- Messages
- 1,732
- Country
I recently created a helipad and because the ground markings at the real helipad are quite unique, I created an image from Google Earth downloading it at the maximum resolution thinking that it would result it the best image displayed in MSFS. I applied that image as the material for a plane in Blender. This has increased the size of my package greatly and I'm not sure if it has resulted in a better image in MSFS than using a lower resolution image for the material.
The resolution from Google Earth is 5180 x 4816 and is for a ground area of about 60 meters x 40 meters.
I read elsewhere in this forum that not saving with alpha channel set reduces file size however the difference was 11MB to 10Mb hardly worth considering. Also to save as a 16 bit (png) image however my image editor only seems to allow 24 bit.
What maximum image resolution should I use so that I don't loose any MSFS resolution? All texture images I have seen for downloading are no more than about 2024 x 2048 however they appear to cover an area of maybe only 1 meter x 1 meter.
Would using a .jpg instead of a .png result in a smaller package?
The resolution from Google Earth is 5180 x 4816 and is for a ground area of about 60 meters x 40 meters.
I read elsewhere in this forum that not saving with alpha channel set reduces file size however the difference was 11MB to 10Mb hardly worth considering. Also to save as a 16 bit (png) image however my image editor only seems to allow 24 bit.
What maximum image resolution should I use so that I don't loose any MSFS resolution? All texture images I have seen for downloading are no more than about 2024 x 2048 however they appear to cover an area of maybe only 1 meter x 1 meter.
Would using a .jpg instead of a .png result in a smaller package?
Last edited: