FSX USA Ground Textures (All Parts). Modified Ground Textures for the USA parts 1-8. Most of the freeware add-on aircraft and scenery packages in our file. Freeware, forums, community; it all comes together at AVSIM. License: Freeware. License: Freeware. This is a new set of ground textures for FS2004. This set is available in three qualities: 256x256, 512x512, 1024x1024 pixels.
Flight Simulator: Scenery: Replacement Textures FS-Tree 2004 5-Dec-2005 Design: Oscar Lima Golf Version: 2.0 Description: Replacement trees. For FS2002, FS2004 (1,1 MB) 7044 downloads FS2002 Replacement textures 13-Dec-2001 Design: Lennart Arvidsson Version: 1.0 Description: Replacement textures for FS2002. Recommended for Europe, Alaska, Canada and New Zealand.
For FS2002 (29,7 MB) 9988 downloads FS2004 Glacier, crevasses, perpetual snow replacement textures 9-Oct-2004 Design: Eric Guichard Version: 1.0 Description: Glacier, crevasses, perpetual snow replacement terrain textures. For FS2004 (1,3 MB) 7720 downloads Lennart's FS2004 Replacement Textures Part 4, Spring Textures 19-Dec-2004 Design: Lennart Arvidsson Version: 1.0 Description: New replacement ground textures for FS2004. Includes all seasons (each season has own download file!). Designed to cover Europe and certain parts of North America and New Zealand. Package has 6 parts. For FS2004 (7,5 MB) 9347 downloads Lennart's FS2004 Replacement Textures Part 1, TextureSwitch Program 7-Jan-2005 Design: Lennart Arvidsson Version: 1.0 Description: New replacement ground textures for FS2004. Includes all seasons (each season has own download file!).
Designed to cover Europe and certain parts of North America and New Zealand. Package has 6 parts.
For FS2004 (355 kB) 10930 downloads (4 kB) (1,6 MB) Lennart's FS2004 Replacement Textures Part 3, Fall Textures 19-Dec-2004 Design: Lennart Arvidsson Version: 1.0 Description: New replacement ground textures for FS2004. Includes all seasons (each season has own download file!). Designed to cover Europe and certain parts of North America and New Zealand.
Package has 6 parts. For FS2004 (8,3 MB) 9833 downloads Lennart's FS2004 Replacement Textures Part 6, Hard Winter Textures 19-Dec-2004 Design: Lennart Arvidsson Version: 1.0 Description: New replacement ground textures for FS2004. Includes all seasons (each season has own download file!).
![Ground Ground](http://avsimrus.com/file_images/123/img60957_3.jpg)
Designed to cover Europe and certain parts of North America and New Zealand. Package has 6 parts. For FS2004 (10,7 MB) 9281 downloads Lennart's FS2004 Replacement Textures Part 2, Summer Textures 19-Dec-2004 Design: Lennart Arvidsson Version: 1.0 Description: New replacement ground textures for FS2004. Includes all seasons (each season has own download file!). Designed to cover Europe and certain parts of North America and New Zealand. Package has 6 parts. For FS2004 (35 MB) 10810 downloads Lennart's FS2004 Replacement Textures Part 5, Winter Textures 19-Dec-2004 Design: Lennart Arvidsson Version: 1.0 Description: New replacement ground textures for FS2004.
Includes all seasons (each season has own download file!). Designed to cover Europe and certain parts of North America and New Zealand. Package has 6 parts.
For FS2004 (9,4 MB) 8509 downloads New roof texture 9-Feb-2013 Design: FISD / Tatu Kantomaa Version: 1.0 Description: New building roof texture for replacement to the default texture. Makes buildings look more like real Finnish buildings. For FS2004 (155 kB) 2360 downloads Replacement Road Textures 6-Jul-2003 Design: Bernd Junge Version: 1.0 Description: Replacement of the default FS2002 roads and highway day textures. For FS2002 (366 kB) 5042 downloads Replacement trees 23-Feb-2002 Design: Mikko Maliniemi Version: 1.0 Description: Replacement trees to match Finnish landscape. For FS2002 (339 kB) 4275 downloads Resized 32-bit cloud textures 11-Aug-2005 Design: Antti Pohjanpalo Version: 1.0 Description: Resized 32-bit (2D and 3D) default cloud textures. Smaller filesize for better FPS.
For FS2004 (1,7 MB) 5052 downloads Resized DXT3 cloud textures 19-Aug-2005 Design: Antti Pohjanpalo Version: 1.0 Description: Resized DXT3 (2D and 3D) default cloud textures. Smaller filesize for better FPS. Use this texture set, if you are able to run FS with 'Render to texture' -option activated (on some add-on programs, this option will cause problems). You will get better FPS with this texture set than my 32-bit cloud set, and much better than with FS default set. For FS2004 (858 kB) 5446 downloads Tinytrees 26-Jun-2003 Design: Tommi Liukkonen Version: 0.1 Description: Replacement textures for autogen-trees. For FS2002 (846 kB) 6312 downloads:::: Replacement Textures.
Since we were making tremendous headway in the other thread on this subject ( FS9 is STILL the #1 flight simulator for 'heavy' operations!), I'd like to continue the discussion here. It seems some have found with great success how to get more out of the ground scenery than we once thought was possible. This is the last major evolution FS9 needs to insure it stands the test of time going into the future. It will give a decent alternative to FSX until Microsoft get's their head out of their you know what. This WOULD be the holy grail for FS9, if only the rumor was true. The generic ground textures we're talking about here, have a maximum size of 256x256 pixels and only those sitting on the FS9 source code could change that. Sure, you can start with higer res textures and resize them down to 256x256 and try whatever to make them as sharp as possible, but they're still low resolution.
