Texture Max Load Question

I have a question about the "texture_max_load" line entry in the fsx.cfg file. I have several high-detailed FSX planes with 4096x4096 main textures that I have had to manually resize via DXTBmp in order to fly them on my system without getting ridiculously slow frame rates or OOM prompts that dump me out of the sim. Does changing the texture_max_load line entry to (for example) 2048 automatically limit 4096 textures to a 2048 level of detail? I tried it with the Aeroplane Heaven He111 and things got weird, some of the 4096 textures didn't show up on the plane at all. I'm confused about how the texture max load value functions in the sim. Any education would be most appreciated. :encouragement:

Yes, the Texture Max Load setting will automatically resize textures that exceed the setting.

Yes and no, IF a 4096x4096 dds texture-file has no-mipmapping, the texture will load even if you have set the texture setting to 1024 or 2048 in your FSX.cfg.

Marcel

That's interesting, then Texture Max Load Editor is of no real use?

I use Texture Max Load. It does not change the size of any textures. What it does is maintains the file size loaded by the FSX.cfg.

Look at it this way. FSX.cfg always goes to a default texture size of 1024. You can edit the entry to 2048 or higher, but when you exit FSX it returns to the default 1024.

What Texture Max Load does is retain whatever setting you set, so each time you run the sim it will allow textures to load at your preset setting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarHorse47

FSX.cfg always goes to a default texture size of 1024. You can edit the entry to 2048 or higher, but when you exit FSX it returns to the default 1024.

---

Not exactly. FSX reverts to the default value of 1024 every time you change graphic settings in the simulator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alpha charlie

Not exactly. FSX reverts to the default value of 1024 every time you change graphic settings in the simulator.

---

Not that I recall, but it's been awhile since I messed with that. FSX.cfg rewrites itself after closing down the sim, and that changed my texture_max_load setting each time. But then again my memory isn't as it used to be... :untroubled:

Regardless, with the Texture Max Load app I no longer have to mess with editing the fsx.cfg.

Thank you everybody for your comments and explanations. Last night I experimented a bit with the Texture Max Load Editor program and the Aeroplane Heaven Heinkel 111 which by the way is a really beautiful plane. I resized the main textures for one of the paint jobs from 4096 to 2048 and selected it in free flight with the TMLE service on and set at 2048. The textures were reduced quality, but only because I had resized them. When I selected a 111 with the original 4096 textures TMLE didn't change the level of detail, it was still at 4096. When I exited the sim I checked the fsx.cfg file and the texture_max_load entry stayed at 2048 so TMLE works as advertised on that count. It's no less a mystery now than it was when I posted yesterday. :biggrin-new: I also messed around with the various graphics and performance settings in FSX. There's a lot I don't know about tweaking the sim with those sliders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mercure

That's interesting, then Texture Max Load Editor is of no real use?

---

It has only use when you have mip-mapped textures, this way FS can scale the texture to your setting in the FSX.CFG. If the mip-mapping is removed then FS is forced to use the resolution of the texture and the setting in the FSX.CFG ignored.

Marcel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mgr

It has only use when you have mip-mapped textures, this way FS can scale the texture to your setting in the FSX.CFG. If the mip-mapping is removed then FS is forced to use the resolution of the texture and the setting in the FSX.CFG ignored.
Marcel

---

This might explain why the 4096 textures on my He111 displayed at 4096 even with the texture max load set at 2048. Maybe the textures have no mip-maps? I have no idea how to confirm that.

I think I am correct in thinking the Steam version disposed of these issues and retains the 4096 setting regardless.

I am surprised I have seen no discussion on the fact that MS/Steam have issued a Beta on FSXSE after alll these years.... I wonder why bother. :applause:

To tarpsbird, you may use ImageTool.exe to view MipMaps when they exist.
Quite seldom nowadays (no real interest I think, VidCard are powerful enough) but frequent for CFS2 and old FS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mercure

To tarpsbird, you may use ImageTool.exe to view MipMaps when they exist.
Quite seldom nowadays (no real interest I think, VidCard are powerful enough) but frequent for CFS2 and old FS.

---

Thank you mercure, I just now tried ImageTool and I was correct, no mipmaps with the 4096 textures on the He111.

hmmm,to my knowledge editing texture size on dxtbmp is not recommended as first it's unable to export in 4096, then it will automatically resize the image and its ressampling capabilities are really poor. On the other hand you can link it to a good quality image editing tool and resize your file this way.That said you can do it entirely and directly from the said image editor with proper plugins installed.
Lastly, the whole 2048/4096 perf issue is more related to how the textures wrapped/mapped and how many drawcalls you have. The real noticeable différence on a same model will be in the very small stenciling/riveting sharpness, knowing that a typical dds dxt5 2048 texture sheet is 4mb and the same in 4096 will be 16mb its not often worth the shot.

TARPSBird - interesting issue. For years I have followed the advice of various software suppliers on my FSX to set the texture max config to 4096 in the FSX,cfg file. Now this is only an observation but I find it interesting. I understand the issue and reason for the higher pixel and texture sizes for better quality, detail, colour etc. But here is what I discovered - I have in the past week done a complete rebuild of FSX due to a drive calamnity. After the install I left the texture max load at the default 1024. I have reinstalled a whole bunch of ORBX sceneries and numerous high level sim models that all had 4096 textures.

Now I have a bog standard off the shelf video card (Intel) but plenty of memory etc and PC speed but I have always had GPU issues and other traumas pushing FSX to run max texture loads. Well for the past week I have run every scenery and model testing for issues but all at 1024 and quite frankly I can see no significant dimunition in quality or clarity on my system, in fact it all looks fine to me. I have no idea how FSX is handling the large HD textures but they look great at 1024 and honestly I am going to leave it there. The performance improvement in terms of load times and in flight graphics has convinced me it was a 32 bit system built for 1024 graphics let it take care of it and it does.

Others outcomes may vary but this is my observation.

indeed, its not because the texture sheet is exported in 4096 that the bits inside it are. Lets take a wing, if it occupies the whole texture sheet width then it will be 'in" 4096 so very high res. But things aren't that simple. Most of the time , they share the sheet with other bits, to minimize the number of sheets you need to cover the whole model( that is the drawcall) the more drawcalls you get the heavier the model is ressource wize.
So depending on the way the model has been wrapped, you can get some big parts mapped on a small surface of the texture sheet. This can be in 4096, the part will be far less than that, meaning you will have 4K textures and get a fairly poor result. On the other hand you can get superb texturing with 2048 textures. 1024 is a bit short to my taste but can do the trick on simple models.