[jhb_airlines] Re: FSX Ninja Rant

  • From: "Bones" <bones@xxxxxxx>
  • To: <jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 18:31:55 -0000

FS9 was limited to a texture resolution of 4.3m/pixel. As Mally said right
from the start he could have given us textures to the same quality as the
original GetMapping data but it was pointless. He reduced quality, not
because it made any visual difference but to drop file sizes down to
reasonable levels.

My guess is that the new textures would look exactly the same in FS9 as the
old ones - maybe worse because less care has been taken by GenX in making
the textures good quality (some have distinct colour casts to them). As to
why they don't run in FS9 I'd suggest filenames aren't to the FS9 world grid
or maybe the bitmap format is unsupported.

bones

-----Original Message-----
From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gerry Winskill
Sent: 01 December 2006 17:32
To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: FSX Ninja Rant


I've tried adding it to FS9 but, with VFR AIO disabled, only Default
textures to be seen. Being thick, I still can't see why I can't see, if
you can see what I mean.

Gerry Winskill

Gerry Winskill wrote:

> But, if you have a fully working Horizon Generation X on it, then it's
> justified just as the medium for the photoscenery.
>
> Which, being thick, prompts me to ask why it can't be run on FS9? I
> can see FS9 might not be able to display the higher res mesh, but I've
> disabled that, anyway.
>
> Gerry Winskill
>
>> FSX in 3 Words?
>>
>> Sweet and Sour....
>> Kevin
>>
>> More and more you are giving me reasons, for not wasting my money on
>> FSX.
>>
>> I am still of a opinion, to stick with FS9, until the dust clears, in
>> fact, Linux and Xplane is beginning to look a better option.
>>
>
>
>
>
>




Other related posts: