Spinoff : Texture size discussion

[Jimmy_Lemon]

1 pound for yet still low resolution textures.

1024x1024 is low resolution... i have 30,000 skins in my skin_x folder and if i wanted them all HighER it would cost 15 pounds, but yet they will still be low resolution.

i could understand if they was 2048x2048 (which in my case is still low resolution) but there not so i would be paying 15 pounds for them still being low.

i know they was low be for and it wont kill me using them low still but i run 2560x1600 resolution and there seems to be no graphical updates for higher resolution stuff for us high end users. :(

not every one has low resolution and old pc's you know. :(

[[RCG]Boosted]

nice nice as always :)

......
why do you always have to complain?
also, when i race i dont have much time to look at the skins anyways, so what do u do to see the "bad" quality?
afaik this is a racing sim, not a competition whos got the highest res skins :really:

[Tweaker]

1 pound for yet still low resolution textures.

1024x1024 is low resolution... i have 30,000 skins in my skin_x folder and if i wanted them all HighER it would cost 15 pounds, but yet they will still be low resolution.
Wrong. You have 30,000 512 x 512 skins in your skins_x folder. You would pay 15 pounds for 30,000 1024 x 1024 skins. 512 is low resolution, 1024, is really medium, but at least better then blurry 512 for those that really care.

2048 is just not suitable for 30+ cars in LFS. Best for screenshots, movies, renders, etc... not racing.

[Jimmy_Lemon]

2048 is just not suitable for 30+ cars in LFS. Best for screenshots, movies, renders, etc... not racing.

are you seriouse? ROFL

2048 is resonable resolution 4096 is high resolution :really:

[Jimmy_Lemon]

maybe if you had a nvidia 4 series card you would think 1024 is high resolution..

but this is 2007 man

[Tweaker]

maybe if you had a nvidia 4 series card you would think 1024 is high resolution..

but this is 2007 man
I don't speak for everyone here buddy. 1024 is reasonable quality to PLAY with for the majority of people.... this is gaming "man".

If you want 2048, or even 4096, good luck finding someone that made a skin in that res (not to mention they are 1.5mb or higher -- fork over hundreds of pounds and pay for the devs hosting then). Try a full grid of 4096 skins :rolleyes:. LFS is pretty crude when it comes to texture quality on the cars, deal with it. If you think you have a magic wand and can suddenly bring about super duper high res skins then do it yourself. Otherwise.... yeah you know.
@Devs
The DDS-skins need more space than the JPG-skins, so i don´t know why made a new format which will cause more network traffic by the same resolution?
Have u think about the PNG-format? For some text on the car will PNG absolutely very much smaller by the same resolution. I will add a test-png. i dont know if it possible to include 2 different image-formats, PNG for Text-skins and skins with big color surfaces and JPG for photo realistic skins.
LFS is NOT downloading the DDS files from LFSW, it is downloading the 1024 JPGs onto your PC and then converting them to DDS when you aren't racing.

[Jimmy_Lemon]

i dno why the need for the DDS is anyway. jpeg is fine.

i think 512 should be low (for low end users)

1024 medium (for people who have average pcs)

and 2048 high (for me and a few other people with monster pcs)


i dont get what all the new conversion thing and rubbish is helping...


it should be 1 pound for 2048 textures and 1024 and 512 should be free cause there low >.<

[herki]

maybe if you had a nvidia 4 series card you would think 1024 is high resolution..

but this is 2007 man

Sorry dissapoint you, but even if it is 2007 it doesn't neccessarily mean everything older should be banned. I'm quite happy that LFS is still pretty playable even on low-end systems, and I hope it'll never change.

---

Also I'm happy to support new kitchens etc. by downloading the high-res skins :tilt:

[joen]

are you seriouse? ROFL

2048 is resonable resolution 4096 is high resolution :really:

right...this may be 2007 but the percentage of players running at such a high resolution is negligible.
It makes no sense to use resolutions higher than 2048 for skins as most people make their skins at 2048 maximum (or lower).

It depends on the skin really. But I think on average PNGs would be bigger than JPGs in this case.
Yup. Matze is right in a way. Minimalistic skins with few color could end up smaller than jpg but the difference wouldn't be that big. With more complicated textures PNG will definitely be a lot bigger. So I don't think it would be worth the trouble and have little benefit, if any.

[Jimmy_Lemon]

If you want 2048, or even 4096, good luck finding someone that made a skin in that res (not to mention they are 1.5mb or higher). Try a full grid of 4096 skins :rolleyes:. LFS is pretty crude when it comes to texture quality on the cars, deal with it. If you think you have a magic wand and can suddenly bring about super duper high res skins then do it yourself. Otherwise.... yeah you know.

i am a skinner and i make textures.

iv used 20 AI's using my 4096 resolution skin on the grid and still had 100+ fps still playable game verry smoothe and fps stayed above 100 at all times.

because in reality lfs isnt "high quality" shadder and effects game like most so i dont get why people complain about "oh iv got no FPS", well its obviouse they wont if they dont spend a few bob and get a half decent pc, because there trying to run a game on a low end pc which actually works, if they tryed running a high image quality game on the same pc it would kill it

[[RCG]Boosted]

what do u do?
racing?
standing on the track watching other ppls skins all day long? :really:
if u would actually race u barely would notice a diff between 512 and 1024. not to mention even higher resolutions.

oh and btw i dont give a crap how "good" ur pc is, and i think nobody cares.
fact is there a lot of ppl who dont have shitloads of money so they cant afford high end machines.
so plz leave it, ur making me mad.

[Tweaker]

i dno why the need for the DDS is anyway. jpeg is fine.

i think 512 should be low (for low end users)

1024 medium (for people who have average pcs)

and 2048 high (for me and a few other people with monster pcs)


i dont get what all the new conversion thing and rubbish is helping...


it should be 1 pound for 2048 textures and 1024 and 512 should be free cause there low >.<

You still aren't understanding it Jimmy.

The devs already have a load of bandwidth and storage to deal with just by storing the 1024 skins and distributing the 512 ones!!! And you think they can pay for all that constantly? 1024 is at least a better alternative to the 512, and only for 1 pound?!?! sheesh you are cheap to be expecting more.

Also, not everyone creates skins in 2048 size, most skins come in 1024 size and that is all.

____________________

I still don't understand completely the benefits of the DDS files either, the quality is actually worse then a normal JPG, kinda odd.

i am a skinner and i make textures.

iv used 20 AI's using my 4096 resolution skin on the grid and still had 100+ fps still playable game verry smoothe and fps stayed above 100 at all times.

because in reality lfs isnt "high quality" shadder and effects game like most so i dont get why people complain about "oh iv got no FPS", well its obviouse they wont if they dont spend a few bob and get a half decent pc, because there trying to run a game on a low end pc which actually works, if they tryed running a high image quality game on the same pc it would kill it
I am skinner, but somehow you think that makes you obligated to be using 2048 to download? Some people....

LFS still runs on DirectX 8.0, we don't have shaders and all that stuff you want your PC to have sex with, we can't get any better then this for the sake of performance and BANDWIDTH.

[geeman1]

i dno why the need for the DDS is anyway. jpeg is fine.Maybe it got changed to prevent skin stealing from skins_x folder?it should be 1 pound for 2048 textures and 1024 and 512 should be free cause there low >.<Think of the bandwidth. 1024 skins need 4 times the bandwidth and 2048 skins would need 16 times the bandwidth.

[matze54564]

Some time ago there was a discussion about using PNG. But PNG files are considerably bigger in filesize.
No, you must the right images save as PNG, they must have
- Big surfaces with the same color
- Not to much different colors in one file
- System-colors if possible

Please watch my example-file and save it as JPG

But i guess 2 different Formats in LFS are maybe impossible. I dont wonna remove JPG, i want just add the PNG beside the JPG

And sorry that i was not right reading what scawen wrote "skins_dds : lfs uses this to store dds (compressed) versions of your local skins"

thanks for reading

[Jimmy_Lemon]

im not complaining, im just saying.

i dont see why such a great game should be more built towards low end pc's that arent built to play games in the first place, rather than higher textures for the game so pc's that are built for games, it looks better.

yes its good that the game Can play on low pc's but i think now the dev's should work towards higher graphics settings aswell As low settings rather than still playing around at low resolutions (512/1024 textures)

and start on 2048 etc if you understand.

cause most games have more graphics settings which you simply choose high, medium, or low.
this doesnt tho, and i really think now theres low and medium the devs should work on higher than there currently is

[Tweaker]

Then read the last line of my post above this.

Great spinoff thread coming soon!
Maybe it got changed to prevent skin stealing from skins_x folder?
DDS can still be converted back to JPG easily, it isn't so much a protection measure, but something to improve performance AFAIK. No point in having the DDS feature though imo :shrug:

[flinty72]

I have had no trouble running 30 cars with 2048x2048 skins while racing online, whether you call them HiRes or not.

Scawen are you now just simply increasing the quality of the existing 1024x1024 400kb skins that everyone has uploaded so they are still 1024x1024 but larger file size or will the user now have the ability to upload a larger file (say up to 1MB).
The reason a ask is that most 1024x1024 skins are downsized from 2048x2048 higher res skins. for them to now just have an increase in quality is not the best way of maintaining their quality to begin with. If you know what I mean.

EDIT: I was wrong in the above post so please disregard. As I understand it the skins dowloaded are 512x512 for cars and 256x256 for helmets, so now I get the Hi-Res skin download via payment. Sorry for posting prior to proper research.

[Fischfix]

i think 1024 is mid range quality but enough for gaming. i am not sure if i will pay for 1024 skins though, because when i look at my skinsX folder, there are over 3000 skins in it and the most of them are crappy anyway. so why spending money for transferring crappy skins to my computer.

people who making videos can ask the drivers to get a better resolution and in leagues there is often a collection of the league driver-skins in hires for movie makers.

i make all my skins in 2048.
with 2048 you can have nice looking movies and stuff and when watching replays it is more then enough. at least on my screen with 1280x800 resolution.


not sure if 4096 (as it is 4 times the size of 2048x2048 which is 4 times the size of 1024x1024) would pay up for the ddtails as long as you don't go really into detailed shots in movies. 4096 is a bit of overload in my opinion.

[geeman1]

i dont see why such a great game should be more built towards low end pc's that arent built to play games in the first place, rather than higher textures for the game so pc's that are built for games, it looks better.This isn't about performance, it's about bandwidth.

[Jimmy_Lemon]

LFS still runs on DirectX 8.0, we don't have shaders and all that stuff you want your PC to have sex with, we can't get any better then this for the sake of performance.

i know, for DX 8 it looks good IF you put 2048/4096 textures on it.

but i know for low end users that would bog there pc like a brick in quicksand but for us high end users, i think there should be a high setting aswell as low and medium for low users.

[Jimmy_Lemon]

This isn't about performance, it's about bandwidth.

i know im not botherd about peformance, i have enough of it (and im sure a few people do too) which is why theres room for 4x more resolution of all the textures on lfs (IE 2048-4096) as a HIGH setting.

if there was a high setting doesnt mean that you have to use it if you get low fps on a low end pc, which is why there should be still the settings there is now as a Low setting option.

[MAGGOT]

The One pound charge for the 1024 skins is a great idea, but I'm curious; What happens when someone puts a 12 pound credit on their account, with intentions of paying in advance for S3? Will they suddenly get 12 pounds-worth of available skins downloading, or? What about people who have already paid for S3, has that 12 pounds still been reserved for S3, or applied to the skins? Just making sure the devs have taken that into account.

@Jimmy - I have seen only skin ever posted for LFS that was larger than 2048. One. And you expect those to be available for download? Most people skin at 1024, how do you expect to get a 2048 res version from that? So what if you have a super computer; I have a very good PC too, and I can run a full grid of AIs with 2048 res skins, too. What's your point? There is not one single game on the market that comes stock with 2048 skins, AFAIK, (rF is 1024).

[joen]

i know, for DX 8 it looks good IF you put 2048/4096 textures on it.

but i know for low end users that would bog there pc like a brick in quicksand but for us high end users, i think there should be a high setting aswell as low and medium for low users.

Who are those high end users you're speaking of? You're the only one I see complaining about it.
You need to get a perspective and understand that it's not just about you and your supa dupa computer, it isn't the standard. It's not just black and white, it's not just high end or low end, there's a big area in between that as well.

And like already said, performance isn't the issue here, it's the bandwith.

[geeman1]

i know im not botherd about peformance, i have enough of it (and im sure a few people do too) which is why theres room for 4x more resolution of all the textures on lfs (IE 2048-4096) as a HIGH setting.Did you read my post? Performance isn't the problem here. 2048 skins would need more bandwidth and more storage space. The devs have to pay for those. The skins would need 16 times more of both. It would cost the devs 16 times more money. Think about that!

