Skinners/HTC comments please

[Dux]

Kev, I understand where you're coming from, and please don't take this as anything other than constructive... but the example that you are showing is really not helping you prove any point.

The *only* detail that you've increased between the two images is the rivet detail, and IMO it's grossly overdone and unrealistic. Sure, it looks kinda cool, but that's not what we should be chasing, especially if we're hitting the boundaries of texture limits.

The places where higher resolution would really matter (like the crispness of the "XMM" and "RB8--" text) have been lost on both images. Look how blurry the text edges are; why have high-resolution blurriness?

The truth is that good skinning is not so much about the number of pixels you use, but what you do with the pixels you have. You can do amazing amounts of detail with limited real estate, it's just a matter of using good technique. And if the trade-off of having less area-per-part means we'll get every surface skinnable (no more mirroring finally!) then that is a HUGE bonus.

[edit: Think of it this way if it helps... you can put 16 old AH1 skins onto the area of a single AH2 skin. Sixteen! We will still make out in the deal, and AH2 skins will STILL be bigger than IL-2 skins.]

Just my 2 cents, FWIW.

[ramzey]

Originally posted by Dux

[edit: Think of it this way if it helps... you can put 16 old AH1 skins onto the area of a single AH2 skin. Sixteen! We will still make out in the deal, and AH2 skins will STILL be bigger than IL-2 skins.]

Just my 2 cents, FWIW.

lol he is limited by skin size?
what should we say when was only 256x256, lol

[Easyscor]

Originally posted by Dux
[edit: Think of it this way if it helps... you can put 16 old AH1 skins onto the area of a single AH2 skin. Sixteen! We will still make out in the deal, and AH2 skins will STILL be bigger than IL-2 skins.]

I'd agree with most of your post until this part, there are some exceptions, take a look at the new B-24 skin and compare it to the Lanc, B-26 and B-17 skin realestate.

Historically accurate nose art on the bombers was one of the things I was looking forward to but I think it will be very limited at the new B-24 skin size, which is a shame because of all that's available.  Oh well, we'll just have to skin the "no name" planes.

[Dux]

That's a really good point, Easyscor... perhaps for bomber noseart they could return to the old "markings_A.bmp" technique, since noseart seems to almost always be in the same place. If you didn't want the noseart file, you could just black out the alpha. Then the whole plane skin wouldn't be pushed over the top for the sake of a higher-res noseart.

btw, Kev, I'm not singling you out here, and I want to be sure you know where I'm coming from. I love the Mossie skins you've done, and I LOVE the Coastal Command Liberator. You should give yourself more credit, because the quality of your skins comes from you, and not the size of the file. That's really the only point I'm trying to make.

[Kev367th]

No problem Dux.
Noseart is a prime exmaple though, and I am sure we will run across more limitations with only half the area to work with.
My only point was with half the area to work with, detail will suffer, it's unavoidable.

As I said the reason for it is sound, it's the logic that escapes me.
As there is an option to turn skins off, I don't see why we should be limited to 1 1024x1024 file.
It would be like removing or toning down all the new eye candy to support older cards even though there are options to do that yourself in the game.
DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

[Superfly]

This has nothing to do with skins being on or off.  It is a global issue for the entire game.  If we do all the default skins with 2 1024 outer skins along with the 3 interior skins, it breaks the limit.  That's 5 1024 textures for just one plane.

[Kev367th]

Ahh..got ya.
Never thought about the interior ones.
Couldn't you do the interior ones at 512x512 or leave them at 256x256, that way you could still have the 2 exterior at 1024x1024 and still save memory.

Thanks for taking the time to explain.

[Waffle]

eek - interior at 256?

I'd rather have interior and upper wing surfaces at 1024 - since those are what you see the most - and have the rest of the plane at a lower resolution (undersurfaces / fuselage). I've noticed lately that the resolution drops now when you get a certain distance away from the planes.  I'm not sure what the distance is, (guess-timate d4-500) but you can tell offline zooming in/out.

[MachNix]

HTC,

How about thinking in pixel density – number of pixels per some unit such as pixels per inch or pixels per square foot – instead of texture size?

I have my Max Texture Size set to 128 in an attempt to improve frame rate.  Small planes, like fighters, don't look that bad.  I'm never close enough to see the rivets anyway.  But having only 128 pixels stretched over a bomber looks hideous.  I agree with Waffle that the interiors and upper wing surfaces – any surface you can see from the cockpit – should have more detail (higher pixel density).  You can get that by dedicating more of the texture area to those surfaces.  Then if you really want to get the most out of your textures you have to consider the distance the surfaces is from the eye-point.  Wing roots get more detail than the wing tips.  Inboard engines get more detail than the outboards.  Talk about a skinner's nightmare!  Suddenly you have another reason for taking that Hyperbolic Geometry course in college.

To sum it up, do you have to treat all the planes the same irregardless of their size?  Is it an option to have the bombers with two 1024 outer skins and fighters having only one 1024 outer skin?  Or limit the bombers to one 1024 and the fighters to two 512s?  

MachNix

[Waffle]

This is a ta152 that I've been messing around with -
The screenshots are taken with the Fuselage and lower surfaces(TA152.bmp) at 512x512. The upper wing(TA1522.bmp) is at 1024. The Cockpit is done in 1024(190CK.bmp, 190CK2.bmp, and TA152CK.bm.). The wheels and misc file (190x.bmp) were dropped to 256 from 512. Granted the Ta152 is using 3 cockpit texture maps at 1024x1024, but most planes should be able to use only 2 1024x1024bmp for cockpits.

So you're looking at (3) 1024x1024.bmp. upper wings / cpit
and (1) 512x512.bmp fuse/lower surfaces and one 256x256.bmp for the geaqr/wheels, ect..

Almost a middle ground between the (2) 1024s as current models and the (5) 1024s.

All in all when you're shooting at something 512x512bmp is fine. But when you're inside the 1024x1024  makes all the difference in the world.