Beautiful Ultra-HD repaint for the PMDG MD-11F + a surprise

The PMDG MD-11F in the full glory of Ultra-High resolution 4096 x 4098 textures. Global Africa Cargo livery by Corina Meyer.

 

 

Click here for full resolution image or copy this link into your browser: https://i.imgur.com/GgX86xR.jpg

 

The amazing bit is that this is FS2004! While pottering around with some repaints I found that I can get FS2004 to display HD 2048 x 2048 pixel and UHD 4096 x 4096 pixel resolution textures, which was definitely a surprise to me since it is widely assumed that there is a hard barrier in FS9 at 1024 x 1024 resolution. In fact, I also managed to insert HD 2048 runway and taxiway textures to my sim.

 

For close-ups, comparisons between resolutions and more examples please go to https://imgur.com/a/5c3CSU - sorry, there are too many images for a post here.

 

Repainters wanting to learn more about this and help me test this further, please just send me a PM! I would really like to see if this is reproducable before I start gushing about the potential this adds to the sim.

The link to the runway textures doesn’t work.

 

And how do you know it’s 4096 textures being displayed?

I think in order to display resolution that high you have to edit your cfg file. I saw the entry in FSX.cfg, not sure about FS2004. I clamped mine to 1024 x 768 I think. I don't need Hi-Def textures and the clouds and what have you look alright to me. Running high textures like that and you may end up with an OOM situation.

I think in order to display resolution that high you have to edit your cfg file. I saw the entry in FSX.cfg, not sure about FS2004. I clamped mine to 1024 x 768 I think. I don't need Hi-Def textures and the clouds and what have you look alright to me. Running high textures like that and you may end up with an OOM situation.

 

 

As Sascha noted, FS9 is/was hard coded to display a maximum of 1024x1024 textures for airports, runway, clouds, water and the aircraft textures regardless of cfg settings. Ground is/was 256x256 although if you put 1024p textures, it will still display. Perhaps not at the full res but they worked.

 

Sascha is saying that somehow he has/perhaps/maybe broken the code that’s existed since FS2004 was released all those years ago.

The link to the runway textures doesn’t work.

 

And how do you know it’s 4096 textures being displayed?

 

Because I converted them into 4096 resolution myself ;) However JSRM may be right in that they display, but maybe not at the 4096 resolution. However, the difference is still notable.

I think in order to display resolution that high you have to edit your cfg file. I saw the entry in FSX.cfg, not sure about FS2004. I clamped mine to 1024 x 768 I think. I don't need Hi-Def textures and the clouds and what have you look alright to me. Running high textures like that and you may end up with an OOM situation.

 

Yes, you get FS9 into OOM territory if you load too many 4096 res textures. Haven't found a limit yet, but a mix of HD 2048 and 4096 textures is comfortable. Of course, I run FS9 on a 32 bit Vista which means that it can only address 4 GB of memory for all tasks. That is why it would be nice to have someone help me test this.

Sorry, the link to the examples didn't work in the OP.

 

This is the correct link: https://imgur.com/a/5c3CSUL

As Sascha noted, FS9 is/was hard coded to display a maximum of 1024x1024 textures for airports, runway, clouds, water and the aircraft textures regardless of cfg settings. Ground is/was 256x256 although if you put 1024p textures, it will still display. Perhaps not at the full res but they worked.

 

Sascha is saying that somehow he has/perhaps/maybe broken the code that’s existed since FS2004 was released all those years ago.

 

The 4096 textures probably do not display at full resolution, but I run an old rig which only has a Full HD 1080p display, so I can't tell. But the difference even there is very noticeable. I'll post an example this evening, sorry I botched the link. Too bad that I can't edit the OP.

Stunning, for a FS2004 plane!

Do those 2048 and 4096 textures have mipmaps?

 

If so, try it without them.

 

peace,

the Bean

Do those 2048 and 4096 textures have mipmaps?

 

If so, try it without them.

 

peace,

the Bean

 

Won't work, thank you.

I tried this also Sascha with 2048 textures are there is definitely an increase in texture quality. Not always easy to see in some areas but in others it’s noticeably sharper.

 

I’d be interested to see your runway / taxiway textures and how they look.

I tried this also Sascha with 2048 textures are there is definitely an increase in texture quality. Not always easy to see in some areas but in others it’s noticeably sharper.

 

I’d be interested to see your runway / taxiway textures and how they look.