[Jimmy_Lemon]

There is not one single game on the market that comes stock with 2048

look harder

[Boris Lozac]

i am a skinner and i make textures.

iv used 20 AI's using my 4096 resolution skin on the grid and still had 100+ fps still playable game verry smoothe and fps stayed above 100 at all times.

because in reality lfs isnt "high quality" shadder and effects game like most so i dont get why people complain about "oh iv got no FPS", well its obviouse they wont if they dont spend a few bob and get a half decent pc, because there trying to run a game on a low end pc which actually works, if they tryed running a high image quality game on the same pc it would kill it

Well good for you, but average sim player don't have the money for the new shiny 700 euro graphic card... that doesn't mean LFS shouldn't get graphic update, but surely it DOESN'T need 4096x4096 skin textures...
I also do skins among other graphic textures, and you can put a lot of details in the 1024x1024 300 dpi file, maybe you can't put a 5 pt text saying "NOS Iz in TheRe" but i would surely not see it when i pass by someone going 200 km/h...
And don't you think that 32 players wearing 4096x4096 skins would cause some serious lagging?

[Jimmy_Lemon]

Did you read my post? Bandwith is the problem here. More higher res skins need more bandwidth and the devs have to pay for that bandwidth. Even if most players could run the game with 2048 skins, the devs would still need 16 times more money! Think about it!

not just skins, textures in general. lfs should have Low=512 setting, medium=1024 setting, high=2048 setting...

[Victor]

I dont see why such a great game should be more built towards low end pc's that arent built to play games in the first place

/me leaps some years into the future ...

Remember them silly quad core 3Ghz cpu and SLI 8xxx series - how anyone ever managed to play games on those snails is beyond me!

------------

Years ago people also used their pc's for gaming. Games weren't invented yesterday.
Not everybody has massive amounts of cash to spend on their pc. In fact there are many people who appreciate LFS being capable of running on their lower end system - dare I say the majority.

[Jimmy_Lemon]

And don't you think that 32 players wearing 4096x4096 skins would cause some serious lagging?

not one unsmoothe lag bump or anything for me.


and yeh yeh i kno im getting flamed here but im not botherd im just saying what i think im entitled to that.

[geeman1]

not just skins, textures in general. lfs should have Low=512 setting, medium=1024 setting, high=2048 setting...Yes, making LFS high res has been suggested before and I believe there are high res texures available for most of the stuff.

[joen]

not one unsmoothe lag bump or anything for me.
Ofcourse you aren't experiencing any lag from using 4096*4096 skins on your AI's. Because of the simple fact they don't use any bandwith now do they? There's that keyword again, bandwith.

It's like talking to a wall.

[Boris Lozac]

not one unsmoothe lag bump or anything for me.


and yeh yeh i kno im getting flamed here but im not botherd im just saying what i think im entitled to that.

You're not thinking, that's the problem, if you would use just a tiny part of your brain, you would realize how stupid your idea is..

[Btoryo]

not one unsmoothe lag bump or anything for me.


and yeh yeh i kno im getting flamed here but im not botherd im just saying what i think im entitled to that.


Omg! Your only thinking for yourself! I CAN'T run things like that, I get an average of 18 FPS, I know "Go Upgrade!" well I can't I don't have enough money I'm in 7th grade and have other things to spend my money on. So why don't you just shut your selfish mouth and stop complaining! LFS is still in development so it WILL get better when they're ready.

[Jimmy_Lemon]

Omg! Your only thinking for yourself! I CAN'T run things like that, I get an average of 18 FPS, I know "Go Upgrade!" well I can't I don't have enough money I'm in 7th grade and have other things to spend my money on. So why don't you just shut your selfish mouth and stop complaining! LFS is still in development so it WILL get better when they're ready.

i know, which i why i SAID. there should be high settings for us high end users.

and yet all the performance of the current settings as a Low setting which you and alot of others would choose obviously

[Btoryo]

i know, which i why i SAID. there should be high settings for us high end users.

and yet all the performance of the current settings as a Low setting which you and alot of others would choose obviously

BUT, 4096 skins will take A LOT of bandwidth.

[Jimmy_Lemon]

then why doesnt LFS use a optional thing so that you can host skins via your own internet space (if you Want to) so you can host your own super huge skins and are visable on lfs if people got there settings to see skins on super high res? bit like uploading a image to imageshack then doing a forum [img] code so you can see it on the forums.


O.o ok that sounded pretty good to me tbh lol

[geeman1]

then why doesnt LFS use a optional thing so that you can host skins via your own internet space but is still visable on lfs? bit like uploading a image to imageshack then doing a forum [img] code so you can see it on the forums.Because then the devs would have no control over the skins. People could upload anything like pornographic images and such. I can think of few other problems too.

[Jimmy_Lemon]

Because then the devs would have no control over the skins. People could upload anything like pornographic images and such.

a ingame button on the connection list to report the skin by the user then dev's check it out then the account may be banned for the unnacceptable image?

[Ian.H]

i dno why the need for the DDS is anyway. jpeg is fine.

[ snip ]




My guess is one simple reason... memory management.

There was a fair few reports of people not being able to run with the new larger grids due to FPS drops etc, AFAIK, DDS files are managed within DirectX memory far more efficiently than the likes of BMP / JPEG, hence it should help overall with performance.

The other advantage maybe future planning. DDS textures can carry an alpha channel too (unlike JPG). This opens possibilities up to 2 options:

Reflection control
Transparency control


Naturally shaders would need to be updated to be able to use them, but that maybe coming later.



Regards,

Ian

[geeman1]

a ingame button on the connection list to report the skin by the user then dev's check it out then the account may be banned for the unnacceptable image?But the image cant be deleted. I don't think devs are very keen on banning on minor thing like that. banning the whole user would be the only way to stop the image from being in the game.
Also everyone would have to download the high res skin, even if hey have lower res selected. Because the image could be only resized at the receiver end. Also people could upload huge images and then the download would take ages. Trust me, it isn't a good idea.

[Jimmy_Lemon]

Reflection control
Transparency control

aye true, iv been working with photoshop since as long as i can remember,


but wont this allso lead to people having see through cars if they just put transparency up full :D :really: then people would ram them and then the poor soul's who hit the see through car would be blamed,

or worse a see through car ramming every one in T1

[Ian.H]

No.. because the car body would be using the reflection shader, not the transparency shader, which would be used for glass etc.



Regards,

Ian

[Woz]

i know im not botherd about peformance, i have enough of it (and im sure a few people do too) which is why theres room for 4x more resolution of all the textures on lfs (IE 2048-4096) as a HIGH setting.

if there was a high setting doesnt mean that you have to use it if you get low fps on a low end pc, which is why there should be still the settings there is now as a Low setting option.

While the images might be smaller on disk in jpg format they need to be unpacked to full size to actually render. So lets look at some memory requirements because I don't think you actually understand the ramifications of what you are asking.

512*512 @ 24bit colour = 768Kb
1024*1024 @ 24bit colour = 3072Kb
2048*2048 @ 24bit colour = 12288Kb
4096*4096 @ 24bit colour = 49152Kb or 49Mb per skin

With you asking for 4096*4096 skins and say on a server with 32 people requires 1.5Gb of ram on your graphics car just for the skins to render each frame OR a crap load of swapping to unpack each skin as its required.

I really doubt you system can run at 100fps if you had a full grid of 32 cars each with a different 4096*4096 skin

Sorry, I just do not believe you.

[Jimmy_Lemon]

attached a file,

4096x4096 and its 566kb

used the skin MRT_Repsol_Hayden and blew it up to 4096x4096 for a quick example that resolution doesnt nessasery mean huge file size.

it could be compressed 50 times more to even half the size without loosing 1 pixel of image quality from what it currently is if you have the right tools.

ok im offline :wave23d:

[ATC Quicksilver]

Yes but thats a lower res skin blown up to be a higher res, the detail goes to pot when you do that. Try and get something even close to that size with a high detail skin of that resolution.

[keithano]

attached a file,

4096x4096 and its 566kb

used the skin MRT_Repsol_Hayden and blew it up to 4096x4096 for a quick example that resolution doesnt nessasery mean huge file size.

it could be compressed 50 times more to even half the size without loosing 1 pixel of image quality from what it currently is if you have the right tools.

ok im offline :wave23d:

Sorry, but what's the point for blowing up a skin that is not originally created in 4096x4096? The file size is different, and also blowing up to 4096x4096 for this skin is just still crap. For Hi-Res skin ( I mean 4096 in this case), the image should be much more clearer, and thus using up much more space than just 566kb.

Cmon, I am a photographer, and I deal with Photoshop everyday. I think I have enough knowledge in terms of the related proportion of resolution size to file size.

[XCNuse]

You're fighting a lost cause Jimmy, its just plain not going to happen, and I still have to agree with Maggot, no games have I ever seen come with 4096 resolutions, much less 2048. Its called.. big things in small packages, and they tend to be the best, no one wants to lug around 5 GB worth of textures they are only going to see once in their gaming career (in a single year).

That is just a ludicrous number anyways, thats around 2mb per skin, which, my current skins_x folder is at 2,328 skins, and @2mb per skin, thats 5GB of probably crappy jpegs compared to 146 mb worth of jpegs, 99% of which I only see once, and that has been building up the past 3 years for me too.

Its worthless what you're asking for.

No one wants something they wont see, its like going to the US military and saying you want to buy an SR-71 Blackbird, even if you had all the money in the world they wouldn't sell one to you, it wouldn't do you any good if you had one anyways.. you'd have nothing to do with it but look at it in awe.

Now.. if you really have that much money, think you could send some to me for a graduation present lol?

[Electrik Kar]

I had to drag the mouse atleast 4 times across that file to get from one end of the image to the other. This monitor's 1280 X 1024, pretty decent res- even shrinking the image down 50% won't contain it within the screen border. How is this at all practical, or even desirable?

[MAGGOT]

not one unsmoothe lag bump or anything for me.


and yeh yeh i kno im getting flamed here but im not botherd im just saying what i think im entitled to that.

And so are we.

look harder

No thanks, I'd rather play LFS.

[flinty72]

I have had no trouble running 30 cars with 2048x2048 skins while racing online, whether you call them HiRes or not.

Scawen are you now just simply increasing the quality of the existing 1024x1024 400kb skins that everyone has uploaded so they are still 1024x1024 but larger file size or will the user now have the ability to upload a larger file (say up to 1MB).
The reason a ask is that most 1024x1024 skins are downsized from 2048x2048 higher res skins. for them to now just have an increase in quality is not the best way of maintaining their quality to begin with. If you know what I mean.

EDIT: I was wrong in the above so please disregard. As I understand it skins download at 512x512 for cars and 256x256 for helmets normally, so now I get the Hi-Res skin download via payment option, you get 1024x1024 car and 512x512 helmet skins. Sorry for posting prior to proper research.

[Jimmy_Lemon]

Sorry, but what's the point for blowing up a skin that is not originally created in 4096x4096? The file size is different, and also blowing up to 4096x4096 for this skin is just still crap. For Hi-Res skin ( I mean 4096 in this case), the image should be much more clearer, and thus using up much more space than just 566kb.

Cmon, I am a photographer, and I deal with Photoshop everyday. I think I have enough knowledge in terms of the related proportion of resolution size to file size.

what the heck man, i said i blew it up for a size example the file size not the quality.

read first.

and yes i know im a graphics designer so yes i do know how it works

[Davo]

Converting 1024 to 512 and then to dds again loses some quality so infact we're getting worse quality then we began with. :(

for comparison... you can really see it around the oval shape and the logo.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/davolfs/ddsvsjpg.jpg

[mrodgers]

what the heck man, i said i blew it up for a size example the file size not the quality.

read first.

and yes i know im a graphics designer so yes i do know how it works

This is quite funny as you are really talking out your behind. Surely if you want this ultra high res stuff, then you already have your own skins that you've done in high res, yet you post a skin that was "blown up" from low res. Thus, it is of my opinion that you can't really run LFS as you claim you can and were only trolling on the test patch thread.

Let's see a real skin from yourself. Don't bother if it will take you a week to make one.....

[Shotglass]

what the heck man, i said i blew it up for a size example the file size not the quality.

read first.

and yes i know im a graphics designer so yes i do know how it works

no you dont otherwise youd know that blwoing up an image like that will result in a very low frequency jpeg that doesnt use up much space like a proper high res image would

[Jimmy_Lemon]

took 20 mins was bored a few days ago nothin special, the skin is reduced from 4096 to 2048 btw

http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=417178#post417178

[Tweaker]

Don't start harping on him now guys. He may have some different views on this... but it's nothing bad. He obviously just wants much higher quality... and well Jimmy I think you've explained your point, but it's not going to happen for a long time until we get a better graphics engine (or improved one at least).

And again, he blew up that skin (my skin actually :p) to show the filesize difference of a 1024 skin compared to a huge 4068 sized skin. Originally though when I saved that skin in 1024, it was compressed slightly, and at full quality it would be somewhere around 500kb if I remember correctly. Regardless, what you did Jimmy to demonstrate the filesize difference isn't entirely accurate. If I take a resized high quality photo (1024x1024) and try to increase the quality, there is loads of interpolation and resampling, and you get very large smoothed out pixels... which results in a 'low quality' high resolution image. Now if I took that original photo and it was 4068x4068 to begin with, the filesize would be MUCH greater because of a larger count of different colored pixels.

EDIT: Shotglass put it in much simpler terms above :doh:

But anyways, the filesizes are the main part of this problem, because the devs don't have the resources or the cash to allow for such huge downloads of skins. Also, like I mentioned earlier, not many people even make their skins in 2048 or higher, the usual size is 1024. Most do this for the sake of uploading it to LFSW, but also knowing that LFS is very much a universal game in respects to performance on old systems. 1024 skins can eat up some memory on such systems, and even a single 2048 skin can cause significant FPS drops. Just learn that not everyone has a computer like you Jimmy, and at least support this idea of even getting 1024 sized skins from online, it is a much better alternative to 512 sized skins. HOWEVER, with the current compression and conversion from JPG to DDS, the 1024 DDS files are looking like utter crap compared to a 512 sized skin even. So once this can be fixed, the 1024 size should be WELL WORTH IT.

This is a test patch afterall..... Fixes fixes fixes, always.

[Ian.H]

Converting 1024 to 512 and then to dds again loses some quality so infact we're getting worse quality then we began with. :(

for comparison... you can really see it around the oval shape and the logo.

[ snip image ]




Have you tried converting the skin manually Davo and saving as DXT3 or DXT5? I think you'll get better results (the image you posted looks like a poor quality DXT1 texture).

Granted, it'd be a bitch to do this for 3rd-party skins, but if it works (and I don't see why not), would at least work for your own skins :)



Regards,

Ian

EDIT: You'll always also get some artifacts when converting back from DDS to whatever format due to the original whatever->DDS compression.

[Shotglass]

i dont see why the devs couldnt simply charge 4£/2000 2048 skins though

No one wants something they wont see, its like going to the US military and saying you want to buy an SR-71 Blackbird, even if you had all the money in the world they wouldn't sell one to you, it wouldn't do you any good if you had one anyways.. you'd have nothing to do with it but look at it in awe.

there goes my 1 1/2 hr london new york air line business plan

[Davo]

Have you tried converting the skin manually Davo and saving as DXT3 or DXT5? I think you'll get better results (the image you posted looks like a poor quality DXT1 texture).

Granted, it'd be a bitch to do this for 3rd-party skins, but if it works (and I don't see why not), would at least work for your own skins :)



Regards,

Ian

EDIT: You'll always also get some artifacts when converting back from DDS to whatever format due to the original whatever->DDS compression.

The comparison I posted is a direct downloaded file from lfs using lfsworld not a conversion by me.

I've downloaded a freeware dds converter that does DXT3 and DXT5, should I try these? I only used DXT1 for my skins_x folder. The thing is now skins will taje up twice the space on the hardrive and still offer lower quality. If we could upload dds skins perhaps...

I'll get the converter out again, it took 30minutes to convert 3500 jpgs, of about 200 were 2048res ones. I'll try DXT5 and see if theres much difference.

Well there's not much difference between the lfsw dds and the one I just converted using DXT5, it's a little clearer but the file size is larger. I can put up with a larger file if it means better gameplay but I'd also like to see quality go up too.

[deggis]

Exactly how much easier for the system are DDS skins then compared to JPG? How significant the difference is? Good if DDS format helps but at the same time it seems to prevent using higher (2048) skin size because the file size seems to be the problem in the first place. Seems like this feature adds one but sacrifices one thing... I mean in the future 2048 (JPG) skins could have been very likely to happen.

In general nice that is area is getting some attention. Never really understood this low-res texture approach for everything (not only talking about skins now). People are crying for DX9/10 stuff already, while the easiest way to raise graphics quality would be to simply to double the textures sizes.

.

[Batterypark]

If you want 2048, or even 4096, good luck finding someone that made a skin in that res

I thought everyone who skins even half-seriously makes them at 4096... I guess not then.

[[RCG]Boosted]

not one unsmoothe lag bump or anything for me.


and yeh yeh i kno im getting flamed here but im not botherd im just saying what i think im entitled to that.

the community is not U there are (ten)thousands members.
i really dont think the devs will put something in the game for the 5% of ppl who have enough power to use it.

[Vilante 11]

I thought everyone who skins even half-seriously makes them at 4096... I guess not then.

No-one I know of does, everyone on Master Skinnerz skins at 2048.

[szyszek]

Not to get into the rather silly discussion of making the skins 104234329x143873247 resolution:


In the other thread, Gunn asked this question:
"So does that mean that when I want to put my mates', high res skins into LFS that I have to put them into my skins folder - meaning that anytime I want to choose a skin for myself I now have a huge list of skins to browse through, skins that I never use?"

I haven't seen an answer anywhere. Anyone? :tilt:

[Tweaker]

If you want to choose a skin for yourself, you put it in your skins folder, like you always have. It really is no different than what we had before... except while you are playing the game it will temporarily make a DDS skin in the skins_dds folder... and that isn't something you'd need to worry about --- just leave that folder alone :).

You should NOT be seeing skins from the skins_x or skins_y in your own browsable menu in the LFS garage.

If you are trying to put a high quality skin in the skins_x directory, that should work afaik. Just put them in there, and it should do the same... it will make a DDS file in the skins_dds folder. The skins_dds folder is like a sub storage area that is just used by LFS. It's all explained in Scawen's post.

[Yaamboo]

took 20 mins was bored a few days ago nothin special, the skin is reduced from 4096 to 2048 btw

http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=417178#post417178
Where's the point in the higher resolution if there's no detail? :really: I mean, where are the shadows and stuff? If it's only to see a sweet logo (Momo, HKS, Dunlop, how original) in higher resolution, it's of no use.

Ok, I am one of the "low-end" gamers and I get less than 1 fps when putting 20 AI cars on the field. At least got, as I got a better graphics card a couple of days ago and I haven't had time to test it with LFS yet. I'm upgrading in 2 years from now according to my plan (because of studying abroad and stuff like that), so I hope I'll be able to play LFS until then on my comp, if not in multiplayer, in singleplayer then :D

[Jakg]

1 pound for yet still low resolution textures.

1024x1024 is low resolution... i have 30,000 skins in my skin_x folder and if i wanted them all HighER it would cost 15 pounds, but yet they will still be low resolution.

i could understand if they was 2048x2048 (which in my case is still low resolution) but there not so i would be paying 15 pounds for them still being low.

i know they was low be for and it wont kill me using them low still but i run 2560x1600 resolution and there seems to be no graphical updates for higher resolution stuff for us high end users. :(

not every one has low resolution and old pc's you know. :(how is a skin that is almost the whole resolution of your monitor "low res"

Jimmy, i cant tell the difference between 1024 and 2048 when racing, and i cant tell the difference between 2048 and 4096 when in shift u!it should be 1 pound for 2048 textures and 1024 and 512 should be free cause there low >.<yes, but think of the bandwidth requires

Look, you seem to like to brag about your 1337 PC, and how LFS should take advantage of it, but with 2048 textures, 32 Ai, lots of texture mods and 16xAA and 16xAF it looks bloody good

[joen]

I think Jimmy is the type of guy who automatically thinks "bigger is better", "more is better" without actually having a clue of what he´s talking about, which is quite obvious if you read his posts.


what the heck man, i said i blew it up for a size example the file size not the quality.

read first.

and yes i know im a graphics designer so yes i do know how it works

That´s like re-encoding a 128 kb/sec MP3 to a 320 kb/sec mp3 and saying the latter is of better quality.

[flinty72]

Well I did some testing of patch W21 particularly to get my head around this skin file issue. Here is what I discovered, some of which has already been explained.

JPG files are no longer supported, any JPG's in your skin folder will get converted to DDS files when you start LFS TP (Test Patch) W21 and the DDS skin files are then placed into your skin_dds folder, which is where LFS loads & uses your skins from now.

The skin_x folder also requires the skins within it to be DDS files. It still handles all others skins (multiplayer / non-user specific skins) which are downloaded from LFSW. These will be derived from 512px skins unless you pay for the Hi-Res option. So no difference from what you get today if you don't pay.
Or you can still use Hi-Res skins which won't get overwritten as long as the file name matches that from LFSW.
So you can convert all you 2048px JPG's to have a Hi-Res DDS version in-game.

So what is different you ask well when you look at a converted DDS file and compare it against its JPG (same quality) the DDS is worse, especially the lower the quality JPG you converted from. When you look at them in Photoshop a 512px JPG converted to DDS has many jaggies etc, where as if you convert a higher Res JPG like a 1024 it is significantly better but still detectable and a Hi-Res JPG of 2048px it is hardly noticeable until around 200x magnification.

Saying all that I couldn't notice much difference in quality when viewing a replay from MNR last week whether it was using W17 (JPEG's) or W21 (DDS). There was also little effect on performance as FPS was pretty much identical even thought the DDS files are usually 1.75 to 2 times bigger file size than its JPG's.
BTW LFS converts them to DXT1 DDS files for the geeks out there, which if I am not mistaken means they don't have alpha channels.

At this stage I will not be using patch W21, it is just not worth the effort until we know what is going to happen with skins & file types and the improvements are not substantial enough to warrant it imho.
It will be interesting to see what Scawen has planned & why LFS now uses DDS files, I guess it really is just to keep up to the current standard for graphics handling and allows some scope for improvements like reflections etc.
Can't wait to see

[keithano]

what the heck man, i said i blew it up for a size example the file size not the quality.

read first.

and yes i know im a graphics designer so yes i do know how it works

SO, I am saying that does not make sense. Cmon', self-claimed graphic designer and still talking like this...

[Hyperactive]

Has anyone thought that LFSworld actually only takes 1024 skins, with 400kb max limit? It isn't possible to upload bigger skins atm.. So there isn't really any reason to offer higher skins for download because there aren't any skins to download at that quality in the first place. And it would take quite a while to get to people to upload their 2048 skins anyway if such option was offered.

I haven't checked but can anyone even spot the difference between 2048 and 4096 skins in LFS? Not in skin viewer, but in LFS?

[szyszek]

I It really is no different than what we had before...

You should NOT be seeing skins from the skins_x or skins_y in your own browsable menu in the LFS garage.


Not really the same: We've been told by Scawen to leave all the other folders (other than "skins" that is) alone. Before, if I downloaded a skinpack for a "friend" team, I'd stick it in the "skins_x" folder. I saw the hi-res textures in the game, I didn't see them in my LFS garage menu.

But now, if I have to stick them in my "skins" folder (because as Scawen wrote - anything you'll put into "skins_x" manually will be ignored by LFS), I will have lots and lots of skins in my LFS garage menu which I won't PERSONALLY use.


Just claryfying my point :)

[tristancliffe]

attached a file,

4096x4096 and its 566kb

used the skin MRT_Repsol_Hayden and blew it up to 4096x4096 for a quick example that resolution doesnt nessasery mean huge file size.

it could be compressed 50 times more to even half the size without loosing 1 pixel of image quality from what it currently is if you have the right tools.

ok im offline :wave23d:

This post alone confirms that Lemon (for that is what he is) doesn't know what he's attempting to talk about. I find him very amusing. Can we give him an award for being so.... sweet and innocent?

[danowat]

Not really the same: We've been told by Scawen to leave all the other folders (other than "skins" that is) alone. Before, if I downloaded a skinpack for a "friend" team, I'd stick it in the "skins_x" folder. I saw the hi-res textures in the game, I didn't see them in my LFS garage menu.

But now, if I have to stick them in my "skins" folder (because as Scawen wrote - anything you'll put into "skins_x" manually will be ignored by LFS), I will have lots and lots of skins in my LFS garage menu which I won't PERSONALLY use.


Just claryfying my point :)

Thats how I understand it.

ALL jpeg skins, regardless of weather you plan to use them personally, or are just for hi-res multiplayer skins, must go in the skins folder, and therefore you can see them in the garage.

Personally, I think this is wrong, there NEEDS to be some segregation between multiplayer skins, and the skins you plan to use.

Also, I am assuming that any and all jpeg files in either skins, or skins_x can be removed AFTER conversion, as they are no longer required?.

TBH, all this seems rather more complex and painfull than it need to be, is there really that many people who require higher res multiplayer skins, that don't already do it the way I do? (download hi-res skins and place them in skins_x), I just wonder how this got to be priority for a patch, as it offers nothing we can't already do, increases bandwith, and messes with an already working system, AND you have to pay for it.

Unless there is more planned for the added features DDS gives you, but this doesnt seem to be the case because the DDS files are of lower quality than the given size in jpeg, and are DXT1 with no alpha.

I am perplexed by all this personally......

