Leen de Jager Posted September 26, 2014 Report Share Posted September 26, 2014 (edited) Yes they exist, nevertheless is a vage phenomena.Some days ago I saw a plane being advertised as "having High Resolution textures."I downloaded hopefully a set of textures for the plane and was terribly disappointed.The cabin-windows had a size of 22x26 pixels , text on the plane was hardly readable.How come? This was advertised as High Res Textures.The explanation is simple and disappointing the same time.The publisher has no idea what he is talking aboutUsing 4096x4096 texture-sheets is not per definition HighRes/High Defintion it depends on how many pixel per meter aircraft is available.Yes, we should not speak about texturesizes, we only should speak about " definition "This aircraft, I am talking about, has a definition of approx 55 pixels per meter wich is a very low definition.When we have aan airplane of about 75 meter fuselage-length) and we use 4096 pixels to paint it on , it leaves us with a definition of approx 55 pixels per meter.Ohh yes, another thing , what is High Resolution.In X-Plane today its 4096x , in X-Plane yesterday it was 2048x, in FlyII-Legacy its 8192x and in industrial and art photography its....................you name it.High Resolution does not say a thing.Its all about DEFINITIONSome examples of planes for X-Plane and their definition:The Saab 340 by LES is approx 300 pixels per meter wich is high definition. (largest used texturesheet = 4096x)The ATR72-500 by McPhat is approx 400 pixels per meter wich is high definition too.( largest used texturesheet = 2048x )The B200 Beechcraft by Carenado is approx 520 pixels per meter..............UHDT Ultra High Definition Textures ( largest used texturesheet = 4096x)We can use one huge texturefile for a complete fuselage and or can use five ( or more ) smaller texturesheets for it.Its all up to the developer how he want to make things.BUT !!!!Publishers should specify their definition in pixels per meter , saying something is HighRes because its made of large texturesheets gives no idea about the expected quality and level of detail of the excraft-textures.Please do not sell us nonsense, never ever talk about texturesizes.Just tell us " "Texture-definition is .... pixels per meter" pix/mtr= or pix/feet=No need to say is that, the larger the planes are the more difficult it will get to make it in an acceptable definition.Most airliners available for X-Plane have a definition between 50-100 pix/mtr wich in fact limits their beauty.Sometimes for small text-parts there are separate text-textures available for the various plackards, detailed paintwork stays problematic.So saying, my Carenado is high resolution and my Boeing 777 is high resolution too can give us false hope.Better said , my Carenado has a definition of 500pix/mtr and my Boeing 777 has a definition of 85pix/mtr.Then we get a better idea of what we can expect..Leen de Jager Edited September 26, 2014 by Leen de Jager 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goran_M Posted September 26, 2014 Report Share Posted September 26, 2014 I'm glad someone mentioned this. Not to mention someone who actually understands texture sizes and resolution. I've had many head shaking moments when I read about Ultra High Definition Textures in other add ons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSlasher Posted September 26, 2014 Report Share Posted September 26, 2014 (edited) We learn new information every day Thanks Leen Edited September 26, 2014 by TheSlasher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngeloM Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 Thank you Leen,no need for other words, numbers say it all.Your post is very informative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T. Posted September 29, 2014 Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 thats a great post Leen! but could you tell us how to measure the amount of pixels per metre? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin S Posted September 29, 2014 Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 Shouldn't this be in the rant section? And while I agree that yes, that's not ultra high definition, uh... look at the textures on the planes we had back in V9. That says it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clavel9 Posted September 29, 2014 Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 Excellent post, not at all a rant and very informative too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leen de Jager Posted September 29, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 thats a great post Leen! but could you tell us how to measure the amount of pixels per metre?When we have aan airplane of about 75 metre fuselage-length and we use 4096 pixels to paint it on , it leaves us with a definition of approx 55 pixels per metre.4096/75 is approx 55 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leen de Jager Posted September 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2014 (edited) And while I agree that yes, that's not ultra high definition, uh... look at the textures on the planes we had back in V9. That says it all. No, that certainly does`nt say it all.Mind, the default Stinson Sentinel in XP9 has a definition of...........................340 pix/mtr. Edited September 30, 2014 by Leen de Jager Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clavel9 Posted September 30, 2014 Report Share Posted September 30, 2014 Shouldn't this be in the rant section? And while I agree that yes, that's not ultra high definition, uh... look at the textures on the planes we had back in V9. That says it all.It was just as possible to have a high px/m count in v9: the limiting 2048 sq. single texture size just meant breaking up textures differently. Say a fuselage takes up the full length of a 4096 sq. ("4K") texture in v10 - the same level of detail could have been achieved in v9 by mapping the fuselage along two lengths of a 2048 sq. ("2K") texture. Leen's point, I think, is not about the