Still a little bit much, as VC's can use a lot of textures these days.5. That would be 96 MB of scenery texture data, leaving 160MB for everything else (aircraft, clouds, autogen) w/a 256MB card. I'd say you often only see a dozen or so textures at once, but let's assume 32 textures for a typical "complex" scene. Those 93 tiles are supposed to cover everything from desert to pine forest, farmland to highrise.
First, let's consider how many texture tiles are displayed in a single scene. So, at this point, built-in mipmaps make sense4. There would be AGP/PCI-e swapping and no room left for aicraft and autogen textures. This is clearly unacceptable, as many still use 256MB videocards. Assuming uncompressed textures, and all 93 tiles visible in a single scene (extremely unlikely), the textures would use 279MB of video RAM. FSX has 93 unique landclass tiles total3. Terrain texture tiles are 3072KB uncompressed (1024x1024 and 24 bits per pixel)2. This system was invented to reduce video ram usage, back when videocards had about as much built-in RAM as your average cellphone does today.So, I decided to do some calculations, which I hope someone more knowledgable can verify.Here are my assumptions:1. As only textures very close to the viewer had to be stored in their highest resolution, videoram usage was significantly reduced with no visual impact (provided the terrain engine could keep up and unload/load texutres in a timely manner). So that while 1024x124 textures are displayed up close, the engine gradually switches to 512x512, 256x256, 128x128 etc farther out toward the horizon. Considering "blurries" is one of the most common problem with FS, I was thinking about what to do about them.I'm mostly refering to the "dynamic" blurries, where the terrain engine can't keep up, causing 2m, 5m or even 10m tiles to appear in place of the 1.2m tiles close up.FSX includes many miplevels built into its textures, and dynamically loads and unloads textures "on the fly".
0 kommentar(er)