[AndreABG]

@Jimmy_Lemon: didn't u read the devs comments? It is very expansive to provide bandwith, maintainance and co for 1024x1024 - how can u say they should go to 2048 or 4096? Who should pay this? Also LfS should run on low end systems - this is also why High end users can go to extrem resolutions with 8xAA, 16xAF, Supersampling and all the stuff and this is enough for now I think - try a demo of GTR2 or so, in LfS I can run at 1600x1200 with all the stuff listed above, in GTR2 demo I must go down very far and it looks very very bad and its a mainstream 2007 "simulation" - so LfS takes a very good way in graphics/perfomance weighting

[tristancliffe]

Perhaps Scawen can make an extra folder?

skins <- your own!
skins_hi <- hi res ones that you want to see, but not have appear in the garage list
skins_dds <-- as current
skins_x <-- as current
skins_y <-- as current

Edit: How about a mode to allow 4096 skin downloads for Lemon? Just resize the 512 one to 4096 (it'll keep him happy!), and charge him £1 per skin for the process?

[JasonJ]

Not really the same: We've been told by Scawen to leave all the other folders (other than "skins" that is) alone. Before, if I downloaded a skinpack for a "friend" team, I'd stick it in the "skins_x" folder. I saw the hi-res textures in the game, I didn't see them in my LFS garage menu.

But now, if I have to stick them in my "skins" folder (because as Scawen wrote - anything you'll put into "skins_x" manually will be ignored by LFS), I will have lots and lots of skins in my LFS garage menu which I won't PERSONALLY use.


Just claryfying my point :)
Yep, I agree.

So, my guess is that if I want to SEE my mates Hi-Res skins (not to use them personally), I get him to send me the dds files from HIS skin_dds folder (created by his LFS locally), and put those into my Skin_x folder. (perhapse the skin_y folder since they are a higher-res (>512x512)

??? hows that ??? - Does that work ???

edit: 5 posts appeared.. haha

edit: Well maybe this wont work. The skin_y folder probably only likes 1024x1024 skins.. Nothin bigger..
So maybe I have only suggested a way to get High-Res Skins (1024) and save £1 .. hehe

edit: So maybe a skins_z folder for the 2048x2048 dds skins could be added to LFS? Then eventually if/when 2048 skins become downloadable, the folder is already there and being searched by LFS.
Perhapse if skins_y accepted skins 1024 and 2048 sized then the extra folder wont be neccessary.

edit: Well I tested it, you can put any friends (512 or 1024 or 2048) dds skins in skins_x and LFS still sees them and you can still see your buddies skins. Tested on DEMO so no skins were auto-downloaded. I just manually put them into skins_x and bingo I could see them.

[Shotglass]

how is a skin that is almost the whole resolution of your monitor "low res"

because the skins uv mapping does not mean youlll see the whole width of that skin on your screen ... although i doubt youll even see the difference at any reasonable distance between the camera and the car
as far as i myself am concerned i highly doubt id see the difference between 512 and 1024 while actually driving and im a high res user

oh and btw the next one to misuse the word bandwidth in this thread gets it

I haven't checked but can anyone even spot the difference between 2048 and 4096 skins in LFS? Not in skin viewer, but in LFS?

i guess if youre right up somebodys tailpipe (that sound thoroughly wrong in retrospect) with a 30" display you might see the difference for the second you have until you crash from being so close to your opponent that you cant see the track and concentrating on his skin rather than the little bit of information youd still get from not looking at his car

Not really the same: We've been told by Scawen to leave all the other folders (other than "skins" that is) alone. Before, if I downloaded a skinpack for a "friend" team, I'd stick it in the "skins_x" folder. I saw the hi-res textures in the game, I didn't see them in my LFS garage menu.

But now, if I have to stick them in my "skins" folder (because as Scawen wrote - anything you'll put into "skins_x" manually will be ignored by LFS), I will have lots and lots of skins in my LFS garage menu which I won't PERSONALLY use.


Just claryfying my point :)

well if you really really want to see them you could either manually convert them to dds or place them in your skin folder, start lfs, wait for lfs to convert them and manually copy them from skin_dds to skin_x
or alternatively you could wait for w22 which will probably have these issues resolved

[Kegetys]

Exactly how much easier for the system are DDS skins then compared to JPG? How significant the difference is?

DDS contains DXTC compressed surfaces. DXTC (or S3TC) is a form of compression your video card can handle with hardware, if you have a JPG/PNG/whatever texture it needs to be either recompressed to DXTC or sent to the card without compression. DXT1 without alpha channel gives you a compression ratio of 8:1, meaning the texture will take 1/8 of video memory than what an uncompressed texture would. While it is lossy compression, the saved memory is very well worth the image quality loss in most cases.

For example if you have 32 cars each with 2048x2048 32b textures, without compression those would require 512MB of video memory. With DXTC they only take 64MB. You could double the resolution with DXTC and it would still be half the size of the uncompressed ones.

DDS can also contain pregenerated mipmaps, for other formats they need to be generated every time the texture is loaded.

[flinty72]

Ok I will try to answer the where to put which skins question after I tested it all out today.

skins folder (the old one) is the one that contains your JPG skins, on bootup of W21 these are converted to DDS files and the new DDS files appear in the skins_dds folder. Once this conversion is done you can safely delete all the old JPG's skin files as LFS doesn't use them any longer. You can also put other JPG skin files in their to convert them to DDS if you have no other way of doing so.

skins_dds is the folder LFS now uses for skins you can select in your garage.

skin_x folder has your old JPG's 3rd party skins which do not get converted or are never used again. But this folder is where the LFSW skins are downloaded to as new DDS generated from the 512px car or 256 Helmet skins from LFSW.
So if you want to keep all you old downloaded skins working you need to convert all the old JPG's to DDS or just let LFS World download them next time you come accross that skin online.

skin_y folder, I could not get a skin to work from this folder regardless of it resolution, Scawen why is it so?

Hope that is clear enough and helps.

[Stang70Fastback]

I haven't read the whole thread Jimmy, BUT I also don't understand why you need such massive skins. I run LFS at a resolution of 2560x1024, and the only car I really car about seeing high-res skins on is MINE... in which case 2048x2048 works FINE. All I can say is that if you have time to NOTICE the terrible quality of the cars' skins around you, then you are not really racing. The only think I see when I'm racing are the tires/brake lights of the car in front of me... everything else is a blur.

Also, you talk about not just high-res skins. I also have those high-res texture packs... and those are high enough. Even on my massive screens the only think that gets blurry at any point is the road surface near the car... thats the only think I can complain about. I don't get what the big deal is. Plus using a skin that big for multiplayer is, in my mind, stupid if it forces everyone else to have to see that on their not-$5000-PC. If you want to use skins that are 239823232x239823232 while on single player, go ahead... but you're going to have to live with it on the public servers.

Just because someone owns a Bugatti Veyron doesn't mean that the highway speed limits should be raised to 253 mph... and that the roads should be resurfaced to be extra smooth, and the guardrails should be replaced with stronger ones, and the signs should be made bigger so you can see them at that speed, and.... get it?

[Ian.H]

The comparison I posted is a direct downloaded file from lfs using lfsworld not a conversion by me.

I've downloaded a freeware dds converter that does DXT3 and DXT5, should I try these? I only used DXT1 for my skins_x folder. The thing is now skins will taje up twice the space on the hardrive and still offer lower quality. If we could upload dds skins perhaps...

Never tried the converter, have always used the photoshop plugin, but DXT3 offers better quality than DXT1 (less compression), likewise for DXT5 although I think the _biggest_ difference you'll find between DXT1, 3 and 5 is the alpha channel. When I was doing stuff for rF, the main car skin was always saved in DXT3 format and the windows as DXT5 as 5 offers a smoother transparency shade range.

1024x1024 skins in DXT3 mode will be 1.33Mb, 2048x2048 will be 5.33Mb (don't think these filesizes are dependent on mipmaps).


I'll get the converter out again, it took 30minutes to convert 3500 jpgs, of about 200 were 2048res ones. I'll try DXT5 and see if theres much difference.

The absolute best AFAIK would be to use the RGB 8,8,8,8 mode rather than a DXT# method (don't now what options are available in the converter).. but this is likely to affect performance on lower-spec boxes.

Well there's not much difference between the lfsw dds and the one I just converted using DXT5, it's a little clearer but the file size is larger. I can put up with a larger file if it means better gameplay but I'd also like to see quality go up too.

Just had a thought about this... you're converting compressed JPGs to DDS, which will probably produce poorer results than saving direct as DXT#.

Attached a screenshot (screenshot used to prevent DDS->JPG further compression) of a skin in DDS format that I did for rF.. it's DXT3 at 1024x1024 saved directly from Photoshop and doesn't seem to include the artifacts, or at least not as bad :)

I've only learnt this much from working with DDS files in rF.. I'm certainly not an expert in this area :)



Regards,

Ian

[Electrik Kar]

DDS files sometimes have a problem with reds that are bumping sharply against blacks or whites- then you'll get a slight bleed effect that isn't too attractive. There's bound to be a lot of redish skins out there (as red makes you go faster) that will have problems when converted to dds.

Re- 4096 as a texture size. I'm sure sometime down the road- high-res will actually mean 4096 X 4096, rather than 1024 or 2048. Most of the new textures I'm making for Aston are in 2048, and in a couple of small cases, I wish I could bump them up to the next size. But I'm talking about big textures that cover lots of area- roads and grass mainly- and it wouldn't be such a problem if some of the track textures weren't so stretched out or scaled up in some places to allow for very broad areas to be covered. A car skin is displayed quite small ingame really- just observe the difference between a car texture and the road texture and how much distance they both need to cover- the point should be clearly made.

I do understand the logic of Jimmy's point that high-res for skins could be 2048, medium 1024 and low 512 (I'm speaking only in visual terms here, not about the practical problems of hosting larger files, which of course is of paramount importance). I don't really care about super clear skins at 2048, never race with that sized skin offline, but I imagine the difference would be noticable. That would make 1024 standard size and I think that's pretty acceptable- but I'm maybe looking forward into the future a bit too much. The currently discussed system is probably more than adequate. 4096 size textures for skins on the other hand just seems way overboard... almost grossly decadent. If you can tell the difference between a 2048 and a 4096 skin ingame, then you're pixel hunting rather than racing I'm afraid, no matter how big you're monitor is. :shrug:

[Ricou]

attached a file,

4096x4096 and its 566kb

used the skin MRT_Repsol_Hayden and blew it up to 4096x4096 for a quick example that resolution doesnt nessasery mean huge file size.

it could be compressed 50 times more to even half the size without loosing 1 pixel of image quality from what it currently is if you have the right tools.

ok im offline :wave23d:


You didn't understand that Woz was talking about the decompressed size of the image. In order to be viewed, a jpg image (as everything that is compressed) must be unpacked and stored in the memory of your graphic card. Just read again his post and if you have a brain, you should get it.

[Jimmy_Lemon]

how is a skin that is almost the whole resolution of your monitor "low res"

what the? i use 2560x1600 resolution :really: how is 1024 allmost the size? you insain? :razz:

[Electrik Kar]

If you could get hold of a 4096 skin, (pretty difficult in itself) you could try proving to us that it would somehow make a difference. A couple of ingame comparison shots- one at 2048, the other at 4096. Not whole screens, my god, but a good example of contrast. If this isn't possible, then we should assume that you're just spouting techno superiority over the rest of us, which isn't a very nice or mature thing to do...

[DEVIL 007]

ok.I am the one who rely a lot on how the graphic looks and I have tried difference between the 2048*2048 and 4096*4096 but to be honest there is almost none if you dont look at skin on car from like 20 centimeters in LFS.Come on... 4096*4096 is too much even for nice screenshots.

During the racing I cant notice different between the 1024 or 2048 version.

Regarding the track textures 4096 would be problem with some older graphic cards which just support 2048 texture resolution.Everything higher would be taxing them a lot and the file size for all higher(4096) textures would be insane.

Hopefully with the upcoming updates from Eric will give us an option to download higher version of textures alone with the standard resolution.I am hoping for the improvement mapping of the textures on the track too.Sometimes its a pain in the a** how its done now.Make it very complicated for modding the textures later.

Rgrds,
DEVIL 007

[Jakg]

what the? i use 2560x1600 resolution :really: how is 1024 allmost the size? you insain? :razz:2048 is though...

[Jimmy_Lemon]

yes i know, id most cirtanly pay £1 for 2048 textures infact id pay £1 for 1000 and £2 for 2000 if they was 2048, but i dont see the point for 1024 because 1024 is low in some peoples cases, im sure im not the only one who runs a high resolution

[AndreABG]

yes i know, id most cirtanly pay £1 for 2048 textures infact id pay £1 for 1000 and £2 for 2000 if they was 2048, but i dont see the point for 1024 because 1024 is low in some peoples cases, im sure im not the only one who runs a high resolution

some simple math: 2048 * 2048 = 2*1024 * 2*1024 = 4 * 1024*1024

;)

[Barroso]

hasn't anyone seen where this is going? dds textures will save memory, wich means we can possibly have more cars on track later on.