limiting size of the textures, but the way in which they are used. The examples he uses in his first post make that quite clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin S Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 My point is that we should be pretty happy with what we have, I think. And yes, this does belong in the rant section. Cameron, maybe you should move this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goran_M Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) If I bought an add on that was advertised as UHD, and it wasn't, I wouldn't be happy with what I have. Not by any stretch. Edited October 1, 2014 by Goran_M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameron Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 Shouldn't this be in the rant section? No. Cameron, maybe you should move this. No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mario Donick Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 My point is that we should be pretty happy with what we have, I think. And yes, this does belong in the rant section. Cameron, maybe you should move this.This thread is not about being happy with what we have -- It is about misleading marketing, and it is an attempt to offer a clear definition of the term HD, so potential customers could get a clear idea if a product marketed with HD is indeed HD. That's not a rant, but a constructive discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fab10 Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) I'm undecided, so I'm going to muddy the waters. What matters is a comparative index that clearly denotes expectations, so that we can say "wow, that's going to be great!" because armed with lots of precise information, we will know what to expect.What was good about the labels HD or UHDT, is that it gave us a notion of what to expect. Easy. What didn't work was that our expectations were mislead by inappropriate "marketing hype". We have all deleted poorer liveries as well as aircraft with rubbish VC's. What is good about the pixel/meter count is that it is uniform and beyond dispute - it's an absolute measure.What is missing though is the comparative index, because 50 px/m vs. 500 px/m may apply to different aircraft types.What I then need is an index to say that 50 px/m is ULTRA HIGH for aircraft of this size (an Airbus perhaps) or VERY LOW for this type of aeroplane (a GA type).Hang on! To this equation, as has been pointed out, we should add a date-stamp, because this is a factor too. Yet another issue is knowledge, because as experts, you guys know what these numbers REALLY mean in the context of what you are painting. Many, including me, do not. I'd postulate that if a livery carries the name Carenado, McPhat, or Jan, I'd know exactly what to expect, and that is the ultimate hallmark of quality. So then, we need a measure in px/m, the aircraft type, a date, and the artwork author.Perhaps we should investigate the implementation of an arbitrators stamp of good quality - "Quality Assured!", but then quality is so very subjective, especially in this multi-factorial arena. I often read comments levied at repaints that bemoan this lack of detail or that missing decal, and even a font type that wasn't quite right, and truly, I often fail to see what was wrong!And that is why I leave the exacting details to the experts. For me, I solely look for HD or UHDT badges, and if it didn't fit, it'd be deleted. Anyway, the few repaints that I have tried to make we're so poor that I never shared them. They were ultra low resolution, low detail and of smudged quality, and shaky and flaky in all departments. My 50 px/m or even my 500 px/m will certainly be far, far worse than a painter who's work is renowned for quality. Clearly I have misunderstood. Or have I? Edited October 1, 2014 by Fab10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin S Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 I don't want to just get a bunch of more spam negative ratings but I want to know why this isn't in the rant section. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGregory Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 I don't want to just get a bunch of more spam negative ratings but I want to know why this isn't in the rant section.Simple answer… it's not a rant. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mario Donick Posted October 2, 2014 Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 I don't want to just get a bunch of more spam negative ratings but I want to know why this isn't in the rant section. This thread is not about being happy with what we have -- It is about misleading marketing, and it is an attempt to offer a clear definition of the term HD, so potential customers could get a clear idea if a product marketed with HD is indeed HD. That's not a rant, but a constructive discussion. In a rant, you usually just complain about something, mostly in an emotional manner. (The German translation of "rant", by the way, is "Hasstirade" or "Schimpftirade", meaning "hatred tirade" or "grumbling / bitching about sth. tirade") In this thread, a problem is pointed out not just for the sake of "ranting", but for seriously discussing possible solutions to the problem (i.e. the pixel per meters/feet approach). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Russell Posted October 2, 2014 Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 (edited) Ironically Colins comments are (becoming) a rant about a technical discussion. Edited October 2, 2014 by Ben Russell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin S Posted October 2, 2014 Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 I was merely requesting a clarification rather than an attack, Ben. Thanks Mario for the explanation, I do appreciate it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Russell Posted October 2, 2014 Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 A passing comment made in whimsy, nothing more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.