Quote from Galthar :

if u don't know how to post images on forum then please don't do it.

If you don't know how to use the internet, please stay off it..

If images are ENABLED not DISABLED in your options.. it will work.

Maybe its a problem with http headers, as the browser expects a image/jpeg content-type but gets text/html due to htaccess mod_rewrite?
However, the links dont look like this, its just a query string with the filename...

ah however... let me suggest throwing away those thumbnails and using simple links instead

:smash3d:

Just a test.Texture is 2048*2048.Affect on FPS is 0%.

Quote from DEVIL 007 :

Just a test.Texture is 2048*2048.Affect on FPS is 0%.

quite cool, maybe just a bit too rough?
mind sharing that?

Quote from DEVIL 007 :

Just a test.Texture is 2048*2048.Affect on FPS is 0%.

amazing!!! i also did few tests on aston (because it's the most recently updated) creating new textures from scratch (less than a minute with the crappy gimp) mostly at 1024*1024, i had quite good results: mostly the side near the white line was much better, the center of track was only slightly better than originals....but guy you clearly spent some time to do that and let me say you achieved a very professional result especially for the "consumed effect" of the white lines

even i concluded that the FPS is affected for 0% (even at 2048) i tried also at work with a crappy compaq with very crappy graphic card (i think it's the crappiest in the whole world )

to be honest i have to say that Eric did a masterpiece work for optimization -> it's not so easy to achieve a better result at 1024 compared with 512 eric's textures, so again here we are not blaming lfs in any way, we only hope to have the possibility to get out the most from lfs for PC's that can stand more resolution.

Devil, let me make my complients again, i hope you will continue with this amazing work

Quote from Honey :

amazing!!! i also did few tests on aston (because it's the most recently updated) creating new textures from scratch (less than a minute with the crappy gimp) mostly at 1024*1024, i had quite good results: mostly the side near the white line was much better, the center of track was only slightly better than originals....but guy you clearly spent some time to do that and let me say you achieved a very professional result especially for the "consumed effect" of the white lines

even i concluded that the FPS is affected for 0% (even at 2048) i tried also at work with a crappy compaq with very crappy graphic card (i think it's the crappiest in the whole world )

to be honest i have to say that Eric did a masterpiece work for optimization -> it's not so easy to achieve a better result at 1024 compared with 512 eric's textures, so again here we are not blaming lfs in any way, we only hope to have the possibility to get out the most from lfs for PC's that can stand more resolution.

Devil, let me make my complients again, i hope you will continue with this amazing work

I only used a texture(only a part from the orginal one)from someone but I cant share it the moment.I asked him if I would be allowed to use it in LFS so I am waiting for his feedback.
The texture is pretty hard,yes but the orginal was even more so I had to exposure it.
What I dont like on the orginal texture that there is a bit lacking the sense of speed as the texture a bit very plain(maybe effect of low-res).With this texture you feel the speed really much better.
I am thinking about going collecting more textures and try to re-textures some of the track.It will be pretty hard work as th etextures are used on track a bit in "random" way but Eric made it on purpose so the track doesnt look everywhere same.

Quote from DEVIL 007 :

Just a test.Texture is 2048*2048.Affect on FPS is 0%.

thought that was rfactor for a second!

yep that looks good devil, hope you'll get his permission.

I agree that the new road texture looks good. The flaws make it look more real - not perfect. My only criticism would be that it looks too "big". As if it's made of boulders, not small pebbles. I wonder how big each tile is in-game, and how big the photo is that was used for the texture? In other words, is the picture of a 2'x2' area while the texture in-game represents a 10'x10' area?

REALLY nice work there. Can't wait for the pack to be released.

Quote from Cue-Ball :

I agree that the new road texture looks good. The flaws make it look more real - not perfect. My only criticism would be that it looks too "big". As if it's made of boulders, not small pebbles. I wonder how big each tile is in-game, and how big the photo is that was used for the texture? In other words, is the picture of a 2'x2' area while the texture in-game represents a 10'x10' area?

Yeah it has me wondering too. You know, that texture looks quite good, but I agree that is needs to be 'finer'. It looks a lot like a downtown city street to me... and a trail of tar dripping from a roofing truck

But the quality is great, and I am very certain that many of us around here have the ability to make some quality texture packs... it just takes a while, and some good seamless textures are not exactly easy to find or make.

I really like that texture DEVIL 007

Me too.
Hopefully you will be right to share it soon DEVIL007?

Geez, that does look good!

Quote from vox-ace :

Me too.
Hopefully you will be right to share it soon DEVIL007?

Unfortunately not

I have 2 issues:

1) There might be texture copyright issue with the texture and I am trying to working on this
2) This texture is only on the part of the track as LFS use some "random" texture layed on the track so not only 1 texture is use for whole track.
I need to collect some more textures but it will take some time to make something good looking and consistent.

It was just more a test to this topic to show that LFS can looks better and its worth it.
I am very busy in my job so I am deciding if I should work on this or not.I will try to do my best to make it happend.

I did some test in photoshop with unsharp mask on a roadtexture, just to see what happent.

unsharp mask:
amount 50%
radius 3.2 pixels
threshold 0 levels

what u think?


edit... maybe I overdid it
I notice that theres a slightly purple tone in the original texturefile.

I like it

Huge change, that is.

Quote from BWX232 :

:smash3d:

That was helpfull thank u and apologize for my rude behaviour

i think it looks good bo, maybe you should work on it further?

Quote from felplacerad :

i think it looks good bo, maybe you should work on it further?

Ive been testing variuos sharp and unsharp edits on all A and B files so far,
and it looks so great. walls etc really looks great with some gentle sharpen.
- only one thing... DONT do it on the tree dds files.
u will mess up the alpha/mapping thingie.
..or maybe its just me who have wrong "save dds" settings.

Trees need careful transparency control.. very easy to get black outlines and the likes around them.. but it may have just been the wrong DX mode. DX3 or DX5 might work ok

I just threw in some tarmac on FE that I did for a track I'm building.. needs edges sorted to blend with the grass and there's a visible mipmap horizontal line that needs to be sorted, but a quick test

Texture size remains the same at 1024x1024. Excuse some of the anisotropy blurring.. I've screwed my settings up in rivatuner again.





Regards,

Ian

looks nice. I want it . The track you are building is for?

Quote from bo-kristiansen :

I did some test in photoshop with unsharp mask on a roadtexture, just to see what happent.

unsharp mask:
amount 50%
radius 3.2 pixels
threshold 0 levels

what u think?


edit... maybe I overdid it
I notice that theres a slightly purple tone in the original texturefile.

cool sounds like the way to go . Does it work on all expect trees? Looks like day to nigh difference to me