[duke_toaster]

512^2 is fine for me, 1024 is ok, but 2048 would be utter overkill. It's like UHDTV, it's a whole new stratosphere of pointless.

One of the best things about LFS is that you don't need to have NASA's hardware to run it.

[Boris Lozac]

hasn't anyone seen where this is going? dds textures will save memory, wich means we can possibly have more cars on track later on.

Yes, can't wait to test this, if it really works, than big thumbs up for Scawen! :thumb:
Have someone already tested this? What should we expect, less graphic card power = more FPS, and what about the glitch when someone leaves the garage, does this have influence on that? Is that lag less noticable now?

[Nathan_French_14]

me and jimmy both have the same machine roughly and i can see what he is saying. I would love to see his suggestion come into LFS because it would be great for us people with powerful machines, but on the other hand, i would like to see it kept as it is now due to quite a majority of people having low/medium spec machines.

Lets just wait and see what happens :)

Frenchy

[Electrik Kar]

I think higher textures would actually start to look pretty weird, and I'm talking about track textures now. I don't have a huge monolithic monitor in my lounge so I can hardly understand what you guys are talking about re: skins. But wouldn't you rather turn over some of that graphics power for the greater good of better modelling of cars/cockpits/more detailed tracks, etc.. before going all bananas with super duper textures? Add a dash of weather, more sophisticated car physics, a dynamic lighting system- and you've got yourself one hell of an entertainment. Sure, if we want to improve the gfx quality now- textures are basically the only avenue that the community can utilise to achieve that, but let's wait to see what Eric's got in store before demanding higher skins etc. As most people say- 1024 for skins is obviously enough, and simply upping that any further isn't going to compensate for the other things which are lacking right now.

[DEVIL 007]

hasn't anyone seen where this is going? dds textures will save memory, wich means we can possibly have more cars on track later on.
if you think that texture size is holding the number of the cars you are totally wrong.Think about it once more.3D engine,car physic etc.Its not mainly about textures size which with hires track textures still fit 3/4 into 128MB memory.

[Boris Lozac]

me and jimmy both have the same machine roughly and i can see what he is saying. I would love to see his suggestion come into LFS because it would be great for us people with powerful machines, but on the other hand, i would like to see it kept as it is now due to quite a majority of people having low/medium spec machines.

Lets just wait and see what happens :)

Frenchy

You guys still don't get the point now, do you...
Have you read previous posts, there is NO difference in 2048 and 4096, as i said, you can see everything on a 1024 skin as you can on a 2048 version, everything that matters, i don't have the chance to see if that NOS logo is with little "TM" or without it.. Don't you see the point? When you're racing, you don't notice it... Think about it, HARD...

Anuway, can anyone tell me is the "leaving the pits stutter" now less noticable then before?

[Rotary]

/me leaps some years into the future ...

Remember them silly quad core 3Ghz cpu and SLI 8xxx series - how anyone ever managed to play games on those snails is beyond me!

------------

Years ago people also used their pc's for gaming. Games weren't invented yesterday.
Not everybody has massive amounts of cash to spend on their pc. In fact there are many people who appreciate LFS being capable of running on their lower end system - dare I say the majority.

Unfortunately for many that is a thing of the past now with 32 cars... which isn't at all a bad thing, 32 cars is brillant and long awaited. Now to get the most out of my old PC to get frame rates back up... just can't afford an upgrade atm. Progress shouldn't be hindered by low end PC's though.

I think the skin idea is good. 1024 isn't all that high quality considering old games such as Operation Flashpoint have allowed the choice of 4096 textures if you wanted. However for bandwidth sake it's a good balance... 4096x4096 skins would cost a fortune, I dare say 1 pound wouldn't cover 2000, maybe 2... hehe.

[Gopher04]

Im a skinner have been for yonks, and want more visible detail, but there are far more important things to worry about in lfs than charging for the privilege of seeing detail more clearly..Devs are going in wrong direction here..

[danowat]

Im a skinner have been for yonks, and want more visible detail, but there are far more important things to worry about in lfs than charging for the privilege of seeing detail more clearly..Devs are going in wrong direction here..

Yup, I agree Mark, there ARE more worthy things, and I do wonder who decided that this (hi-res paid for texture downloads) was a) wanted by the majority of the community, and b) needed in the first place, as it offers nothing that we can't already do now.

[Electrik Kar]

Poor devs can't get a break. Seems like not so very long ago, all people really wanted was false starts and better class balancing. And now we've got it. Scawen keeps pointing out that all this stuff needs to be addressed at some point- but it seems like every patch or test patch, there are people who just aren't happy with what's going in. Let's try to keep our focus on the bigger picture, and realise that Scawen can't do everything at once- it'll be easier that way for all of us.

Not a personal attack or anything- just an observation of current trends in the forum. :shy:

[danowat]

Thats just the thing, this never NEEDED to be touched, I do think that this addition is a little out of touch with the community.

Put it like this, this skin addition adds NOTHING that we already could'nt do, makes adding hi-res skins downloaded by yourself for multiplayer purposes more difficult and complex than before, makes you pay if you want to download hi-res skins, and increases the devs bandwith, apart from the change to dds, which I agree, CAN be a good thing, it just perplexes me why this was added, and who decided it was worthwhile adding.

Take the RB4 model for example, ok, it's not a BAD model persay, but it has been with us without update for bloody ages, putting hi-res skins on that model is tant-amount to trying to polish a turd, it just aint working.

This is why I am confused, the devs don't have to answer to me, or anyone else, it's there sim, they have my money, they can do what they want, BUT I don't have to like it, and I have the right to say so, as long as it's done in a constructive manner.

I personally think this pay for hi-res skin idea should be dumped, allow us, as before, to add hi-res skins should we deem nessecary, but still keep the change to dds texture files.

You can't please all the people all the time, I am sure you know this, and I am sure the dev's know this.

[flinty72]

I had similar thinking on this pay for Hi-Res option.
But after sleeping on it, curiosity killed that cat today and I took the plunge and laid down some dough to see what all the fuss is about with this new Hi-Res download option available in test patch W21.

A couple of things before I get into telling you what I think.
1. You can only credit your account with a minimum of 3 pounds UK.
So that will get you 6000 skin downloads
2. make sure you enable the option in-game which is found under the options/misc menu half way down. The good thing is you can always set it to Low-Res downloads at any time, if you so choose.

Now what do I think, well I am pretty well converted.
Wow what a difference.
There is a number of reasons I feel this way now apart form the fact that the cars do look so much better.
1. Most car skins are around 680KB's which is a lot smaller than when I convert a 1024 or 2048 skin myself.
They tend to be 1-2.5MB if I do it ouch!
2. There is no mucking around with doing any of you own converting of JPG's
3. The whole issue of having Hi_Res skins with a filename that doesn't match the one on LFSW is now a thing of the past. So if ppl rename them when they upload to LFSW after you get the team skin pack you don't end up with duplicate skins with the Hi_Res one not ever being used
4. O.K the Hi-Res skins from LFSW are derived from 1024px JPG's which you say are not as good as having a 2048px skin but take a look at the screenshots below and make your own mind up on this point.
Particularly the shots of me & Davo side by side. My car is a 2048px converted JPG while Davo's is the one I got of LFSW (Hi_Res) option.
5. All the High_Res skins from LFSW go into you skins_y folder, while the Low_Res ones will come into you skin_x folder like it used to. Keeps them nicely separated.

Screenshots:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/213/494615953_22420b7e6b_o.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/220/494615971_717ad079c1_o.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/231/494615975_06fa444348_o.jpg

Leave it up to each of you but point 3 is worth considering imo.

[J.B.]

Has anyone made in-game screenshots for direct comparison of different skin texture sizes? I couldn't find any in this thread and am too lazy to make them myself right now.

[DEVIL 007]

I made one comparing 512,1024 and 2048.

The difference between the 512 and 1024 is huge but the 1024 to 2048 is small.4096 would be ihmo useless and I took the cars from quite close (extreme close)views.

Please use pictures from the link.I wasnt able to upload this files here.

http://www.home.karneval.cz/0222338601/test/

[flinty72]

I made one comparing 512,1024 and 2048.

The difference between the 512 and 1024 is huge but the 1024 to 2048 is small.4096 would be ihmo useless and I took the cars from quite close (extreme close)views.

Please use pictures from the link.I wasnt able to upload this files here.

http://www.home.karneval.cz/0222338601/test/

So are these DDS files that have been converted form JPG's (512,1024 & 2048px) using test patch W21?

If I am also interested to know what file size the DDS skin files are?
something like 300KB, 700KB then 2.5MB?

[DEVIL 007]

:doh: I have had turned on full resolution car&helmet skins and not the compressed version.

EDITED:
The link has now 2 versions.Once the not compressed files(512,1024,2048) and once when the compressed options is tunred on in LFS(512,1024,2048).

Same link:¨
http://www.home.karneval.cz/0222338601/test/

[J.B.]

Thanks, exactly what I was looking for.

Clearly, paying the devs for the 1024 versions will be money well spent. While the 2048 versions are visibly better still, I don't think they warrant using 4 times the bandwidth of 1024 versions. If LFS was a stand alone offline game then sure, go as high as you can, but since LFS has such a great auto skin download feature file size needs to be considered.

[Electrik Kar]

the change to dds, which I agree, CAN be a good thing

I'll admit I thought this was a mad idea at first. Increasing the file size along with a potential degradation in quality and then charging people for the extra bandwidth... :pillepall But Scawen's put forth his reasons here (http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=420214#post420214), and I'm more inclined now to think that this move can only be for the better. Now, with skins being downloaded beforehand- I can pretty much enjoy a 30 car online race without the lag associated with downloading all of those skins (hard to quantify but I'm sure it's there). It takes a minute to load 30 cars for me, but I'd rather wait a minute than let everything happen ingame. I definitely feel that the online experience is smoother due to this change (skins loading beforehand).

I also noticed a slight increase in the speed of loading AI skins in single player- obviously again due to the dds file format.

The only thing i'd possibly suggest for the new system is that any new cars coming into the race wait until the current race is over before loading in their skin. A generic skin that maybe signifies that the real skin hasn't loaded would work.

[STROBE]

Yup, I agree Mark, there ARE more worthy things, and I do wonder who decided that this (hi-res paid for texture downloads) was a) wanted by the majority of the community, and b) needed in the first place, as it offers nothing that we can't already do now.
I have to disagree almost entirely with your posts on this page, I'm afraid. :p I think the optional hi-res skin downloading is a great addition. We all know Scavier's preference for lo-res textures, but nowhere was this more painfully obvious than on cars using 512 skins.

It's true that you're not looking for rivets and little slogans on your rivals' cars when racing, but in the past I've found myself staring at the back of the car in front down a long straight and not even being able to read anything on the back of the car because it's all illegible due to the low resolution. It doesn't do anything for the immersion, and it makes LFS look old and cheap compared to the texture details in other games that are two or three years old, let alone modern day titles. 1024 car textures are extremely welcome, in my opinion.

Besides, it's optional. Those of you who don't want to use it, don't have to pay for it. When patch X is final I'll happily stick £3 from my paypal account onto LFS - and with the limited amount of time I have for LFS at the moment, 6000 skin downloads will probably last me a good few months. :)

[Jakg]

Ive dropped all of the hi-res skins from skins_x to skins so that LFS can take advantage of my hi-res skin collections, i've now get a 3.45 gb Skins_DDS folder and a 1.2 GB skins folder - can i delete the skins folder? my games partitions only got 200 mb free!

[wheel4hummer]

1024x1024 is what I consider high resolution. 2048x2048 is okay for people with 128MB of video ram or above, but it still uses too much disk space. When I am racing in LFS, I really don't care that they are 512x512. I am worrying to much about how I can be a little faster the next lap to pass them.

EDIT: I did some testing in the LFS viewer. Let me just say that 4096x4096 skins look horrible in LFS.

[Bob Smith]

Devil - looking at those screenies, I can see that 1024 skins are better when racing, or during replays. 2048 skins look really nice, but you're never going to notice the difference unless you're doing screenshots or renders (at which point they're essential). During racing you're just not going to be close enough to tell the difference.

[flinty72]

Ive dropped all of the hi-res skins from skins_x to skins so that LFS can take advantage of my hi-res skin collections, i've now get a 3.45 gb Skins_DDS folder and a 1.2 GB skins folder - can i delete the skins folder? my games partitions only got 200 mb free!
Jakg if you mean all the old JPG's in the skins file then yes you can delete them, once they have been converted to DDS files in the skins_dds folder the game no longer needs the JPG's. That is what I did - no problem :)

[wabbit]

This new feature has just worked so well. Its cheap, when in a server the download and converting process is so so quick.

I belive the whole changing from .jpg to .dds files is just the begining of what the Dev's are going for. I did a little research and found that with DDS files alot more can be done.

