanks for the help I've received on the forum in the past. My current
project is my third scenery and the first using custom macros and textures.
Now I know how you can get so addicted to scenery design you forget to fly!


Greg, I use 512x512 textures on my macros with fsds with no problem. I think
what you have is that fsds maps the texture into 256x256 parts. I found this
recently...I made a day and night texture at 512x512, created a neat high res
macro. Then I tried to reduce the night texture resolution without reducing
the day texture resolution. So...I reduced the image size of the night texture




to 256x256 and left the day texture 512x512.

Worked like a charm.

I know what you mean about flying, nearly all my flying is to test scenery,
either patterns at my project or intentional test arrivals or departures to
analyse the look others will get. At least I have fun!

Bob B

Bob
What you say about flying is true. I'm also surprised to discover I enjoy
flying into the airports I've created. I thought I'd just get sick of them.

Back to textures. The 512x512 textures work fine mapping them to the 256
coordinates. However, it appears that there is no visual difference with a 256


ie it is as though fs internally wipes out the additional detail.

To give an example, I created a nice corrugated iron 'short' building but used
almost the whole width of 256 to get all the detail of the corrugations. I
then created a long building but wanted the same level of detail. I cut and
pasted from my 1st building and used most of the width of the 512. Hence I
preserved the level of detail in the corrugations. Yet the effect when the 512


loads onto my long building is not much (if any) different to what I see if I
resize the 512 to 256 with all the attendant loss of detail due to fewer
pixels. I can clearly see the diference because the two building sit side by
side and the level or surfance detail shoudl be the same. And, to answer the
obvious, I know I was using the 512 bitmap because I made some detail changes
to that bitmap only. Anyway, I was a bit surprised by this. Any thoughts?

Finally, in relation to frame rates - does using a 512 make much of a hit?
If you have a choice between spreading your images over four 256 bitmaps or
using one 512 - which is most efficient?


Cheers

Greg

Some Videocard chipsets like the Voodoo series do not display anothing above a
256x256 bmp in FS2k.
There is a great differance in the visual detail that you can get with a
512x512 as there are 4 times as many pixels, I personaly use many 512s as well
as 1024s depending on the detail that might be usually seen in what ever object
your trying to create.

Paul

[leatzaw]

Dear all

I created a 512x512 texture for use with scenery (a very long building where I
wanted to preserve a detailed sense of the texture of corrugated iron.

When I went to map the texture to the object I found that FSDS recognised that
it was dealing with a large texture (the label 512x512 8 bit appeared below the






bitmap inmage)but it would not allow me to enter x,y coordinates beyond those
for a 256x256 texture.

Does anyone know what I'm doing wrong? Are 512x512 only able to be used for
aircraft and therefore not supported by the Standard (scenery only) version of
FSDS (the documentation certianly doesn't suggest this)?

I can probably hand edit the the .scm file to map the coordinates of the larger






texture .. but I'd prefer not to!

Any help appreciated.




Greg

PS Thanks for the help I've received on the forum in the past. My current
project is my third scenery and the first using custom macros and textures.
Now I know how you can get so addicted to scenery design you forget to fly!


Greg, I use 512x512 textures on my macros with fsds with no problem. I think
what you have is that fsds maps the texture into 256x256 parts. I found this
recently...I made a day and night texture at 512x512, created a neat high res
macro. Then I tried to reduce the night texture resolution without reducing
the day texture resolution. So...I reduced the image size of the night texture




to 256x256 and left the day texture 512x512.

Worked like a charm.

I know what you mean about flying, nearly all my flying is to test scenery,
either patterns at my project or intentional test arrivals or departures to
analyse the look others will get. At least I have fun!

Bob B

Bob
What you say about flying is true. I'm also surprised to discover I enjoy
flying into the airports I've created. I thought I'd just get sick of them.

Back to textures. The 512x512 textures work fine mapping them to the 256
coordinates. However, it appears that there is no visual difference with a 256


ie it is as though fs internally wipes out the additional detail.

To give an example, I created a nice corrugated iron 'short' building but used
almost the whole width of 256 to get all the detail of the corrugations. I
then created a long building but wanted the same level of detail. I cut and
pasted from my 1st building and used most of the width of the 512. Hence I
preserved the level of detail in the corrugations. Yet the effect when the 512


loads onto my long building is not much (if any) different to what I see if I
resize the 512 to 256 with all the attendant loss of detail due to fewer
pixels. I can clearly see the diference because the two building sit side by
side and the level or surfance detail shoudl be the same. And, to answer the
obvious, I know I was using the 512 bitmap because I made some detail changes
to that bitmap only. Anyway, I was a bit surprised by this. Any thoughts?

Finally, in relation to frame rates - does using a 512 make much of a hit?
If you have a choice between spreading your images over four 256 bitmaps or
using one 512 - which is most efficient?


Cheers

Greg

Sorry Greg,

But one more, how did you check this? I mean did you restart FS2K or did you
cycle the scenery library?

Paul

[bob5568]

Dear all

I created a 512x512 texture for use with scenery (a very long building where I
wanted to preserve a detailed sense of the texture of corrugated iron.

When I went to map the texture to the object I found that FSDS recognised that
it was dealing with a large texture (the label 512x512 8 bit appeared below the






bitmap inmage)but it would not allow me to enter x,y coordinates beyond those
for a 256x256 texture.

Does anyone know what I'm doing wrong? Are 512x512 only able to be used for
aircraft and therefore not supported by the Standard (scenery only) version of
FSDS (the documentation certianly doesn't suggest this)?

I can probably hand edit the the .scm file to map the coordinates of the larger






texture .. but I'd prefer not to!

Any help appreciated.




Greg

PS Thanks for the help I've received on the forum in the past. My current
project is my third scenery and the first using custom macros and textures.
Now I know how you can get so addicted to scenery design you forget to fly!


Greg, I use 512x512 textures on my macros with fsds with no problem. I think
what you have is that fsds maps the texture into 256x256 parts. I found this
recently...I made a day and night texture at 512x512, created a neat high res
macro. Then I tried to reduce the night texture resolution without reducing
the day texture resolution. So...I reduced the image size of the night texture




to 256x256 and left the day texture 512x512.

Worked like a charm.

I know what you mean about flying, nearly all my flying is to test scenery,
either patterns at my project or intentional test arrivals or departures to
analyse the look others will get. At least I have fun!

Bob B

Bob
What you say about flying is true. I'm also surprised to discover I enjoy
flying into the airports I've created. I thought I'd just get sick of them.

Back to textures. The 512x512 textures work fine mapping them to the 256
coordinates. However, it appears that there is no visual difference with a 256


ie it is as though fs internally wipes out the additional detail.

To give an example, I created a nice corrugated iron 'short' building but used
almost the whole width of 256 to get all the detail of the corrugations. I
then created a long building but wanted the same level of detail. I cut and
pasted from my 1st building and used most of the width of the 512. Hence I
preserved the level of detail in the corrugations. Yet the effect when the 512


loads onto my long building is not much (if any) different to what I see if I
resize the 512 to 256 with all the attendant loss of detail due to fewer
pixels. I can clearly see the diference because the two building sit side by
side and the level or surfance detail shoudl be the same. And, to answer the
obvious, I know I was using the 512 bitmap because I made some detail changes
to that bitmap only. Anyway, I was a bit surprised by this. Any thoughts?

Finally, in relation to frame rates - does using a 512 make much of a hit?
If you have a choice between spreading your images over four 256 bitmaps or
using one 512 - which is most efficient?


Cheers

Greg





I think if you reduce your image to 256, you'll lose the benefit of higher
resolution, no matter how you manipulate the image.

Try this: Start with an image larger than 512x512...I can send you textures if
you don't have anything to work with...make your macro.

Then, reduce the same texture to 256x256, and compile the macro again under a
different name. place them on an airport side by side.

You'll be blown away by the difference. But you have to start with the big
image. Once you reduce the size, you can't then increase it again. Telling a
graphics program to display a given amount of information over more pixels
makes for a fuzzy bad image.

oh, frame rates, I guess it matters some but can't be much. I'm about to
release a new project with mostly 512x512s....we'll see what folks say. My
beta testers show it to work fine for them. Watch for Tacoma Narrows airport.

Bob Bernstein

[glcoote]

Dear all

I created a 512x512 texture for use with scenery (a very long building where I
wanted to preserve a detailed sense of the texture of corrugated iron.

