PREVIEW: Earthnight 128 k !

[Don. Edwards]

Fightspit,
I am afraid it just doesn't work the way you think it does. Buy increasing the size of an image you are adding more pixels but you are also blurring the image and so it gives a false sense detail. All your scheme will do is let you get closer to the Earth before you start seeing individual pixels.
If you take a 16k texture and enlarge it to 32k it doesn?€™t give you detail an image would have if it were scaled down from 64k. The image will be blurry and essentially have the same detail as the 32k but from a slightly greater distance. Your plan is simply a waste of system and video ram. So if the texture was say, a 16k than leave it 16k. You are not really making 128k textures and trying to convince anyone here in the forum is just not going to fly. The only way to have a real 128k texture is to have the raw data at that size or larger and at present there just isn't any data for our use. Trust me I know what I am talking about here. I make Earth textures and sell them for professional use and this is just not the way to do it.

Don. Edwards

[t00fri]

But, if you reduced the second picture as the first, there are more detail than the first .

Please go on thinking!! In the bigger picture, each original pixel is essentially doubled!

Where do you suppose the computer program gets the information from, how the details in the girl's face look like? Like is she smiling or not, does she have good teeth? How is her skin? etc.

Are you really believing that you can generate this lacking information by
mere computer manipulations in Photoshop??


Bye Fridger

[Fightspit]

But, if you reduced the second picture as the first, there are more detail than the first .

Please go on thinking!! In the bigger picture, each original pixel is essentially doubled!

Where do you suppose the computer program gets the information from, how the details in the girl's face look like? Like is she smiling or not, does she have good teeth? How is her skin? etc.

Are you really believing that you can generate this lacking information by
mere computer manipulations in Photoshop??


Bye Fridger

I am un little bad in english , I don't know if i understand what you say but if you take two picture 20x20 cm but one has the double size than the other one, we can say that the one (double size) is more detailed than the other. You understand ?

[Fightspit]

Fightspit,
I am afraid it just doesn't work the way you think it does. Buy increasing the size of an image you are adding more pixels but you are also blurring the image and so it gives a false sense detail. All your scheme will do is let you get closer to the Earth before you start seeing individual pixels.
If you take a 16k texture and enlarge it to 32k it doesn?€™t give you detail an image would have if it were scaled down from 64k. The image will be blurry and essentially have the same detail as the 32k but from a slightly greater distance. Your plan is simply a waste of system and video ram. So if the texture was say, a 16k than leave it 16k. You are not really making 128k textures and trying to convince anyone here in the forum is just not going to fly. The only way to have a real 128k texture is to have the raw data at that size or larger and at present there just isn't any data for our use. Trust me I know what I am talking about here. I make Earth textures and sell them for professional use and this is just not the way to do it.

Don. Edwards

Ok, I ever say it is the first time that I do the Add-on and i think I will follow youradvise.
Thank you

Oups sorry, it is the time to go to work !
Bye! ( we will met at 21h00)

[Fightspit]

Hello again, I have just a question for Toofri or Don. Edwards:

Is it better to do three levels (0 to 2) with 2048x2048 picture' size or
5 levels (0 to 4) with 512x 512 ?


Bye.

[t00fri]

Hello again, I have just a question for Toofri or Don. Edwards:

Is it better to do three levels (0 to 2) with 2048x2048 picture' size or
5 levels (0 to 4) with 512x 512 ?


Bye.

From the resulting image quality the result is identical. The main differences come from the loading speed of your harddisk and also your CPU speed. For a fast HD (ATA>=100, >50MB/s loading speed) it is best to settle for 1-2k sized tiles. For slower drives/CPU's 0.5k tiles are preferable.

For my system, P4 3.2 GHz, 3GB CL2 RAM, HD<=> 58 MB/sec, 1k x 1k tiles are best. But 2kx2k is also OK.
It also depends on what image format you are using. DDS is loaded & decoded very fast (hardware supported!). Also it depends whether you use a number of overlay tiles ( base texture, normal map, night lights, clouds, ...). I recommend in this case to use the /same size/ for all tiles involved. Again 1k x 1k is a very good compromise for fast compis like yours.



Bye Fridger

[danielj]

Why are you so concentrated in creating an addon that only works in monster computers?It??s no use.It??s an addon for just 2 people.While that,the saturnian moon textures are waiting and several other things can be made before trying such things.We still don??t have even a 64 k VT night texture.Such one should work in my new computer and in most of the computers??users.
It??s just because now you have 512 MB of video RAM and you would like to play with it?