The whole hi-res option has made such a difference to the game, and its all done for cheaper than a pack of smokes :D

*edit*
Everything the Dev's are working on is leading to S3 (in the end). So these type of things will be need upgrading, to make LFS marketable for S3

[DEVIL 007]

Devil - looking at those screenies, I can see that 1024 skins are better when racing, or during replays. 2048 skins look really nice, but you're never going to notice the difference unless you're doing screenshots or renders (at which point they're essential). During racing you're just not going to be close enough to tell the difference.
I can completly agree.I just wanted to show the difference as some people were asking in this thread whats the difference.

As I said the jump from 512 to 1024 is really huge and 2048 is only nice for screenshot taking but nothing more.Maybe some close-up videos too.

Currently the DXT1 causes sometimes too much artifacts around the text and make blending in colour gradients thought:-(.

[bbman]

Jakg if you mean all the old JPG's in the skins file then yes you can delete them, once they have been converted to DDS files in the skins_dds folder the game no longer needs the JPG's. That is what I did - no problem :)

I'd be waiting until Patch X... If something changes until then, chances are all his skins are irreversibly lost...

[flinty72]

I'd be waiting until Patch X... If something changes until then, chances are all his skins are irreversibly lost...
Yes very true but mine are backed up as I have done what most guys do & have 2 copies of LFS, an official install and a test patch install.

[Jakg]

i didn't save these images...!

[flinty72]

i didn't save these images...!
I hope your only kidding Jakg, are they still in your recycle bin?
If so you can recover them from there.
Remember the golden rule "always backup before deleting".

Now remember you still have them but now they are DDS files, You could convert them back to JPG's, just not sure what quality/size the JPG will be but should work imo.

[Cue-Ball]

TBH, all this seems rather more complex and painfull than it need to be, is there really that many people who require higher res multiplayer skins, that don't already do it the way I do? (download hi-res skins and place them in skins_x), I just wonder how this got to be priority for a patch, as it offers nothing we can't already do, increases bandwith, and messes with an already working system, AND you have to pay for it.I totally agree that this has gotten out of hand and way more complex than it should be. However; I think it's gotten complex because of YOUR request.

Personally, I think it should be as it was before: the "skins" folder holds your own skins, which you use on your own cars. the "skins_x" folder (which really needs a new name, btw), should hold downloaded skins. If you want high res skins, you pay for it. You don't pay, you don't get high res skins. And that's it. If you want to have high res skins of your teammates, you pay for the high res skin option. Period.

[Hollywood]

LOL Tweak... anyways, that is one thing that would be nice to see is us go to DX9 and make use of some shaders, etc. But this is a racing sim, so its more about function over flash.

You still aren't understanding it Jimmy.
LFS still runs on DirectX 8.0, we don't have shaders and all that stuff you want your PC to have sex with, we can't get any better then this for the sake of performance and BANDWIDTH.

[Vilkacis]

I made one comparing 512,1024 and 2048.

The difference between the 512 and 1024 is huge but the 1024 to 2048 is small.4096 would be ihmo useless and I took the cars from quite close (extreme close)views.

Please use pictures from the link.I wasnt able to upload this files here.

http://www.home.karneval.cz/0222338601/test/

2048x2048 textures are clearly superior to the 1024 ... 1024 is maybe medium quality but clearly not high!

[DEVIL 007]

Not so much as 1024 to 512.

[LFSn00b]

2048 is resonable resolution 4096 is high resolution :really:I agree. :)

[tristancliffe]

You forgot to mirror your text when you put it on the other side.

[LFSn00b]

Lol, i'm not a drifternoob :razz:

[Vilkacis]

Not so much as 1024 to 512.

and where's your point?

[DEVIL 007]

The point is that the difference between 1024 and 2048 is not so big as between 512 and 1024 version of the skins.

2048 version doesnt make sense to be as selectable option to download.

[Vilkacis]

nope it depends which resolution you are driving. on a 30" TFTs with 2560x1600 you can clearly see a difference between 1024 and 2048, the same difference you see on your 19" between 512 and 1024 ;) 2048 should definitely be a choice! (make them 4x more expensive than 1024 and there's absolutely NO reason why this shouldn't be implemented ;) )

[dawesdust_12]

Lol, i'm not a drifternoob :razz:


Actually, you've done the drifter noob thing.


Looking at DEVIL's pictures though, 2048 looks damn fine compared to 1024, which still looks good. I do think that 1024 is good enough for online play, especially in 32 car layouts.

[XCNuse]

nope it depends which resolution you are driving. on a 30" TFTs with 2560x1600 you can clearly see a difference between 1024 and 2048, the same difference you see on your 19" between 512 and 1024 ;) 2048 should definitely be a choice! (make them 4x more expensive than 1024 and there's absolutely NO reason why this shouldn't be implemented ;) )
Because it would cost the devs way more than 4x it costs for them to support the bandwidth for 1024x skins.

It is absolutely pointless, if you want 2048x skins, then download them here on the forum where people upload them, and if you can't find it here, then politely ask the person using the skin if they have a 2048x skin and send it to you via email or msn or whatever.

The devs are giving us plenty with 512x autodownload skins, none of us had expected that to actually come into reality, and 1024x is way beyond, 2048x is just out of the question, it should not happen, it would cost way to much to support that, not to mention LFSW doesn't support 2048x skins, so not would everyone have to reupload their high res skins, it would cost the devs roughly 10x the costs for bandwidth, and plenty more for the hard drive space.

[qoncept]

So uh.. where do you go to pay for the high res skins?

[joen]

So uh.. where do you go to pay for the high res skins?

You can simply make a payment like you did when buying your S2 license. You can do this through http://www.lfsworld.net or http://www.lfs.net/?page=shop

Then set LFS to use high-res skins in LFS' options screen (somewhere in the graphics submenu), and the amount will be deducted from your LFS credit.

[Vilkacis]

Because it would cost the devs way more than 4x it costs for them to support the bandwidth for 1024x skins.

It is absolutely pointless, if you want 2048x skins, then download them here on the forum where people upload them, and if you can't find it here, then politely ask the person using the skin if they have a 2048x skin and send it to you via email or msn or whatever.

The devs are giving us plenty with 512x autodownload skins, none of us had expected that to actually come into reality, and 1024x is way beyond, 2048x is just out of the question, it should not happen, it would cost way to much to support that, not to mention LFSW doesn't support 2048x skins, so not would everyone have to reupload their high res skins, it would cost the devs roughly 10x the costs for bandwidth, and plenty more for the hard drive space.

2048x2048 jpg is 4 times larger than 1024x1024 - not 10 times :rolleyes:

[Gopher04]

Jeez, can't believe you lot are still gasing on about this..

[Fat-Alfie]

I know - lol

We used to play with 256 x 256 skins on 1nsane :nod: When you're racing offroad through canyons and forests, the last thing you're worried about is the sharpness of your opponents' logos

[Tomclark21]

I spent 25 minutes wasting away reading this.
So I'll mouth off a bit on my opinion:
I've got a 21 inch CRT from the 90's
I've got a 256 mb 6600GT second hand
I've got 1 gb of Ram

I've got no sympathy for Jimmy or the collective with "high end" things in their pockets....:really:

I disagree that we need to change any of this stuff.

How about changing the models to look a bit better, I'd enjoy seeing the suspension on free-wheel cars being connected to body a bit more realistically, maybe having the brake pads move in correspondence to the wheels.:shrug:

Jimmy, "I get over 100fps all the time" - isn't an arguing the case, the only thing it's proving is the narrow mindedness of youself.

This game is in ALPHA stage.
This game was initially release in 2001? Correct me if wrong.
This game isn't Forza "shiny" Sport.
This game isn't about looks.
This game is about the great feeling of driving you can only get,
with this game.:schwitz:

Imho...

[PaulC2K]

I spent 25 minutes wasting away reading this.
So I'll mouth off a bit on my opinion:
I've got a 21 inch CRT from the 90's
I've got a 256 mb 6600GT second hand
I've got 1 gb of Ram

I've got no sympathy for Jimmy or the collective with "high end" things in their pockets....:really:

I disagree that we need to change any of this stuff.

How about changing the models to look a bit better, I'd enjoy seeing the suspension on free-wheel cars being connected to body a bit more realistically, maybe having the brake pads move in correspondence to the wheels.:shrug:

Jimmy, "I get over 100fps all the time" - isn't an arguing the case, the only thing it's proving is the narrow mindedness of youself.

This game is in ALPHA stage.
This game was initially release in 2001? Correct me if wrong.
This game isn't Forza "shiny" Sport.
This game isn't about looks.
This game is about the great feeling of driving you can only get,
with this game.:schwitz:

Imho...
Why is it narrow minded to have your own opinion of things?
Why is it narrow minded for someone to want something that suits them (and anyone else wanting to take advantage of it) but its not narrow minded to be-little someone because its not what YOU want??
:shrug:
Surely thats narrow mindedness, to not care what others think because it doesnt line up with your own interests.

Personally ive always found the LFSW restrictions pretty stupid. They allow 1024x1024 skins upto 400kb in filesize, and im betting most people can make a 2048x2048 skin of solid quality at 500kb. Now fair enough thats still 100kb more, but were talking about 4 times more pixels, and it certainly isnt the hilariously claimed 10x more mentioned earlier thats for sure.

OX
XX

O= Original 1024, X = extra 1024 width and height
looks to me like its 4x, and in reality its less than 4 and probably closer to 2-2.5 with the way the files are structured to compress data.


Also, in this new patch its nice to be asked if we want the high-res skins and a warning that they cost money, i only realised the other week that i've been paying for all the crappy skins i've downloaded assuming they were on 512 settings. Now, whether ive somehow changed a setting along the way or not i dont know, but its annoying having lost a quid for something unknowingly, and then to add insult its now overwriting them with the crappy 512 versions!! So much for paying for them, does this mean im getting a refund seeing as they're being taken away from me? :really:
Im left with the choice of losing the 1024 skins ive accidently paid to download, or forced to continue paying for them. Surely they shouldnt be overwrote if the skin already exists :shrug:

Im not fussed over the quid, there's been £12 in there for years and its now down to 10.999999999999997 thanks to premium pubstats and now skins, Im going to have to add at least £3 (in 2025 :razz:) for S3 but the fact that having accidently purchased the right to download them, they're now being taken away from me just seems a bit wrong.

[Scawen]

...and then to add insult its now overwriting them with the crappy 512 versions!! So much for paying for them, does this mean im getting a refund seeing as they're being taken away from me? :really:
Im left with the choice of losing the 1024 skins ive accidently paid to download, or forced to continue paying for them. Surely they shouldnt be overwrote if the skin already exists :shrug:

Im not fussed over the quid, there's been £12 in there for years and its now down to 10.999999999999997 thanks to premium pubstats and now skins, Im going to have to add at least £3 (in 2025 :razz:) for S3 but the fact that having accidently purchased the right to download them, they're now being taken away from me just seems a bit wrong.What evidence do you have for this?

Seeing as the low res skins are stored in a separate folder "skins_x" from the high res skins "skins_y" I don't see how they could be overwritten.

This is the first time I've ever heard of this bug, and I suspect you are just assuming they are being overwritten, without checking.

[PaulC2K]

Well, i base this off the fact that as soon i go to watch MoE replays ive watched a few times over its had to download 30+ skins. I had to redo a couple of screenshots last week as i somehow lost the psd file and the image needed minor editing, so out came lfs and fraps and as soon as i started to load up the replay its immediately downloading skins again. Unless this is now refusing to let me USE the hi-res skins i've 'paid' to download with my hi-res credits i never wanted in the first place, and now im being given crappy 512 skins as well, i dont know, however I know ive viewed those skins before, havent touched the files, and now then its downloading low-res versions which im seeing in the game despite possibly having high-res ones.

Deleting them or refusing to let me use them, thats seems to be what its doing, i've lost credits to get them, but because i dont want to continue handing out credits to view other random peoples so-so skins it doesnt appear to let me view those i already have.

This comes from 2-3 MoE replays, i dont do random public server racing, thankfully, but i've participated and watched these races from start to finish at least once and i suspect all 3 were whilst having hi-res downloads enabled.

Seeing as your reading, did i at some point click on 1024 skins, or was that the default option in X Patch?



Added attachment:
skins_x > FXR_FusionMOE_r3.dds > 171KB > Dated 28/11/2007 02:03
skins_y > FXR_FusionMOE_r3.dds > 683KB > Dated 25/11/2007 01:05

Can say the same for the files located above this skin in both folders, and im sure many more. I have 2 versions, the date clearly shows i have the high-res version available to me BEFORE the low-res version comes along... why do i need the low res when i've lost credits to download the hi-res. I've 'paid' for it, but seemingly because i dont wish to continue 'buying' others it means i seemingly lose the right to use them.

So fair enough, its not deleting them, but its certainly not letting me view the files i have lost credits (and money) to view.

[J.B.]