When I went to map the texture to the object I found that FSDS recognised that
it was dealing with a large texture (the label 512x512 8 bit appeared below the








bitmap inmage)but it would not allow me to enter x,y coordinates beyond those
for a 256x256 texture.

Does anyone know what I'm doing wrong? Are 512x512 only able to be used for
aircraft and therefore not supported by the Standard (scenery only) version of
FSDS (the documentation certianly doesn't suggest this)?

I can probably hand edit the the .scm file to map the coordinates of the larger








texture .. but I'd prefer not to!

Any help appreciated.




Greg

PS Thanks for the help I've received on the forum in the past. My current
project is my third scenery and the first using custom macros and textures.
Now I know how you can get so addicted to scenery design you forget to fly!


Greg, I use 512x512 textures on my macros with fsds with no problem. I think
what you have is that fsds maps the texture into 256x256 parts. I found this
recently...I made a day and night texture at 512x512, created a neat high res
macro. Then I tried to reduce the night texture resolution without reducing
the day texture resolution. So...I reduced the image size of the night texture






to 256x256 and left the day texture 512x512.

Worked like a charm.

I know what you mean about flying, nearly all my flying is to test scenery,
either patterns at my project or intentional test arrivals or departures to
analyse the look others will get. At least I have fun!

Bob B

Bob
What you say about flying is true. I'm also surprised to discover I enjoy
flying into the airports I've created. I thought I'd just get sick of them.

Back to textures. The 512x512 textures work fine mapping them to the 256
coordinates. However, it appears that there is no visual difference with a 256




ie it is as though fs internally wipes out the additional detail.

To give an example, I created a nice corrugated iron 'short' building but used
almost the whole width of 256 to get all the detail of the corrugations. I
then created a long building but wanted the same level of detail. I cut and
pasted from my 1st building and used most of the width of the 512. Hence I
preserved the level of detail in the corrugations. Yet the effect when the 512




loads onto my long building is not much (if any) different to what I see if I
resize the 512 to 256 with all the attendant loss of detail due to fewer
pixels. I can clearly see the diference because the two building sit side by
side and the level or surfance detail shoudl be the same. And, to answer the
obvious, I know I was using the 512 bitmap because I made some detail changes
to that bitmap only. Anyway, I was a bit surprised by this. Any thoughts?

Finally, in relation to frame rates - does using a 512 make much of a hit?
If you have a choice between spreading your images over four 256 bitmaps or
using one 512 - which is most efficient?


Cheers

Greg





I think if you reduce your image to 256, you'll lose the benefit of higher
resolution, no matter how you manipulate the image.

Try this: Start with an image larger than 512x512...I can send you textures if


you don't have anything to work with...make your macro.

Then, reduce the same texture to 256x256, and compile the macro again under a
different name. place them on an airport side by side.

You'll be blown away by the difference. But you have to start with the big
image. Once you reduce the size, you can't then increase it again. Telling a
graphics program to display a given amount of information over more pixels
makes for a fuzzy bad image.

oh, frame rates, I guess it matters some but can't be much. I'm about to
release a new project with mostly 512x512s....we'll see what folks say. My
beta testers show it to work fine for them. Watch for Tacoma Narrows airport.

Bob Bernstein

Bob

Thanks for the offer of large textures but I'm ok in that respect. My textures
were created at 512 and then shrunk. My problem is that the detail is there in
the larger bitmap but doesnt' seem to be there when I view them in the sim. I
didn't actually recompile the macro, just replaced the textures between large
and small by renaming. perhaps I did end up confusing the two and simply
reloaded the smaller. I'll have another look.

Watch out for my new scenery for Goolwa, South Australia! My first using
custom macros! I'm a novice but well pleased with the result.

Cheers

Greg

[glcoote]

Dear all

I created a 512x512 texture for use with scenery (a very long building where I
wanted to preserve a detailed sense of the texture of corrugated iron.

When I went to map the texture to the object I found that FSDS recognised that
it was dealing with a large texture (the label 512x512 8 bit appeared below the








bitmap inmage)but it would not allow me to enter x,y coordinates beyond those
for a 256x256 texture.

Does anyone know what I'm doing wrong? Are 512x512 only able to be used for
aircraft and therefore not supported by the Standard (scenery only) version of
FSDS (the documentation certianly doesn't suggest this)?

