VC Gauge Resolution

[falcon409]

I've got a portover from Kazunori Ito (Avtek 400) that I just finished updating with a new exterior and VC textures, but the VC gauges (analog style) are very fuzzy and even the glass gauges I installed are distorted and fuzzy. Normally, changing the "pixel_size=" resolution from 512,512 to 1024,1024 in the VC section of the panel.cfg corrects the problem. . . .or at least makes them more readable, but in this case nothing seems to be working. Is there anything else I can try, or is this somehow imbedded in the mdl file?:salute:

[Mathias]

Depends.
Are the gauges 3d respectively build as part of the mdl or are they referenced via the panel.cfg?
If the ladder is the case and upping the pixel size doesn't do the trick, then most likely the gauges come in very low resolution by default.
Did you look up the gauge textures "offline" to get an impression of their native resolution?

[falcon409]

Depends.
Are the gauges 3d respectively build as part of the mdl or are they referenced via the panel.cfg?
If the ladder is the case and upping the pixel size doesn't do the trick, then most likely the gauges come in very low resolution by default.
Did you look up the gauge textures "offline" to get an impression of their native resolution?
I haven't checked the analog gauges for resolution outside the sim, but the glass gauges are from a few other freeware aircraft and I know for a fact that in those airplanes these gauges are crisp and clear.

[falcon409]

Just a follow up to keep this on the first page and maybe find someone who can explain this so I can either get it fixed or dump it and go on to something else. . . . .
Here are two shots of the VC. . .the first is with the pixel size set as it was in the original panel.cfg. . .the other is after I changed it to 1024,1024s. Note the autopilot in both shots. That gauge stayed at hi-res irregardless of the setting. Why?

[Milton Shupe]

Falcon,

How the vc panels are mapped makes a big difference. On a panel this wide, for best resolution, it should be mapped into 3 sections minimum: left, middle, and right. If each map then was 1024X1024, you would likely have a crisp display.

If, however, the whole width of the panel is mapped to 1 or 2 sections (left/right), then your clarity will suffer.

You can check the other aircraft where the display is crisp to see how many vcockpit sections you have for the main panel. Keep in mind that fighter-width panels can do well with one map but wider panels must be sectioned.

The key here for this aircraft is how many sections there are of this panel. Wide panels require more 1024 maps for clarity.

[Mathias]

If this aircraft uses just one or two projection screens for all gauges on the main panel, then it would be interesting to know if a pixel size of 2048 is supported by the panel.cfg?
If so, that should definitely help.

[falcon409]

Falcon,

How the vc panels are mapped makes a big difference. On a panel this wide, for best resolution, it should be mapped into 3 sections minimum: left, middle, and right. If each map then was 1024X1024, you would likely have a crisp display.

If, however, the whole width of the panel is mapped to 1 or 2 sections (left/right), then your clarity will suffer.

You can check the other aircraft where the display is crisp to see how many vcockpit sections you have for the main panel. Keep in mind that fighter-width panels can do well with one map but wider panels must be sectioned.

The key here for this aircraft is how many sections there are of this panel. Wide panels require more 1024 maps for clarity.
Ok, that answers the question then Milton as this is mapped as one panel and that size is less than even 1024x768. I may just dump this despite the work I've put into it as the glass displays are useless the way they are. Thanks.

[falcon409]

Ok PRB, please read from the beginning of the post. You'll see that I have posted that that option has already been tried. . .also you'll read what Milton just posted which is that in this particular instance, since the VC is mapped to one panel, this is most likely the reason for the poor resolution and probably won't get much better than the second image I posted, which is unacceptable. If you read all the posts you'll also see that I will most likely dump this airplane despite the work I've already invested. Thanks for posting though.