Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[max_thehitman]

Thanks for the settings. I followed yours for the conf.ini and while I wouldn't know how to measure anything, the game does now look somewhat better, with crisper landscapes and textures that blend into each other better ...

These settings are otherwise a total mystery to me, what they mean and do ... so all i can do is copy other settings and hope it helps. And in this case it does ...

Fantastic to hear that good news Agracier. Your maps are very realistic and beautiful to look at and these
settings really show how great they are in my IL2 game.  Amazing Eye-Candy Agracier!

[Ghost129er]

Wow, I got some really good output after using your settings Max! Danke! Now, to off to making HD trees, clouds, bldgs and... Wait, can we do HD pilots? 0_o

[SAS~Malone]

in theory, you should be able to use HD for any tga/bmp file, when using the HD mod.
why not try, and then you can be the first to confirm it. 

[Ghost129er]

in theory, you should be able to use HD for any tga/bmp file, when using the HD mod.
why not try, and then you can be the first to confirm it. 

That sounds like a good idea! I'm off to making HD textures! HD textures for every-body!

[SAS~Malone]

cool!
for example, i recently re-skinned some ship textures. default size is 512, so i just gave it a go with 1024 size, and it worked perfectly.

[western0221]

It ONLY!! for those for whom doesn't work.
It is the "EASY" version of DLL.
You can try with the TexMipFilter=3 parameter

High_Resolution_True_Color_Textures Light version DLLs

BINGO!

I've been troubled High-Resolution MOD (Uufflakke's clouds/trees don't work... even though Paintscheme BMP or default skins of aircrafts skin1o.tgb work well),
but today, I get all OK with "Light version DLLs".

Thank you.

I think ... what is different in my PC non-Light version working or not?
My PC has AMD CPU (not Intel).

AMD PhenomII X6 1100T.
PhenomII doesn't have Intel AVX as Streaming SIMD Extensions.
How is it?

Others...
GPU: GIGABYTE nVIDIA GeForceGTX560ti 1GB-VRAM
Mem: 8GB DDR3
M/B: GIGABYTE GA-890FXA-UD5 rev2.0(AMD890FX, SocketAM3)
Sound: Realtek HD889 on-board

con.ini is max_thehitman's recommend.

[agracier]

BINGO!

I've been troubled High-Resolution MOD (Uufflakke's clouds/trees don't work... even though Paintscheme BMP or default skins of aircrafts skin1o.tgb work well),
but today, I get all OK with "Light version DLLs".
Thank you.

I had the same problem more or less - 2048 aircraft skins worked fine, but not the trees or map textures.

The light version of the dll's is what made the difference. All previous versions were somehow incompatible with my system. Il-2 worked, would start up, but whenever there was a 2048 texture involved on a map, the map would simply not load.

I too have an AMD chip and GeForce graphics card.

[PDelaney]

It works well in 4.09 - no lag at all and, don't get me wrong, I appreciate this mod but in Il2 a good skin doesn't rely on hires 2048 and there are plenty of examples out there that bear this out. Speaking as a someone who skins in the first place for my own enjoyment them chooses to share it with others, to be honest, it's a lot of hard work.

I produced a couple of screen caps of a 1024 Photoshop template, which I used to make a couple of Ki-84 skins several years ago, that I increased to 2048 to give myself a "before and after" comparison to see if it was worth working on higher resolution paints in future:

1024x1024 Indexed Colour 8bit .bmp



2048x2048 saved as 24bit .bmp



For an old school 4.09er there's not a lot in it is there?

Nevertheless I'll be working on producing 2048 templates for all of my future skins (unless a kind Japan freak beats me to it that is)...

 

[Herra Tohtori]

To be honest, if you rescale a 1024² texture to 2048² size, you're just gonna get a four times larger texture with the same amount of detail.

Whereas if the texture is originally done at 2048² resolution, the smallest details will be half the size of the smallest details in a 1024² - which means things like panel lines, rivets, engine intake grilles and other such details will be sharp at much closer distance before they start getting upscaled. There is incredible potential in getting high resolution skins made, but I also agree with you that most of the time, gameplay-wise, the high resolution plane textures don't really have that big of an impact.

A much bigger effect can be gained from high-resolution cockpit textures - which you see at very close distance all the time when you're in cockpit - and environment textures, such as terrain, water, clouds, sky... all of which can benefit from higher resolution.

It would also be nice (although not critical) if someone could look into the reason why IL-2 blurs terrain textures so much. I think it's basically texture mip mapping LOD Bias being set at too close a distance, which causes the game to reduce the terrain texture resolution at far too close a distance - this is especially evident with the view zoomed in, you can see the far terrain gets sort of pixellated and blurred look...

[crazyflak]

I increased to 2048 to give myself a "before and after" comparison

1024x1024 Indexed Colour 8bit .bmp

2048x2048 saved as 24bit .bmp

there's not a lot in it is there?

So you compared the old template with itself, no real work added, and then you blame on the mod not being so shiny?  ???



      sorry, couldn't resist

[SAS~Malone]

let me provide a more logical comparison...seems a lot of guys don't know how this works.
below, you can see the difference between a genuine 2048 made skin, and the same one resized to stock 1024.


the logic is really straightforward.
if you resize a bigger, 2048 skin to 1024, it will lose a lot of it's detail.
if you simply resize that same 1024 skin back to 2048, you will not magically regain any of that lost detail. all you are doing, in essence, is enlarging that 'lost' detail.
i hope this starts getting through to all our members soon, because we can't spend the next year trying to explain this, lol....

[agracier]

It would also be nice (although not critical) if someone could look into the reason why IL-2 blurs terrain textures so much. I think it's basically texture mip mapping LOD Bias being set at too close a distance, which causes the game to reduce the terrain texture resolution at far too close a distance - this is especially evident with the view zoomed in, you can see the far terrain gets sort of pixellated and blurred look...

I've been trying out 2048 map textures and this last has also at times puzzled me. You can use a very detailed 2048 texture but, when flying over it, it does not necessarily look that more detailed, even up close.

But, when flying in mountains and very hilly terrain, you do seem to notice quite a lot more detail.

I have been pondering this and think it may have to do with the angle that the textures are viewed at.

When flying over flat terrain, from a cockpit you look at the terrain from almost perpendicular angles, you are looking down at angles of maybe 5, 10, 15 degrees perhaps. When flying in mountains, from a cockpit you can often look at mountainsides at an almost true 90 angle, that is straight head on.

When you look at 90 degrees, then a texture is not really deformed so much, as you are looking much as you would on your screen in a graphics program.

When looked at in 10 degrees,I think the game tries to render an average of all the details and colors in a texture and ends up creating a more smudged and blurred version of the texture.

You could try to approximate this by for instance holding a bookcover and looking at it straight on. Then hold it almost flat at 180 and see how much you can make out of the words and details in any photos or illustrations on the cover.

I think is one of the reasons why - at least up to a point - Il-2 maps of mountainous or hilly terrain, usually look better than simple flat terrain. Even with old 1024/ 512 texture maps.