I can probably hand edit the the .scm file to map the coordinates of the larger








texture .. but I'd prefer not to!

Any help appreciated.




Greg

PS Thanks for the help I've received on the forum in the past. My current
project is my third scenery and the first using custom macros and textures.
Now I know how you can get so addicted to scenery design you forget to fly!


Greg, I use 512x512 textures on my macros with fsds with no problem. I think
what you have is that fsds maps the texture into 256x256 parts. I found this
recently...I made a day and night texture at 512x512, created a neat high res
macro. Then I tried to reduce the night texture resolution without reducing
the day texture resolution. So...I reduced the image size of the night texture






to 256x256 and left the day texture 512x512.

Worked like a charm.

I know what you mean about flying, nearly all my flying is to test scenery,
either patterns at my project or intentional test arrivals or departures to
analyse the look others will get. At least I have fun!

Bob B

Bob
What you say about flying is true. I'm also surprised to discover I enjoy
flying into the airports I've created. I thought I'd just get sick of them.

Back to textures. The 512x512 textures work fine mapping them to the 256
coordinates. However, it appears that there is no visual difference with a 256




ie it is as though fs internally wipes out the additional detail.

To give an example, I created a nice corrugated iron 'short' building but used
almost the whole width of 256 to get all the detail of the corrugations. I
then created a long building but wanted the same level of detail. I cut and
pasted from my 1st building and used most of the width of the 512. Hence I
preserved the level of detail in the corrugations. Yet the effect when the 512




loads onto my long building is not much (if any) different to what I see if I
resize the 512 to 256 with all the attendant loss of detail due to fewer
pixels. I can clearly see the diference because the two building sit side by
side and the level or surfance detail shoudl be the same. And, to answer the
obvious, I know I was using the 512 bitmap because I made some detail changes
to that bitmap only. Anyway, I was a bit surprised by this. Any thoughts?

Finally, in relation to frame rates - does using a 512 make much of a hit?
If you have a choice between spreading your images over four 256 bitmaps or
using one 512 - which is most efficient?


Cheers

Greg

Sorry Greg,

But one more, how did you check this? I mean did you restart FS2K or did you
cycle the scenery library?

Paul

Paul

I did restart FS but I think your last post is the answer. I have a Diamond
Monster card which I'm sure is based on the Voodoo 2 chipset. That would
certainly explain why i can't see the difference.

Cheers

Greg

[leatzaw]

Dear all

I created a 512x512 texture for use with scenery (a very long building where I
wanted to preserve a detailed sense of the texture of corrugated iron.

When I went to map the texture to the object I found that FSDS recognised that
it was dealing with a large texture (the label 512x512 8 bit appeared below the










bitmap inmage)but it would not allow me to enter x,y coordinates beyond those
for a 256x256 texture.

Does anyone know what I'm doing wrong? Are 512x512 only able to be used for
aircraft and therefore not supported by the Standard (scenery only) version of
FSDS (the documentation certianly doesn't suggest this)?

I can probably hand edit the the .scm file to map the coordinates of the larger










texture .. but I'd prefer not to!

Any help appreciated.




Greg

PS Thanks for the help I've received on the forum in the past. My current
project is my third scenery and the first using custom macros and textures.
Now I know how you can get so addicted to scenery design you forget to fly!


Greg, I use 512x512 textures on my macros with fsds with no problem. I think
what you have is that fsds maps the texture into 256x256 parts. I found this
recently...I made a day and night texture at 512x512, created a neat high res
macro. Then I tried to reduce the night texture resolution without reducing
the day texture resolution. So...I reduced the image size of the night texture








to 256x256 and left the day texture 512x512.

Worked like a charm.

I know what you mean about flying, nearly all my flying is to test scenery,
either patterns at my project or intentional test arrivals or departures to
analyse the look others will get. At least I have fun!

Bob B

Bob
What you say about flying is true. I'm also surprised to discover I enjoy
flying into the airports I've created. I thought I'd just get sick of them.

Back to textures. The 512x512 textures work fine mapping them to the 256
coordinates. However, it appears that there is no visual difference with a 256






ie it is as though fs internally wipes out the additional detail.

