Your opinion please

[MIKE JG]

What do you guys think of this hangar with photoreal textures? I think it came out pretty good but it's the first time I've used actual pictures that I took to create textures for an FS scenery object.

[Jumpshot724]

Looks really good to me. How's it on FPS though?? Take into account there will probably be a bunch of those wherever you put em

[VulcanDriver]

Looks good. I may use them in the IDF project as they look very much like the ones in GE.

John

[Firebird]

I am not a fan of photoreal, but it does seem to lend itself better to scenery than aircraft.
That shot does look good, I guess the only issue is any fps hit. What size and format is that scenery shot, and if you didn't use photoreal what size and format would you estimate that it would be?

[djnocturnal]

I like it!

[MIKE JG]

Having the shadows showing from the photo is what really sets it apart. The textures for the outside uses a standard 1024x1024 texture that is about 500k. That's slightly less than for example some of the textures that Ian used for the Lakenheath scenery. The inside textures are about 1000k file which is the same size for example as just one of Nick's Mirage model textures.

Scenery is just like AI aircraft models in that the size of the texture files isn't as important as the number of times they get used or called. Just like AI models, the less overall textures FS9 has to call to color everything the better the performance will be.

I would like to put the textures on smaller formats like 512x512 but I've found that doing so greatly reduces the quality of the textures themselves and causes many of them to get stretched to fit the surfaces they go on. That model, which would be the highest poly model for that style hangar since both the inside and outside are modeled is all of 300 polys so that's not much of an issue. The closed version would have probably half that number. It's the texture calls that really slow things down.

[KevinJarvis]

Excellant job Mike. Those look so real it's nuts.

Depending on the file extension and wether you use Photoshop or PSP you make be able to run an option that will compress the file but not degrade the look of it.

[Firebird]

Thanks for the lowdown, Mike.

I think that the shadows highlight the make up of the doors and it works really well there. You seem to have checked out the downside and there doesn't seem to be a major impact so I say go for it.

[rocket_26_]

Having the shadows showing from the photo is what really sets it apart. The textures for the outside uses a standard 1024x1024 texture that is about 500k. That's slightly less than for example some of the textures that Ian used for the Lakenheath scenery. The inside textures are about 1000k file which is the same size for example as just one of Nick's Mirage model textures.

Scenery is just like AI aircraft models in that the size of the texture files isn't as important as the number of times they get used or called. Just like AI models, the less overall textures FS9 has to call to color everything the better the performance will be.

I would like to put the textures on smaller formats like 512x512 but I've found that doing so greatly reduces the quality of the textures themselves and causes many of them to get stretched to fit the surfaces they go on. That model, which would be the highest poly model for that style hangar since both the inside and outside are modeled is all of 300 polys so that's not much of an issue. The closed version would have probably half that number. It's the texture calls that really slow things down.

The reason why my textures are 768k (I think they are that) is because I use mips which is a must for a complex scenery. Using the 1024 by 1024 textures will present little FPS impact providing you use mips, if you dont you will get stutters. Also applying a alpha channel in DXTbmp is a great way to prevent stutters too. I rarely use 1024 by 1024 textures now, I tend to go with 512 by 512. Althought for FSX im starting to use 1024 by 1024.

[MIKE JG]

Ian I always save the textures as DXT3 bitmaps with mipmaps selected. That seems to have worked out pretty well in the past. Is that what you use as well?

[Stevo]

Hi

You only really need to use DXT3 textures if you need to use a translucent texture, as it give you all the shades between black and white for the alpha channel to achieve for example a glass effect.

DXT1, is more or less the same but the alpha channel is like a on/off switch, your alpha channel can either be opaque or transparent. DXT1 textures are also smaller in size so use less resources.

I think your Hangar looks great with photo real textures, I wouldn't use anything else.

Here's a few RAF type buildings I've built for my sceneries using photos.











Stevo

[Ford Friendly]

I think that photoreal textures are fine. The only problem is that they stand out sooooooo much if the other objects in the scenery are not also photoreal.

As far as shadows go, I like them as they add "depth" to what can otherwise appear to be very flat boxes with rectangles drawn on them.

Now, having said that, in FSX shadows are quite possible since the lighting engine is more advanced than that in FS9 and "added shadows" drawn into textures can look a bit weird if the light source is coming from the "Wrong" direction.

But given the choce between no shadows on textures and shadows, I'll usually go for the shadowed textures.

FWIW.

[campbeme]

Mike,
I think your hangar is a winner looks great.

Stevo,
Big fan of your work mate awsome.

Mark

[MIKE JG]

Steve those are incredible!! Are those in FS9 or FSX??

[Stevo]

Hi Mike

They are in FSX, I'm using 1024x1024 textures holding maybe 2 or 3 buildings on one sheet.

The FS9 versions look almost the same but use 512x512 versions of the same textures.

@campbeme, cheers glad you like them.

Stevo_ukmil