Texture Sizes !

[Tiger27]

I am running original, but tested medium and I didnt see much difference but my fps were well up, I probably get an extra 10-20 fps low down over London with textures at medium.

[FS~Phat]

If I use medium landscape which seems to reduce draw distance I can use original textures with everything else maxed over London with rare occasional texture hiccups.

If I use High Landscape I can only manage High Textures and Medium Building, Trees over London.

Anywhere outside of London I can use everything Maxed and get an occasional texture hiccup. If I reduce Landscape to Medium everything else maxed the game runs perfectly smooth.

[Ekar]

Interesting poll

I like to be able to run hi res textures, so I haven't checked out what lowering the texture size does in regards to fps/smoothness. But I have done the opposite experiment to Ali and tried running 4k textures for the landscape (simply the original 4 terrain textures upscaled) and I didn't notice much difference in performance between original and the modified size (of course there is no visual difference either). My frames are not perfectly smooth while running either of these size textures, they are not bad though. I'm interested to see now what lowering the textures will do to both the look and performance.

FS~Phat - does lowering the landscape draw distance affect the visibility of planes also? If not this might be a good tip to inject a bit more smoothness without sacrificing quality too much.

[David198502]

i use mid and high textures.i change my settings once in a while, depending on what mission i am flying.
ali this mod would be great!

[LcSummers]

Original here

[FS~Phat]

I just did some a-b screen shot comparisons and there is no difference in aircraft draw distance between medium and high land detail but there does appear to be less detail on land for trees and other things in the very far distance. You have to flick between 2 screen shots to see it because the difference is so minimal, but performance is way better!

I just redid the screen shots with everything max and land detail low so it was easier to see what is going on as it was really hard to see the difference between medium and high land details.

Max


Low land detail everything else max


Max


Low land detail everything else max


Max


Low land detail everything else max

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by Ali Fish

this is half size texture and colour changes vs the Originals. at max settings possible. The detail loss from halfing the textures is negligable on my system. its only just daawned on me that i should use a static camera ingame to create comparison shots. maybe next time.

Ok

Here's the problem "I" see here in these comparisons.

I have flow extensively over the South East of England around 3000 - 4000ft over a 20 year period, with the realization we are not going to get photorealistic 3d scenery just yet bear in mind the rest of this post.

The original textures look better than the ones you have modded in relation to the time of day and season.
Now the reason I say this is that the ones you have done look like they have had a polarizing filter applied, or looks like I'm wearing sunglasses.

I really think because of different graphic setups, monitors and peoples different eyesight, it would be better to have a "saturation slider" to adjust to the persons taste the way the landscape looks.

I have posted lots of pictures here and emailed in the past asking for corrections, but with no luck from Oleg and 1C (back then), Oleg being a keen amateur photographer, may know what he's talking about in the technical side of things, but I know what I have seen with my own eyes over my own country in all different seasons and weather conditions, and to be told by them "thats the way it is no changers we know best" , the only option left is to allow users to adjust it themselves to suit what they consider to be correct.

As for the texture/stutters/lagging etc etc
I'm not convinced its all to do with the sizes of them either.

Perhaps some testing with the original textures downsized, but left as they look, to see if FPS improves at all.

completely agree. colour wise all i did was desaturate it somewhat, too much infact. also agree on the texture sizes not doing much but they should in theory.

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by Ali Fish

completely agree. colour wise all i did was desaturate it somewhat, too much infact. also agree on the texture sizes not doing much but they should in theory.

So the finger points somewhere else then maybe

Core.dll ........... ?

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

So the finger points somewhere else then maybe

Core.dll ........... ?

is our way of introducing custom files via modding the problem where this lack of performance is seen with sever reduction in texture sizes, possibly those orginal files are still in use prior to my using the customs, who knows. zzzzzzsdk. zzzzzzzsdk..zzzzzzzsdk.

not maybe, but definetly. Where? im not sure. Before the Last patch was better imo. i would love to be privy to what poly outputs & texture calls are made at any given fraction of a second. The other thing i question is how an engine scales for higher or lower machine base.The scaling proecudres might not be correct or suitable for this generation of top end graphically heavy software & hardware mix. It could require a more than a simple downsizing ethos to the scaling prcedure for the engine. for example a DX change and everything that comes with the PITA that would be. just an example. Another example and one proven to a considerable level is the necessity for true 64bit. over at ED the attention within the 64bit factor and the 32bit counterpart has unfortunatly ment the 32bit tech is limited in comparsion to its 64bit version. It doesnt pretend to be what the 64bit version is. loosing shaders and minor aspects. dare i mention also because of the necessity for "Large 1:1 scale scenery " again this is imho a good example of how to go about scalability and use what we have constructivly.

to sum cod's problems up in not so many words i think "COD is pushing and pushing everything to the max in a non true multicore, non 64bit,(maybe it is 64bit im not sure:presumption) non multigraphics chip format. untill we get the wider field for the software to work in, it might not work as intended", this is why we sit for months awaiting speculating the outcome. We need the upper end of the environment for the top end software to work to its max. /rant off