To give an example, I created a nice corrugated iron 'short' building but used
almost the whole width of 256 to get all the detail of the corrugations. I
then created a long building but wanted the same level of detail. I cut and
pasted from my 1st building and used most of the width of the 512. Hence I
preserved the level of detail in the corrugations. Yet the effect when the 512






loads onto my long building is not much (if any) different to what I see if I
resize the 512 to 256 with all the attendant loss of detail due to fewer
pixels. I can clearly see the diference because the two building sit side by
side and the level or surfance detail shoudl be the same. And, to answer the
obvious, I know I was using the 512 bitmap because I made some detail changes
to that bitmap only. Anyway, I was a bit surprised by this. Any thoughts?

Finally, in relation to frame rates - does using a 512 make much of a hit?
If you have a choice between spreading your images over four 256 bitmaps or
using one 512 - which is most efficient?


Cheers

Greg

Sorry Greg,

But one more, how did you check this? I mean did you restart FS2K or did you
cycle the scenery library?

Paul

Paul

I did restart FS but I think your last post is the answer. I have a Diamond
Monster card which I'm sure is based on the Voodoo 2 chipset. That would
certainly explain why i can't see the difference.

Cheers

Greg


Yep, Thats it, Not sure what kind of system you have but if your on a shoe
string like me you can get a 32megTnT card for about $70 that will do an
excelent job, your really missen out without being able to see 512s and 1024s.

Take Care
Paul

[bob5568]

Dear all

I created a 512x512 texture for use with scenery (a very long building where I
wanted to preserve a detailed sense of the texture of corrugated iron.

When I went to map the texture to the object I found that FSDS recognised that
it was dealing with a large texture (the label 512x512 8 bit appeared below the










bitmap inmage)but it would not allow me to enter x,y coordinates beyond those
for a 256x256 texture.

Does anyone know what I'm doing wrong? Are 512x512 only able to be used for
aircraft and therefore not supported by the Standard (scenery only) version of
FSDS (the documentation certianly doesn't suggest this)?

I can probably hand edit the the .scm file to map the coordinates of the larger










texture .. but I'd prefer not to!

Any help appreciated.




Greg

PS Thanks for the help I've received on the forum in the past. My current
project is my third scenery and the first using custom macros and textures.
Now I know how you can get so addicted to scenery design you forget to fly!


Greg, I use 512x512 textures on my macros with fsds with no problem. I think
what you have is that fsds maps the texture into 256x256 parts. I found this
recently...I made a day and night texture at 512x512, created a neat high res
macro. Then I tried to reduce the night texture resolution without reducing
the day texture resolution. So...I reduced the image size of the night texture








to 256x256 and left the day texture 512x512.

Worked like a charm.

I know what you mean about flying, nearly all my flying is to test scenery,
either patterns at my project or intentional test arrivals or departures to
analyse the look others will get. At least I have fun!

Bob B

Bob
What you say about flying is true. I'm also surprised to discover I enjoy
flying into the airports I've created. I thought I'd just get sick of them.

Back to textures. The 512x512 textures work fine mapping them to the 256
coordinates. However, it appears that there is no visual difference with a 256






ie it is as though fs internally wipes out the additional detail.

To give an example, I created a nice corrugated iron 'short' building but used
almost the whole width of 256 to get all the detail of the corrugations. I
then created a long building but wanted the same level of detail. I cut and
pasted from my 1st building and used most of the width of the 512. Hence I
preserved the level of detail in the corrugations. Yet the effect when the 512






loads onto my long building is not much (if any) different to what I see if I
resize the 512 to 256 with all the attendant loss of detail due to fewer
pixels. I can clearly see the diference because the two building sit side by
side and the level or surfance detail shoudl be the same. And, to answer the
obvious, I know I was using the 512 bitmap because I made some detail changes
to that bitmap only. Anyway, I was a bit surprised by this. Any thoughts?

Finally, in relation to frame rates - does using a 512 make much of a hit?
If you have a choice between spreading your images over four 256 bitmaps or
using one 512 - which is most efficient?


Cheers

Greg





I think if you reduce your image to 256, you'll lose the benefit of higher
resolution, no matter how you manipulate the image.

Try this: Start with an image larger than 512x512...I can send you textures if




you don't have anything to work with...make your macro.

Then, reduce the same texture to 256x256, and compile the macro again under a
different name. place them on an airport side by side.

