BlueMarble or 1.09 Textures?

[Error404]

Is there someone who knows if the textures in 1.09 patch work faster than the BlueMarble ones?

Thanks!

[ghen]

Well the blue marble textures don't work particularly fast, so I'm sure the low res textures in 1.09 work better.

Personally I'm switching back to normal textures just because blue marble ones are dull. nice looking, but dull

[Kassiopeia]

Does Blue Marble even work with 1.09? I installed Blue Marble over 1.09, and suddenly the game stopped showing tile yields even in the city screen, and the next thing I know the game has crashed and can't start again. I had to reinstall, I'm not sure I want to try it again.

[Slartibartfast]

I installed BlueMarble before I installed 1.09, and it works just fine.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Slartibartfast
I installed BlueMarble before I installed 1.09, and it works just fine.

You just can't use the low-res 1.09 textures in this case.

Does anyone know how different the 1.09 low-res textures look? If the observable difference is small, then I'll probably reinstall and use them.

-Drachasor

[TheHateMale]

I haven't noticed any difference, but I wasn't looking for them and don't zoom in very far normally.

[polarnomad]

It seems like the map scrolls a little faster with BlueMarble graphics.

[CrONoS]

For myself too, map scrolls faster with the BlueMarble graphics. I didn't pay attention with the normal graphics at low resolution. But at the same texture resolution bue marble are faster.

see ya

[Error404]

BTW there's a new version of BlueMarble available in the dir section

[ColdFever]

The BlueMarble terrain uses *exact* the same formats as the original terrain. So both terrains will have the same effects on either low or high-res settings. There is just *one* difference, and this is in the clouds: the original graphics use a kind of "negative" cloud texture to fade out clouds with higher camera altitude. As this effect is not desired for BlueMarble, I replaced the complex "negative" texture with a more simple "dummy" texture. As some people report that BlueMarble behaves "faster", the only explanation to me is that perhaps some graphics cards/drivers realize that this "dummy" texture is superfluous and the rendering process can be simplified. But this really is the only format difference between the Original and BlueMarble graphics.

[Error404]

Thanks for the answer ColdFever!

But how is it possible that with your mod installed my game run smoother than with the original textures? (original textures version 1.00, not the 1.08, I've not yet tried)

[CrONoS]

Maybe my eyes is just too impressed by the beauty of Blue Mod, and they just want to stick to this mod by making me believe it's faster...

see ya

Originally posted by ColdFever
The BlueMarble terrain uses *exact* the same formats as the original terrain. So both terrains will have the same effects on either low or high-res settings. There is just *one* difference, and this is in the clouds: the original graphics use a kind of "negative" cloud texture to fade out clouds with higher camera altitude. As this effect is not desired for BlueMarble, I replaced the complex "negative" texture with a more simple "dummy" texture. As some people report that BlueMarble behaves "faster", the only explanation to me is that perhaps some graphics cards/drivers realize that this "dummy" texture is superfluous and the rendering process can be simplified. But this really is the only format difference between the Original and BlueMarble graphics.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by ColdFever
The BlueMarble terrain uses *exact* the same formats as the original terrain. So both terrains will have the same effects on either low or high-res settings. There is just *one* difference, and this is in the clouds: the original graphics use a kind of "negative" cloud texture to fade out clouds with higher camera altitude. As this effect is not desired for BlueMarble, I replaced the complex "negative" texture with a more simple "dummy" texture. As some people report that BlueMarble behaves "faster", the only explanation to me is that perhaps some graphics cards/drivers realize that this "dummy" texture is superfluous and the rendering process can be simplified. But this really is the only format difference between the Original and BlueMarble graphics.

Well that may well be. I moved the files from the custom directory and tried the normal files on low quality textures. The texture quality that I use produces almost no change in how well the game runs. Certainly it doesn't let me run a game on a large map -- I don't know about everyone else, but it seems like you need 512 MB RAM for small maps, 768 for standard, and I am guessing a gig for a large map. That much to have it run fairly smoothly at any rate. (In any case the program uses about a gig of virtual memmory).

-Drachasor

[CrONoS]

512mg for standart is o.k. for me, no HD rush at all in the game.

But all my process are closed(the one I can close) even Explorer.exe. After your game, when you want to restore explorer.exe.
Ctrl-Ald-Del -> File -> New Task and type: explorer
I even have no background image.

see ya

Originally posted by Drachasor


Well that may well be. I moved the files from the custom directory and tried the normal files on low quality textures. The texture quality that I use produces almost no change in how well the game runs. Certainly it doesn't let me run a game on a large map -- I don't know about everyone else, but it seems like you need 512 MB RAM for small maps, 768 for standard, and I am guessing a gig for a large map. That much to have it run fairly smoothly at any rate. (In any case the program uses about a gig of virtual memmory).

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

When I had 512 on my computer it would get slow late-game. It is much better with another 256 megs. Games on large maps still slow to a crawl.

-Drachasor