[t00fri]

Why are you so concentrated in creating an addon that only works in monster computers?It??s no use.It??s an addon for just 2 people.While that,the saturnian moon textures are waiting and several other things can be made before trying such things.We still don??t have even a 64 k VT night texture.Such one should work in my new computer and in most of the computers??users.
It??s just because now you have 512 MB of video RAM and you would like to play with it?

To whom are you talking?

As concerns myself, I spend my time for what I like.

Since I have a very fast computer I might give monster textures the highest priority. I have always told you to learn doing something useful yourself. Then you cease depending on others . ...and it's fun.

That's the way I work, too. By the way you tend to learn a lot this way .

Bye Fridger

[Fightspit]

Hello again, I have just a question for Toofri or Don. Edwards:

Is it better to do three levels (0 to 2) with 2048x2048 picture' size or
5 levels (0 to 4) with 512x 512 ?


Bye.

From the resulting image quality the result is identical. The main differences come from the loading speed of your harddisk and also your CPU speed. For a fast HD (ATA>=100, >50MB/s loading speed) it is best to settle for 1-2k sized tiles. For slower drives/CPU's 0.5k tiles are preferable.

For my system, P4 3.2 GHz, 3GB CL2 RAM, HD<=> 58 MB/sec, 1k x 1k tiles are best. But 2kx2k is also OK.
It also depends on what image format you are using. DDS is loaded & decoded very fast (hardware supported!). Also it depends whether you use a number of overlay tiles ( base texture, normal map, night lights, clouds, ...). I recommend in this case to use the /same size/ for all tiles involved. Again 1k x 1k is a very good compromise for fast compis like yours.



Bye Fridger

I use the png, it is good about the color than the dds ?

If you want i can upload my creation.
Bye.

[danielj]

To both of you,that have an Athlon FX-55,2 GB of RAM and Geforce 6800 Ultra 256 MB in SLI.You are talking alone in this topic,because it??s a too ambitious addon.If such computers will be the standard for Celestia users,maybe I will give up because I can??t afford these?
To whom are you talking? [/quote]

[t00fri]

...
I use the png, it is good about the color than the dds ?

PNG is excellent since it is a lossless format (unlike DDS, JPEG,...). But is way slower than DDS! The quality of PNG textures is unbeatable, notably as to normal/bump maps that have to be particularly smooth and noiseless!

If you want i can upload my creation.
Bye.

Not really Go on practicing for a while ...

Bye Fridger

[Fightspit]

To both of you,that have an Athlon FX-55,2 GB of RAM and Geforce 6800 Ultra 256 MB in SLI.You are talking alone in this topic,because it??s a too ambitious addon.If such computers will be the standard for Celestia users,maybe I will give up because I can??t afford these?
To whom are you talking?

[/quote]


Before, i have ,in 1999 or 2000, a Intel P3 1ghz and 256 mo ram with geforce 2 but it is not the fastest but one of fastest computer

[Fightspit]

...
I use the png, it is good about the color than the dds ?

PNG is excellent since it is a lossless format (unlike DDS, JPEG,...). But is way slower than DDS! The quality of PNG textures is unbeatable, notably as to normal/bump maps that have to be particularly smooth and noiseless!

If you want i can upload my creation.
Bye.

Not really Go on practicing for a while ...

Bye Fridger

Ok, i use my "addon" for my computer but if anyone is interested, i can upload it.

Bye.


Oh no..., it is 22h00 in France and I have to go sleep because i have some exams
Good night !

[t00fri]

To both of you,that have an Athlon FX-55,2 GB of RAM and Geforce 6800 Ultra 256 MB in SLI.You are talking alone in this topic,because it??s a too ambitious addon.If such computers will be the standard for Celestia users,maybe I will give up because I can??t afford these?
To whom are you talking?

Daniel,

I know that you are a bit "hyperactive" and thus generically impatient (as you told us). So I stopped getting upset about your "style of writing" You are (most probably) young and have good prerequisites to learn. You are also a member of this community since quite a while and certainly very interested!

How can I manage to get you into some productivity?

You will certainly enjoy it. But for some reason you never get around doing anything yourself that might be useful for the Celestia community. You just keep complaining that others are not working hard enough for you

Change your attitude a bit and you will certainly like it!

Make a fresh start tomorrow

Bye Fridger

[t00fri]

...
Oh no..., it is 22h00 in France and I have to go sleep because i have some exams
Good night !

D'accord

Bonnes r??ves...