Author Topic: Texture Size (Read 976 times)

cav58d · « **on:** March 28, 2007, 11:30:31 AM »

If I change my AH screen resolution to 1028 x 768.....what is the best texture size to use? Right now i'm on 512, but is this the best setting to use?

Krusty · « **Reply #1 on:** March 28, 2007, 12:44:25 PM »

Texture size is not related to screen resolution. Skuzzy said something about no computer exists today to run 1024 textures without some issues popping up (stutters, things like that). What textures you use depends usually on your RAM and system specs.

IMO, if 512 was working before, stay with 512. If it's not that great drop to 256 and performance will improve a lot.

Hap · « **Reply #2 on:** March 28, 2007, 01:13:57 PM »

Cav, Testing offline and making notes as you go helps.

straffo · « **Reply #3 on:** March 28, 2007, 01:50:53 PM »

What you can try is too increase texture size but disable other planes textures.

But without knowing the VDO card and the cpu + memory you have it's difficult to predict anything accuratly.

Chalenge · « **Reply #4 on:** March 28, 2007, 01:57:43 PM »

I have thought about going to an AMD X2 6000+ AM2 setup with the 4GB RAM and the dual SLI 8800 GTXs I already have. But if skuzzy says it wont be fast enough for 1024 textures then Im happy with what I have.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #5 on:** March 28, 2007, 02:29:25 PM »

It is not a matter of speed. It is a matter of resources.

And cav, you should not go above 256 on the texture size with a PCI video card. Especially one that is as low end as the 6200.

Kermit de frog · « **Reply #6 on:** March 28, 2007, 10:14:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
Texture size is not related to screen resolution. Skuzzy said something about no computer exists today to run 1024 textures without some issues popping up (stutters, things like that). What textures you use depends usually on your RAM and system specs.

IMO, if 512 was working before, stay with 512. If it's not that great drop to 256 and performance will improve a lot.

I read somewhere that people may not notice an improvement when going from 512 to 1024 in texture size if their resolution is as low as 1024x768 or lower.

OOZ662 · « **Reply #7 on:** March 28, 2007, 10:36:21 PM »

You know, I've always wondered. I've run this system for about a year now. Even when I was back on 1.5GB of RAM and an IDE hard drive, I could still run with these settings and have so few stutters that they were unnoticeable.

132352,VideoVersion
1024,Width
768,Height
32,ColorDebth
1,DeviceCnt
DVDVDVDVDVDVDVDVDVDVDVDVDVDVD VDVDVDVDVDVDVDVDVDVDVDVDVDVDV DVDVDVNVIDIA GeForce 6800 (((I really don't get the DVs, but hey.

Also, this card has the extra pipelines unlocked.)))
60,MaxFPS (((Monitor is 60Hz with Vertical Sync on, so I figured...)))
0,PixelShaders
0,VertexShaders
1024,MaxTexSize
3310,OptionFlags
1.10,Gamma

Sliders full left in the game. Skins aren't preloaded, but everything else is. Optimizations are on. All other things like horizon, other plane skins, ect are on.

DxDiag

maque1 · « **Reply #8 on:** March 29, 2007, 10:31:59 AM »

How do you unlock the extra pipelines?????

I have 7600GTs SLI ????? I use riva tuner.

Maque1

maque1 · « **Reply #9 on:** March 29, 2007, 03:43:55 PM »

Never mind,

7600GT has no locked/unused pipelines.

However, I can see almost no difference between 512 an 1024 tex on my 24" LCD, maybe a 5% improvement. Going from 256 to 512 is about a 20% improvement. Going from 128 to ANYTHING HIGHER is a 100% improvement.

I take frame rate hits at 1024 though. Not worth it.

Maque1

TexInVa · « **Reply #10 on:** March 29, 2007, 07:09:57 PM »

I've used 1024 since I got a 6800 card set to max performance. I was getting about 70 fps.

I've got an 8800gts now and I've got it set up for max quality and I'm running at about 90 fps. If I set the card to max performance, I get about 280-300 fps. That scared me and both changed the card quality and max frame rates to 60. That's been turned off.

Upside of setting the quality to max on the card is that I get to see things I've never seen before, like gv shadows seen from 2-3K up and seeing cons WAY before anyone else.

Now my only whine is about my monitor. It's a 19" widescreen and if I set AH to use my monitors native resolution (1440x900) I end up sitting too close to my gauges, even when I sit as far back as possible. Setting my resolution to 1024x768 makes everything look squished and fuzzy, but I can see all of my gauges. I end up with a headache and a burning hatred of all things AH.

maque1 · « **Reply #11 on:** March 29, 2007, 07:18:04 PM »

Try 1280x960. The gauges you can't see are not important. Works for me on a 24' wide screen. My native is 1900x1200, makes everything in AH micro.

Maque1:aok

38ruk · « **Reply #12 on:** March 29, 2007, 10:11:52 PM »

Alot of people think that because they have 1024 textures selected in AH2 video settings ,that they are really running 1024 textures. If you have downloaded the hires pack off the website then you really are . If you just turn the menu to 1024 in AH then you arent .

Krusty · « **Reply #13 on:** March 29, 2007, 10:17:09 PM »

Good point, Ruk. I was wondering if folks were blind or not, heh heh. I see a difference with 1024 textures. I notice it, especially on my own aircraft.

OOZ662 · « **Reply #14 on:** March 30, 2007, 08:09:31 AM »

I have downloaded the hires pack. And installed it. I'm running 4xFSAA as well.

To the guy with 200-300 FPS, turn your vsync on.