Wouldn't it be great though if we got a final service pack for FS9 that gave us this. If I read the other thread correctly you can use a resolution higher than 256x256. Something in the 1024 range. All I care about at this point is city textures, everything else looks fine to me. I think this thread should be closed as once again false information is spread and some people just don't seem to want to accept and/or understand the limits of FS9. The screenshots clearly shows no difference in RESOLUTION.
They are better looking, sure, but thats only because they are better pictures of rock. I read the thread over at FSDeveloper and JRobinson explains everything very well with proof to boot. You are reducing the performance and wasting diskspace using 1024x1024 landclass textures as only mip 256 and downwards will be used. It's perfecly ok to reduce higher resolution textures for FS9, but reduce them to 256x256 dxt1 with mipmaps and you'll have the best possible result without wasting diskspace and resources.
I think this thread should be closed as once again false information is spread and some people just don't seem to want to accept and/or understand the limits of FS9. The screenshots clearly shows no difference in RESOLUTION. They are better looking, sure, but thats only because they are better pictures of rock. I read the thread over at FSDeveloper and JRobinson explains everything very well with proof to boot. You are reducing the performance and wasting diskspace using 1024x1024 landclass textures as only mip 256 and downwards will be used.
It's perfecly ok to reduce higher resolution textures for FS9, but reduce them to 256x256 dxt1 with mipmaps and you'll have the best possible result without wasting diskspace and resources. I have to say I agree with Neumanix about the screenshots, I see no difference in resolution, I see different textures, hence my question above.
I don't think it is the resizing that is changing things, I think it is just different textures that happen to look better. It's not false information.
Like I said over there, I jus picked a tile that said 1024 and used that. And yes.they're better looking. That's the whole point! So if somebody re-did ALL the world textures in the same way, what would you have?
A FAR better fs9 over default.and even BETTER in some respects to FSX default. (Yes for some thing I've compared) Hang on.somebody already HAS done it.just not sure on the legality.yet. Jon, I have to say again that I don't think it is the resizing that is making them look better, I think it is that they were better textures to begin with. I see no difference in resolution, just better textures. So I think the point here is being missed. It is not 1024 v 256 it is how to you take a 'better' texture at 4096 or 1024 and make it work at 256x256.
Just my opinion. Downsampling (reducing size) preserves the image quality the best it can. You have more information than you need to begin with so to speak. So going from 1024 - 256 or 4096 - 256 or 8192 - 256 will look the same. Upsampling (increasing size) can never preserve the image quality as you have less information to begin with.
This is basic digital image knowledge. So regarding the landclass textures, you have 256x256 = 65536 pixels to be creative with. You can have a blurry image or a sharp image, bad looking rock or better looking rock, but all within the limitation of 256x256 pixels.
A little about mipmaps. A mipmapped texture contains several different resolutions of the same image in the same file. Maybe it has 7 levels and is 1024x1024 in size.
Then the first level is the full res (1024x1024), the second 512x512, the third 256x256, the fourth 128x128, the fifth 64xz64, the sixth 32x32, and the last 16x16 pixels. The texture switches to the lower levels the further in the distance the texture is displayed. Now since FS9's landclass can only show 256x256 and downwards, the first two levels (the largest ones that take up video memory and load slower) are skipped altogether. Do yourself a favour and do the resizing again, this time straight to 256x256 dxt1 with mipmaps and you'll see the same result.
John, Have you compared your downsized textures using 256 x 256 against 1024. As I have explained to you (and have many others, it would seem) this is the technical question at hand. Great, if it looks better, but the 'bloat' factor is enormous if you are using textures 16x greater in size than they will display. To prove your point: two screenshots: One with new texture resized 4096 to 1024 One with new texture resized 4096 to 256 Easy! The contention (JimR and others) is that you will see NO difference.
If the 1024 textures look better, then your point is proven. I don't think anyone is disputing that working from a higher resolution master gives a better result(the recording industry has been doing this for many years with sound!). This is a result of sampling itself.
But I think it is quite a stretch to say that you'll see a benefit from markedly 'oversized' textures compared with the end product. Of course, I have never denied that. All I want people to understand is to not bloat their FS9 with higher resolution textures than needed. Why load a 683KB 1024 dxt1 when all you need is a 43KB 256 dxt1 to get the same quality.
You make some great points but for the life of me I don't understand why 'PeterPan's' screenshots were deleted in the other thread concerning this subject. One could see clearly what 'Jonaus' is trying to say here.
'Jonaus' your not going to win this argument with the rock shots your posting. The shots I saw in the other thread would silence even the most hardened of these FSX nay-sayers. Post some different shots of your FS9 setup where you've converted textures to put to rest the objections once and for all, a picture says a thousand words.:Nerd. I see a difference but not sure why. Slightly red on 256. Not such a bad thing. The difference is because you now have control of the sampling algorithm, color adjustment, and sharpening procedure in PhotoShop rather than leaving it to your Dx converter to haphazardly generate a 256px mip from your 1024px texture.
To simplify, if you resize your textures to 256px from the start in PS you'll see the same thing in the sim that you see in PhotoShop (or at least if you don't like what you see in the sim you can compensate directly in PhotoShop with another try). If you resize to 1024 you'll still only see only 256px in the sim, but you've now relinquished control of the 256px mip level to a directX compliant exporter program (DXTBmp, Imagetool, etc) that thinks it's generating a low quality mip that's only going to be visible from a long distance away. It therefore doesn't place high priority on a quality size reduction and doesn't do any sharpening like you can manually do yourself in PhotoShop. You should use that to your advantage.