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.

Quote from PaulC2K :

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?

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.

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

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

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

Quote from Jimmy_Lemon :

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.

Quote from Fat-Alfie :

I know - lol

We used to play with 256 x 256 skins on 1nsane 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!

Quote from Victor :

/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

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.

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...

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?

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

>> 4096x4096 skin file <<

LFS allows to use max. 2048x2048 textures i think

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

Quote from 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

>> 4096x4096 skin file <<

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

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.

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.

Quote from 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.

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%).

I agree with the above post by gezmoor.

I see it all the time with cameras to and Megapixels!
Bigger is not always better Be it Pixel size or Pen$* size . Size is not the only thing that matters.
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.

Quote from 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 Be it Pixel size or Pen$* size . Size is not the only thing that matters.
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.

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.

Quote from Gil07 :

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.

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

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.

Quote from 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.

WOW!!

Say that again with some feelin

@gezmoor

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

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

Quote from Bluebird B B :

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

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