Flag question...

[Daze]

It's normal that in my KSP works a flag which is about 2500x1600 pixels?

[The-Bean]

Nope, just you. You're special.

[Daze]

So funny and so helpful, really.

I asked this because in every 3d that i've seen everyone says that the flag must be 256x160 or it won't work

[Murph]

It's kinda pointless using a flag as large as that in general. Mostly just a waste of texture memory for little to no benefit. There's really just no point in using textures which are significantly larger than the screen area that they take up when viewed under normal circumstances, even if they work ok.

[Galileo Kerbonaut]

I'll give it a go... last thing that I do in 0.22 (Although I have a feeling it ain't gonna work)

EDIT: I gave it a quick try and it does work. But yeah, it is not really smart to use.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Galileo Kerbonaut

[blizzy78]

It's kinda pointless using a flag as large as that in general. Mostly just a waste of texture memory for little to no benefit.

This. What exactly is the point of this thread? If it works, good for you. But it doesn't really make sense.

[Daze]

1) Bigger image result in bigger resolution ingame, if i scale the big image it will become very weird...

2) The point is that: Can i be sure that in next update this will works?

[blizzy78]

2) The point is that: Can i be sure that in next update this will works?

No.

/10chars

[Daze]

Thanks (10characters)

[Murph]

1) Bigger image result in bigger resolution ingame, if i scale the big image it will become very weird...

No, it doesn't, not under reasonably normal circumstances. There's a fixed number of pixels on your screen. If you're displaying a flag as part of a normal scene within KSP, it's not going to be taking up anything remotely close to 2500x1600 physical pixels (unless you're on some sort of cinema-sized, megabucks, zillion pixel screen and GPU). I'd estimate that you'd need about a 12000x8000 pixel screen and graphics card before that size of flag was actually worthwhile, and that would probably cost over US$100,000, if not vastly more. The largest worthwhile size is approximately the physical pixel size (slightly larger is ok, massively larger is entirely pointless and wasteful, gaining little to no benefit).

Image resolution is always strictly capped by the physical devices rendering the image. There are anti-aliasing technologies, and similar, which can approximate virtual pixels slightly beyond the physical, but ultimately pixels are discrete physical units.

2) The point is that: Can i be sure that in next update this will works?

Probably not, since it's unreasonably large, way beyond any reasonable design expectation for flags in KSP. If the documentation actually specifies a smaller limit, you can expect it to break randomly.

[Daze]

Yes, there's no effective difference between 2500 and 256 pixels when you are in KSP, but from this image i can see that the 2500 is better than the scaled one.

Now this is my question, how can i reach the same detail in 256 real pixels?

Full-size:

Scaled:

[Kasuha]

If it works for you and you're happy with it, good for you. My guess is that increased resolution was implemented as a feature and should not be dropped unless some serious problems occur about it.

But in my opinion, using such a high resolution image for a flag is pointless. You can see the difference in your example but you wouldn't see any difference if you switched the flag resolution in any of pictures I have ever taken with flags on them. Because when I'm taking a picture, I want other things besides the flag in them, too.

[Daze]

Yes... but i can't understand why the other flags don't lose so much quality in 256x160...

[frizzank]

Why stop there, put a 256000x160000 pixel flag texture in. MORE IS BETTER!!!! Right?

[Kasuha]

Yes... but i can't understand why the other flags don't lose so much quality in 256x160...

Thin lines are bad for downscaling, they're bound to cause moire and aliasing effects. Also the result depends on the algorithm you use to rescale it.

There's a lot of methods that can be used. Some comparison (but not using all methods) can be found here.

[Daze]

Thin lines are bad for downscaling, they're bound to cause moire and aliasing effects. Also the result depends on the algorithm you use to rescale it.

There's a lot of methods that can be used. Some comparison (but not using all methods) can be found here.

So should i increase the width of the lines and then use another method of scaling?

Thank you for the link

[Kasuha]

So should i increase the width of the lines and then use another method of scaling?

Well... general rules would IMO be:

- use color areas rather than lines

- don't use small details, they will not be recognizable on downscaled image and will create strange artifacts

- avoid readable text or accept that you'll see it mirrored half the time

Here you can see my standard image featuring a flag, as you can see the flag itself fits to a 140x140 square because it is not the main element in the image (although it is important as it marks another achievement). The text is mirrored because game just decided to place it the other way than I wanted, and the small text below is blurred and aliased. Compare this with the original picture. Below, you can see the cutoff enlarged. In general, your flag should be able to look good when you view it this way rather than in the detailed view you used earlier.