Get over yourself. First you demand the skin bandwidth to be at least quadrupled then you can't stop whining about the few pennies you lost for accidentally downloading skins that are 4 times as good as the standard skins.

[chunkyracer]

I´m at work so I can´t open LFS, so this is just a guess of what´s happening. You had the option to use 1024 skins enabled, so when you´re going to watch the replay it would look for the skins in the skins_y
folder. But since you change the option to use 512 skins, when you try to watch the same replay, it´ll look for the skins in the skins_x folder, and since they weren´t there, LFS downloaded the low res skins...
Like I said before this is just a guess, but I do think it has some logic considering how the skin folders are organised.

[PaulC2K]

Get over yourself. First you demand the skin bandwidth to be at least quadrupled then you can't stop whining about the few pennies you lost for accidentally downloading skins that are 4 times as good as the standard skins.

HAHA, says demo guy who's racked up almost 1000 posts but wont shell out for a license?? :smileypulDo you feel like a big boy now you've put the world straight, mummy will be proud :nod:
Thanks for your helpful contribution to the discussion, it was very thought provoking. I particularly liked the bit where you took the time to read what was said, and contributed to the thread rather than just reading 2 words, coming to your own conclusion, and then make completely unhelpful and inaccurate statements about them.


It wouldnt be quadruple it'd be far from it and certainly not the 10x some idiots are proclaiming it would be. I save our teams skins at 70-80% quality and that hits ~500kb, so were talking 4 times better quality, for about 25-50% extra bandwidth, how that is 400% or 1000% some clueless people are using is beyond me.
I never 'demanded' anything, so get your facts straight!
The truely high-res skins could cost double, who here has said anything about it being free or replacing the current system??
Also I never even said i'd use it, i probably wouldnt because as ive already said i have no interest in paying to download peoples random skins, i'll settle for their crappy skins looking crappy in 512 size just fine, however i think you'll find my points still stand as being valid unlike idiots like yourself who have nothing to contribute and just want to mouth off. This subject has peices that dont interest me in the slightest, but it doesnt mean i have to ignore the stupidity of some comments when its plainly obvious.

Secondly:
I've already said on multiple occasions im not arsed about it taking a quid ffs, but the fact that it took it unknowingly isnt right, something they've now fixed by putting in a message warning you they're going to take your money with consent. My issue is with having paid for something and now being unable to use it because i dont wish to download other hi-res skins.

So when you've finished not reading peoples posts and done insulting people because of your own ignorance, have a good day.



chunkyracer:
Yeah, thats the conclusion ive come to now, but what i dont understand is why it wont let me use them, in theory it should do it in 4 steps:
> own skins folder
> hi-res folder
> low-res folder
> ask if you want to download it
That doesnt happen right now for some bizarre reason, either intentionally or accidentally, its not letting you use the files you have available to you, and that was the reason for posting about them, i have them available to me, ive lost skin credits in order to have them, but LFS doesnt let me use them presumably because i've said i no longer wish to *download* hi-res skins. It lets me view my own personal hi-res skins, but not those ive downloaded, whats the difference??
1 option might be to copy all the hi-res files into the low-res and see how it handles that, but you shouldnt have to do that.

[ajp71]

i know they was low be for and it wont kill me using them low still but i run 2560x1600 resolution and there seems to be no graphical updates for higher resolution stuff for us high end users. :(

I don't know whether you're trying to come across as arrogant, but you certainly do to me. I've recently upgraded from a P4 2.8ghz/9600 Pro to E6750/8800GT SC, faster than that prehistoric GTS thing you use I might add. One of the things I did was turned on the high res skin downloads. I think LFS looks beautiful on full details but I honestly can't say I've noticed the skins at all when racing, the only thing that bothers me is when skins bleed on cockpit edges, and they do that regardless of what resolution they are so I always ensure my skins have block colours on the edges you look at all the time.


it should be 1 pound for 2048 textures and 1024 and 512 should be free cause there low >.<

They don't cost money for the sake of it, they cost money because it isn't free to maintain a server. If you want to download high-res skins you'll have to be prepared to pay for it, logically £1 would buy you 500 2048x2048 skins.

HAHA, says demo guy who's racked up almost 1000 posts but wont shell out for a license?? :smileypulDo you feel like a big boy now you've put the world straight, mummy will be proud :nod:

JB has a license but posts under a different name. To enable 1024 skin downloads normally you'd have to click on the option in the menu screen and be greeted with a full screen of text about them warning you it cost money, my guess is you either clicked without reading (most likely) or possibly downloaded a config file from someone else who had them enabled (unlikely).

[mrodgers]

I find it ironic that just yesterday someone said "Next someone will be having a go at JB for being a demo user". And now, this is the 2nd time I've seen someone "have a go" at JB for being a demo user since yesterday. :D

[PaulC2K]

Well, i've definately not selected 1024 skins myself, nobody else uses the computer, and i hardly think my friends who play LFS on & off would have bothered messing with my settings, and having just downloaded X from scratch and see the warning message i can definately say i've never seen it before yesterday (which is why i mentioned it being a nice addition in my first post). At the same time, i dont recall ever swapping config files with anyone, i've had 5x >200gb HDDs in my computer for a good few years (now upto 7) and keep most things well backed up, the fact that until a few weeks back I had replays from 2005 (auto-save) tells me i've never accidently deleted it or lost it in a format.
So i dont know how i ended up downloading the hi-res skins, ive never been interested in them in the slightest, if they were free then sure, otherwise i'll download those i actually care to see in detail (series skins) from this forum.

Okay, so its not deleting the high-res skins but it is ignoring them, somehow the childproof lock on hi-res skins was unlocked without my knowledge and ive inadvertently ended up buying skin credits, i have over 1000 left (had about 11xx when i first spotted it when checking pubstat credits), however i dont wish to continue downloading them purely because i dont wish to keep having £1 taken for skins i care very little about, but would at least like to continue using the ones i have got as i can still use 50% of them in the remaining series rounds. But the problems is, how do i do so?


As for bertie big bollax, i though folks with S2 and using a demo forum account were supposed to report this to the moderators to get it corrected/deleted seeing as your not allowed multiple accounts? :shrug:

[chunkyracer]

chunkyracer:
Yeah, thats the conclusion ive come to now, but what i dont understand is why it wont let me use them, in theory it should do it in 4 steps:
> own skins folder
> hi-res folder
> low-res folder
> ask if you want to download it
That doesnt happen right now for some bizarre reason, either intentionally or accidentally, its not letting you use the files you have available to you, and that was the reason for posting about them, i have them available to me, ive lost skin credits in order to have them, but LFS doesnt let me use them presumably because i've said i no longer wish to *download* hi-res skins. It lets me view my own personal hi-res skins, but not those ive downloaded, whats the difference??
1 option might be to copy all the hi-res files into the low-res and see how it handles that, but you shouldnt have to do that.
In theory you´re right, and I agree that that´s the way LFS should behave, so even if you decide not to use 1024 skins anymore, you'll still use the ones that you already have. But there should be another option,because, for example, if you´re having problems with your computer you may not want to use any 1024 skins, even if you already have them. So there should be a way that you can decide one of 3 diferent options:

- always use and download 512 skins ( even if you have 1024 skins in the skins_y folder)
- use and download 512 skins, but using 1024 skins if you have them in your skins_y folder
- always use and download 1024 skins

[Tomclark21]

Originally Posted by PaulC2K
Why is it narrow minded to have your own opinion of things?
Why is it narrow minded for someone to want something that suits them (and anyone else wanting to take advantage of it) but its not narrow minded to be-little someone because its not what YOU want??

You have a fair statement but I did say "in my Opinion" at the end. It is narrow minded to say he gets a great frame rate at with that resolution and not think of who doesn't until he is reminded of people who aren't in his "High End" gaming majority belittling people like me who don't have that. I don't want to offend anyone, they are my thoughts.

Originally Posted by PaulC2K
HAHA, says demo guy who's racked up almost 1000 posts but wont shell out for a license?? Do you feel like a big boy now you've put the world straight, mummy will be proud

Thats belittling someone...Don't you think?

[JasonJ]

For the problem when you turn off hi-res skin downloading:

For a workaround until this is rectified, have you tried copying all the Skins_Y (1024) files into the Skins_X folder and saying [yes] to file replace? (Remember always backup first before experimenting)

The only problem I can see is that if the creator uploads a newer version then it will overwrite the 1024 version when you encounter them online. But you need the lastest version anyway incase it's drastically different.

Apologies if this doesn't work, I'm just offering a suggestion I haven't actually tried this out.

[PaulC2K]

You have a fair statement but I did say "in my Opinion" at the end. It is narrow minded to say he gets a great frame rate at with that resolution and not think of who doesn't until he is reminded of people who aren't in his "High End" gaming majority belittling people like me who don't have that. I don't want to offend anyone, they are my thoughts.
I dont think he was bragging, simply putting in a request for the ability to 'trade' higher resolution skins. I wouldnt say its a peice of p*** to implement it, but its not as complicated or as resource sucking as people are claiming it to be, and to those who understand it its quite offensive when people make things up as they go along as a reason something shouldnt be done. If they werent ill-educated guesses and assumptions then their comments could be perfectly valid, instead they're nonsense being touted as fact, it's like saying a 6 speed gearbox makes a car 50% faster than if it has a 4 speed. What i dont get though is the fact that people with what *they* seem to feel is inferior are the ones who dont want things implementing that they cannot use/appreciate. AFAIK nobody is asking for DX10 because they've splashed £1k on SLi'ing 8800 Ultra's, but the implication is that they're demanding the dev team to cater to them, when its really nothing of the sort. If they made 10240x10240 sized textures available, nobody is forced to use them, but anyone who really wished to could, and in cases where it doesnt do anyone any harm and any extra cost for its use was recouped in a similar manner to the current methods, then i dont think its doing any harm asking if it can be implemented.

Thats belittling someone...Don't you think?Certainly, that was my intention, if someones going to go out of their way to be ignorant and insulting they can at least check they're facts first, particularly if it was aimed at me.
A misunderstanding is one thing, not even bothering to check you understand the comment is another.

[Tomclark21]

I dont think he was bragging, simply putting in a request for the ability to 'trade' higher resolution skins.

Enough said, fair enough.

You don't have to prove a point to me I do understand, but I disagree with what he said and now what your saying. I've read this thread.

Don't argue with me I'm not getting at you. Do you want me to pull up X-amount of Quotes from what Jimmy said?

Read the first Page of this Thread. Count how many times he thinks about anyone with non recent hardware in his language. If he didn't mean it that way he should of typed something different.

because in reality lfs isnt "high quality" shadder and effects game like most so i dont get why people complain about "oh iv got no FPS", well its obviouse they wont if they dont spend a few bob and get a half decent pc, because there trying to run a game on a low end pc which actually works, if they tryed running a high image quality game on the same pc it would kill it

[PaulC2K]

hmm, okay, i'd only read the previous page to this thread starting up again (pg3/4), and the only comment i'd seen wasnt particularly unreasonable.
If he's being an ass, then he's being an ass, but as i said the allowance of those willing/able to take a higher quality texture or skin doesnt harm anyone, if it criples some peoples computers then they shouldnt use them, they wouldnt enable AA/AF & other settings if they had low frames already, so shouldnt pay extra for even higher res skins unless they were a little bonkers deep down. So okay he was being an ass in the way he's putting forward his point, but the actual idea isnt as stupid or idiotic as its being put across thanks to his insulting comments about those with lower spec machines.

[SamH]

As for bertie big bollax, i though folks with S2 and using a demo forum account were supposed to report this to the moderators to get it corrected/deleted seeing as your not allowed multiple accounts? :shrug:
If "bertie big bollax" is directed at J.B, then I'll explain. J.B has been an LFSer since before the LFS licence and the forum name were connected. I believe he's one of LFS's earliest licenced drivers.

By arrangement with the Devs, J.B posts using the demo account because that's the name he became known with (different from his licence name), way back when on RSC, before LFS migrated to its own forum from there.

[PaulC2K]

so why not bump bertie up?
I thought that was the point of people 'grassing' up demo folk who dared to so much as mention a licence car ;)

[Tomclark21]

Fair enough I'd like to see a Higher Texture option..I'd defiantly enable it on less populated servers :scratchch:thumb:

[Knight_Atack]

I've skipped a few pages, but...

i think 512 should be low...
1024 medium...
and 2048 high...

...it should be 1 pound for 2048 textures and 1024 and 512 should be free cause there low >.<

I second this part. I would probably put a few pounds in to get 2048, but never for 1024, because they are rather low.

4086 is very high and nice, but hard on resources for older PCs, I don't think we need to go there yet. I've tried a few 4086 test skins and my PC lagged just loading them.

But I vote for downloadable 2048.

[RAYfighter]

I know - lol

We used to play with 256 x 256 skins on 1nsane :nod: When you're racing offroad through canyons and forests, the last thing you're worried about is the sharpness of your opponents' logos
It's completely different when you can showoff your new skin after the race here. I still drive only your cars on 1nsane though! :thumb:

[JO53PHS]

/me leaps some years into the future ...

Remember them silly quad core 3Ghz cpu and SLI 8xxx series - how anyone ever managed to play games on those snails is beyond me!

------------

Years ago people also used their pc's for gaming. Games weren't invented yesterday.
Not everybody has massive amounts of cash to spend on their pc. In fact there are many people who appreciate LFS being capable of running on their lower end system - dare I say the majority.

I like LFS because its the only game on my PC that runs really smoothly all the time - barely any loading times or lag/skippyness (you know what I mean)

+1 for LFS :D

[migf1]

TBH, I do notice a bit of a differenece between 1024 and 2048 skins, although not while racing (mostly when watching replays and/or videos).

Regarding bandwidth, 2048 jpgs can be compressed enough so they don't exceed the 400kb limit on LFSW and they still look crispier than their (much less compressed) 1024 counterparts. So bandwidth isn't a problem with 2048 skins. But they would cause an fps problem if what was said earlier in this thread is true: that skins get decompressed in gfx card's memory so they can be rendered (is this indeed true?)

I'm attaching a rar file containing two screenshots from the CMX Viewer. I saved them in bmp format so they don't get compressed at all (compare for example the tow handle in the front). I'm also attaching the 2 skins, the 2048 being 396kb and the 1024 being 377kb.

[boosterfire]

I dunno about others, but I skin in 2048, then I switch to 1024 because lfsworld asks me to do it. The only reason I skin in 2048, tho, is for me to have my own skins in higher resolution, because... well that's the important bit, I really couldn't be bothered to have that guy's car 50 yards away in higher-awesome resolution...

[Bluebird B B]

I would like toe see 1024x1024 would be the low-resolution skins.

2048 and 4096 are indeed very high resolutions, it is hard to see the difference on small monitors and probably only usefull for people with 30 inch monitors.

My own system has no problem at all with high resolutions, but i don' t like to pay extra to get up-do-date graphics. Maybe high resoultion will be reserved for s3 and stay an option in s2? :shrug:

[GloryJ]

I haven't read everything but at least one person wants 4096x4096 skins. I think you only need such a high resolution for big render images. I don't really see a difference between 2048x2048 and 4096x4096 ingame :shrug:

>> 4096x4096 skin file << (http://mitglied.lycos.de/gloryj0810/lfs/4096/BF1_GloryJ001.png)

[Flame CZE]

LFS allows to use max. 2048x2048 textures i think

[dawesdust_12]

Actually, it'd be GFX card limiting it at 4096, with only newer ones making it bigger than that.

[Bluebird B B]

I haven't read everything but at least one person wants 4096x4096 skins. I think you only need such a high resolution for big render images. I don't really see a difference between 2048x2048 and 4096x4096 ingame :shrug:

>> 4096x4096 skin file << (http://mitglied.lycos.de/gloryj0810/lfs/4096/BF1_GloryJ001.png)

Nice, it doens't fit on my 27 inch montior, have to scroll around.
2048x2048 should be enough for everybody :scratchch

[gezmoor]

Ok, I must be really dumb or something because there is one thing I really don't understand about this whole debate.

How big are the images of the cars on your screens??

What is the point of creating a skin that has fine details on it when seen at full size (ie the size of your 19/20/22" monitor etc) when the car it's going to be on is only going to cover maybe 4 or 5 inches of your screen size max in game??

Simple fact. You are NOT going to be able to see the fine details once the skin is on the car in game because your eyes, (and monitor for that matter), simply don't have the resolution.

Oh and before anyone pipes up with a comment about 50" TVs being used, just go check out the resolution they have. There isn't a single TV on the market that has a resolution anywhere near as high as 2048x2048 let alone anything bigger, even the latest "full HD" spec models.

So forget about all the other arguments about PC spec, Bandwidth, storage space etc, they are completely irrelevant. You can't see the extra detail, end of story. So skins that size are pointless.

Sorry if this has been mentioned already, but I only read halfway through the thread.

[Gil07]

Have you ever tried using a 2048^2 skin ingame? If you have, you must have eye-problems to not notice the difference from 512^2 or even 1024^2.

[gezmoor]

Have you ever tried using a 2048^2 skin ingame? If you have, you must have eye-problems to not notice the difference from 512^2 or even 1024^2.


I'm refering to the request for 4096x4096 res skins.

To be honest, I've never bothered paying for 1024 res skins because I've never noticed any significant issue with the standard skins on line. I'm not saying I can't tell the difference because the differences are clear from the various attachments in this thread. I'm just stating that I've never been bothered by the quality of the standard skins whilst I was racing.

I'm only running a 17" monitor on 1152x864. But people with bigger screens don't have better resolution than that anyway. This is how it works:

Assuming a standard aspect ratio of 4:3. Screen size is the diagonal measurement which on a 4:3 screen is a classic 3:4:5 right angled triangle. So a 17" diagonal screen has physical dimentions of 13.6 "x 10.2" (wxh), given a desktop size of 1152x864 this works out to 84.7 pixels per inch. Making the same calculations for 19" you need a desktop size of 1287x965 to have better resolution. Given that nearly all 19" monitors have native resolutions of 1280x960 you can see that a 19" screen doesn't allow you to see anything smaller than a 17" screen will. ie something that is 10x10 pixels on a 17" screen will be exactly the same size physically on a 19" screen, (for the resolutions stated).

Using a higher resolution desktop on the 19" will actually make the 10x10 pixel box physically smaller not bigger. To make it bigger, you need to use a lower resolution desktop, which makes using higher res skins pointless as then you loose the game play area.

Which brings me back to my original point. There comes a point where your eyes, (and your monitor), just don't have the resolving power to see anything smaller.

So like I asked, just how big are the monitors that the people are using that claim they need 4096 skins, and what resolution are they running at?


ps- resolution in terms of monitor terminoligy is a misnomer. The native resolution, (as in the limits of how small a pixel is physicaly), of the screens are all basically the same, some are just physically larger so allow you to display a larger desktop area.

pps - nothing wrong with my eyesight. With corrected vision, I have 106% acuity as determined by my optician, (20/20 is defined as 100%).

[Toddshooter]

I agree with the above post by gezmoor.

I see it all the time with cameras to and Megapixels!
Bigger is not always better:shrug: Be it Pixel size or Pen$* size:D . Size is not the only thing that matters.:shy:
A nice clear sharp image at 1024 is not going to be any different in game than a 40 000000 pixel image. Unless your monitor has astronomical proportions.
The only thing it will do is let you tell your boyfriends or girlfriends that yours is bigger.:smileypul

[Gil07]

I agree with the above post by gezmoor.

I see it all the time with cameras to and Megapixels!
Bigger is not always better:shrug: Be it Pixel size or Pen$* size:D . Size is not the only thing that matters.:shy:
A nice clear sharp image at 1024 is not going to be any different in game than a 40 000000 pixel image. Unless your monitor has astronomical proportions.
The only thing it will do is let you tell your boyfriends or girlfriends that yours is bigger.:smileypul

Although I agree that 4096x4096 is just over the top, there definitely IS a big difference between how a 1024x1024 and a 2048x2048 skin looks ingame.

[SamH]

Although I agree that 4096x4096 is just over the top, there definitely IS a big difference between how a 1024x1024 and a 2048x2048 skin looks ingame.
Hmm.. ingame or inscreenshot? I think if I were to spend the time to notice the differences between 1024 and 2048 skins while actually using LFS for racing, I'd be back to spectating in notimeflat.

[Gil07]

Ingame. That's the kind of things I notice while racing :D

[PaulC2K]

The thing is, theres 1 or 2 idiots demanding the moon and the stars, and theres a handful of people requesting something quite sensible, and yet everyone insists on arguing with the morons and claiming its crazy, yet conveniently ignoring the valid points.

4096 is stupid, at least with current technology.
2048 is easily possible, is unarguably clearer than 1024, can be easily compressed to fit existing limits (400kb) without any damaging effect, and has been the norm for skin makers for the last 2-3 years.


Some will argue 'you should be focusing on driving not worrying about pretty skins', but why? What difference does it make, if you cant/wont tell the difference then does it harm you any? Your not being forced to download even higher res skins. The arguement which nobody has yet been able to answer is WHY NOT. It doesnt harm anyone, it doesnt cost more to provide it, its easy to make a significantly clearer looking 2048 skin within the limits of LFSW's 1024@400kb limits, so why cant these be used if people want to use them, it certainly makes 'Hi Res Skins' accurate, seeing as 1024 is hardly that.

So sod the idiots who want 4096, ignore them like every idiot who asks for Ferrari's and the ring in LFS, the thread got started on the request of 2048 skins and very few people have exceeded that, yet plenty of people are latching onto that as a reason why its stupid... but frankly, what harm does it do to anyone if they allowed 4096 skins anyway? Is anyones gaming experience destroyed by what someone else see's? If theres an actual negative reason for something being implemented, then i'd expect people to point it out for the good of the game, however when people argue against something because it doesnt suit them, then i'd class them as bigger muppets than those wanting 4096 skins, the might want something unrealistic, but at least they have reason for their request rather than what seems to be nothing short of envy or being single minded.

[Toddshooter]

The thing is, theres 1 or 2 idiots demanding the moon and the stars, and theres a handful of people requesting something quite sensible, and yet everyone insists on arguing with the morons and claiming its crazy, yet conveniently ignoring the valid points.

4096 is stupid, at least with current technology.
2048 is easily possible, is unarguably clearer than 1024, can be easily compressed to fit existing limits (400kb) without any damaging effect, and has been the norm for skin makers for the last 2-3 years.


Some will argue 'you should be focusing on driving not worrying about pretty skins', but why? What difference does it make, if you cant/wont tell the difference then does it harm you any? Your not being forced to download even higher res skins. The arguement which nobody has yet been able to answer is WHY NOT. It doesnt harm anyone, it doesnt cost more to provide it, its easy to make a significantly clearer looking 2048 skin within the limits of LFSW's 1024@400kb limits, so why cant these be used if people want to use them, it certainly makes 'Hi Res Skins' accurate, seeing as 1024 is hardly that.

So sod the idiots who want 4096, ignore them like every idiot who asks for Ferrari's and the ring in LFS, the thread got started on the request of 2048 skins and very few people have exceeded that, yet plenty of people are latching onto that as a reason why its stupid... but frankly, what harm does it do to anyone if they allowed 4096 skins anyway? Is anyones gaming experience destroyed by what someone else see's? If theres an actual negative reason for something being implemented, then i'd expect people to point it out for the good of the game, however when people argue against something because it doesnt suit them, then i'd class them as bigger muppets than those wanting 4096 skins, the might want something unrealistic, but at least they have reason for their request rather than what seems to be nothing short of envy or being single minded.

WOW!!

Say that again with some feelin:D:D

[Bluebird B B]

@gezmoor (http://www.lfsforum.net/member.php?u=172580)

Something is not correct.
According to what you tell, a texture of 256x256 will look very small on my screen when being close. What really happens, it gets blown up making it a blurry image.

There is only one possible solution to this problem, higher resolution/bigger textures.

I have a 27 inch monitor, and i do notice blurry textures everytime a car is nearby. 1024x1024 would already be a lot better. But that costs money :D

It is true, smal monitors need small textures..
But 19 inch?? small for today's standards.

[ATHome]

But 19 inch?? small for today's standards.

No. I guess its the average size of todays computer screens.:really:

[Snake2]

I am using a 28 inch screen. Max res is 1660x2024. Thats almost HD. :D

[jasonmatthews]

Paul, I totally agree with you. I think the same argument goes for when people say why have better graphics/sound overall when it will affect their fps. You just have the option to turn extra effects, hires skins, surround sound etc off just like as in any other game on the PC. But people still argue against it, I just don't get it....

[Electrik Kar]

In regards to monitor size/resolution demands for textures... since upgrading my monitor to a 24inch screen this year I've felt less affected by the lower res textures in LFS than when I was using a 17inch monitor, and I'm actually curious as to why that is. I admit that it's probably just a better quality monitor in general (also better gfx card) but I do notice less pixelation on textures, it doesn't bother me as much for some reason.

(more screen real estate so the eye relaxes more and isn't so focused on details?) :shrug:

[wien]

Well a lot of textures got a resolution bump along with the South City update, so maybe that's what's throwing you? A better gfx card could also do a lot to improve the look of the textures. The older GeForces (5, 6, 7) were rather poor at texture filtering for instance.

[Electrik Kar]

Heh, well it's just a funny observation, when I was expecting more pixelation due to larger monitor size, I seem to get less. I'll just put it down to better quality system componenets all round I guess. I'm aware which textures were updated in the last patch, and which weren't, so it's not that. It's just... stange.

I'm still in favour of higher res textures, they do make some difference, but the difference doesn't seem to be as impactful as it was on my older monitor/system.