You'll be blown away by the difference. But you have to start with the big
image. Once you reduce the size, you can't then increase it again. Telling a
graphics program to display a given amount of information over more pixels
makes for a fuzzy bad image.

oh, frame rates, I guess it matters some but can't be much. I'm about to
release a new project with mostly 512x512s....we'll see what folks say. My
beta testers show it to work fine for them. Watch for Tacoma Narrows airport.

Bob Bernstein

Bob

Thanks for the offer of large textures but I'm ok in that respect. My textures


were created at 512 and then shrunk. My problem is that the detail is there in


the larger bitmap but doesnt' seem to be there when I view them in the sim. I
didn't actually recompile the macro, just replaced the textures between large
and small by renaming. perhaps I did end up confusing the two and simply
reloaded the smaller. I'll have another look.

Watch out for my new scenery for Goolwa, South Australia! My first using
custom macros! I'm a novice but well pleased with the result.

Cheers

Greg


Will be on the watch for Goolwa! Reading the other posts from Paul, looks like
we know why you haven't seen the improvement....voodoo vid card. :-((

I had a voodoo 3 and I couldn't figure out why folks would use bigger textures,
then I upgraded to a Radeon and I could understand..the difference is
astounding.

Bob B

[rundio]

I created a 512x512 texture for use with scenery (a very long building where I
wanted to preserve a detailed sense of the texture of corrugated iron.

When I went to map the texture to the object I found that FSDS recognised that
it was dealing with a large texture (the label 512x512 8 bit appeared below the


bitmap inmage)but it would not allow me to enter x,y coordinates beyond those
for a 256x256 texture.

FS uses a range of 0 to 255 for all textures, regardless of the resolution.
Think of it as a percentage of the total texture, rather than an explicit
pixel offset.

[rundio]

Scasm as well as FS2k does not recognize coordinates beyond 256x256, it does
as you know use textures beyond 256x256, 512s, 1024s, as well as the odd
32x32,64x1024 and others, but then scasm as well as FS will use the 256x256
"scale" as a reference to place the texture. and these can all be used in FSDS
even if FSDS does not display the texture as long as its ID is in the field,
what you do is use the 256x256 again as a "scale"

Just to clarify, FS2k *does* recognize coordinates beyond 256x256, but
it results in the texture being repeated. This is easy to test with
a simple cube. Make a cube and texture one of the faces using the
default cropping coordinates. Generate a SCASM file. In a text editor,
find the TexPoly command and change values of '256' to '512' and you'll
get four copies of the texture tiled on the polygon.

FSDS v2.0 is expected to support this feature directly.

[leatzaw]

Scasm as well as FS2k does not recognize coordinates beyond 256x256, it does
as you know use textures beyond 256x256, 512s, 1024s, as well as the odd
32x32,64x1024 and others, but then scasm as well as FS will use the 256x256
"scale" as a reference to place the texture. and these can all be used in FSDS
even if FSDS does not display the texture as long as its ID is in the field,
what you do is use the 256x256 again as a "scale"

Just to clarify, FS2k *does* recognize coordinates beyond 256x256, but
it results in the texture being repeated. This is easy to test with
a simple cube. Make a cube and texture one of the faces using the
default cropping coordinates. Generate a SCASM file. In a text editor,
find the TexPoly command and change values of '256' to '512' and you'll
get four copies of the texture tiled on the polygon.

FSDS v2.0 is expected to support this feature directly.


Louis,

I have always wondered How that can be done, thanks for the clarification

And thanks for such a great program!

Paul

[glcoote]

I created a 512x512 texture for use with scenery (a very long building where I
wanted to preserve a detailed sense of the texture of corrugated iron.

When I went to map the texture to the object I found that FSDS recognised that
it was dealing with a large texture (the label 512x512 8 bit appeared below the




bitmap inmage)but it would not allow me to enter x,y coordinates beyond those
for a 256x256 texture.

FS uses a range of 0 to 255 for all textures, regardless of the resolution.
Think of it as a percentage of the total texture, rather than an explicit
pixel offset.


Thanks

And for the refernce to the tutorial in the previous post. re teh textures.
I've mapped the 512 texture correctly now - pity of it is that my video card
displays it at the lower resolution regardless of the larger size. Having
created teh larger texture I've left it in so others wit better cards can enjoy
it.

Thanks for the response

Greg