 

I haven't done new textures yet, I upscaled some FSX ones from 1024 to 2048 without sharpening them or other edits, just to see if it works. The last screenshot in the link shows the result: https://imgur.com/a/5c3CSUL

I haven't done new textures yet, I upscaled some FSX ones from 1024 to 2048 without sharpening them or other edits, just to see if it works. The last screenshot in the link shows the result: https://imgur.com/a/5c3CSUL

 

Yes’m i saw those. They looked good. Easier though to use the original textures FSX / P3D HD if you have any. That’s why i used to do, and still do with any FSX textures I had, freeware or payware.

 

Any HD texture - if it’s good quality - will look much better even downsized to 1024 if the original was high quality. Going the other way doesn’t seem to always work as good.

 

But anyway, who would’ve thought you could use the larger texture sizes in FS9?

 

But anyway, who would’ve thought you could use the larger texture sizes in FS9?

 

It certainly was a surprise for me! I think I'll reengineer some EVO runway and taxiway textures to 2048 resolution, I just need to dig out the master files.

Yes’m i saw those. They looked good. Easier though to use the original textures FSX / P3D HD if you have any. That’s why i used to do, and still do with any FSX textures I had, freeware or payware.

 

I don't have FSX installed. Here's a link to some images of a quick conversion I did myself. This requires some polish, obviously.

I don't have FSX installed. Here's a link to some images of a quick conversion I did myself. This requires some polish, obviously.

 

Sorry, I forgot to add the link. Getting forgetful ...

 

The link: https://imgur.com/a/aLouASb

Albeit fabricated somewhat, those pics look like a possibility for advancing FS2004! :):)

 

(I say that because, during my first phase on that forum everybody was FS9 then FSX, as I was still FS2002, and struggling to keep it up to date :):) )

Albeit fabricated somewhat, those pics look like a possibility for advancing FS2004! :):)

 

The picture are lifted straight from FS2004, the only "fabrication" is the use of sweetfx/enb in game which improves the overall graphics.

The picture are lifted straight from FS2004, the only "fabrication" is the use of sweetfx/enb in game which improves the overall graphics.

 

Need to start a new thread in the FS9 section maybe.

 

I installed some 4096 runway and 2048 taxi textures. They work and look good. But that high res at 32 bit causes a OOM pretty easy. DXT3 fixes it and I couldnt tell the different anyway. Although I doubt at 1024 if its a good image if you could tell a difference from 4096 too much. But its fun to test and gives me something to do. :p

Need to start a new thread in the FS9 section maybe.

 

I installed some 4096 runway and 2048 taxi textures. They work and look good. But that high res at 32 bit causes a OOM pretty easy. DXT3 fixes it and I couldnt tell the different anyway. Although I doubt at 1024 if its a good image if you could tell a difference from 4096 too much. But its fun to test and gives me something to do. :p

 

For runway and taxiway I used 2048 only, 4096 puts you into OOM region pretty quickly, yes. The ground textures work in dxt1 format, though.

I created a 4096x4096 texture for the default DC-3, with mipmaps.

 

It looks like this with the mips exploded...

 

What you are looking at is an all red 4096x4096 texture with a green 2048 mip, blue 1024 mip, yellow 512 mip, etc.

 

In the sim it looks like...

 

As you can see the 4096 texture does work in FS9 without crashing the sim, yet the largest displayed mip is the 1024, blue mip.

 

So, while you can use 4096 and 2048 textures in the sim, the question is why would you?

 

I suspect most painters let Image Tool or DXTBmp generate the mips and do not go to the trouble of hand editing the mips themselves.

 

This leaves control of what you see in the sim (the 1024 mip of larger textures) up to an algorithm, not a painter.

 

While I did not check it, I do wonder if the larger textures eat into available VAS, without giving any benefit.

 

So, bottom line, nothing new in this thread, FS9 will only display 1024 pixel textures (or the 1024 mip of larger textures) on aircraft.

 

peace,

the Bean

I guess what Sascha is saying, and what I tested and saw myself, for some reason, when using texture sizes ABOVE the maximum ‘allowed’, seems to show more detail (albeit small) then with the same textures at the maximum ‘allowed’ (1024).

 

I’ve found this out quite some time back when I used 4096 world scenery textures resized to 1024 (above the ‘standard’ of 256). Somewhere, somehow, the high res producers slightly better visuals.

 

But perhaps not enough to warrant keeping them due to the oom issue. But is fun to try.

Bean, that is useful to know, thank you. However, there is a noticeable improvement in quality the higher resolution textures that you use, as you can see from the comparisons. I am exploring the mechanisms of this further (as mentioned in my OP) and will detail the method when I am satisfied I understand it myself.

Maybe not linked with your Endeavour, but I have checked that link, on a concurrent forum :) which is also showing a impressive FS2004 overhaul! https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/545515-georgia-to-siberia-autumn-to-winter/