Terrain size
-
- Posts: 420
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2017 8:36 pm
- Team: Privateer
Terrain size
Is there a way i can make the map size bigger?
Re: Terrain size
This this video might contain some info about it, if not, quote me and I'll respond.
Discord: StorkeN#6883 - StorkenMXS Youtube - StorkenMXS Instagram - StorkenMXS Facebook - TMFR on Faceboook
-
- Posts: 631
- Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 4:15 am
- Team: Privateer
- Location: Oregon
- Contact:
Re: Terrain size
Check out this thread if you haven't already: http://forum.mxsimulator.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1134
Some of it is out of date, "texturelist" for example, but still a lot of good basic info.
You can change the size of your terrain with the terrain.hf file. This is from the above thread, with some edits to be more up to date:
Some of it is out of date, "texturelist" for example, but still a lot of good basic info.
You can change the size of your terrain with the terrain.hf file. This is from the above thread, with some edits to be more up to date:
The higher your scale, the larger your terrain will be, horizontally. The larger your maxaltitude, the higher your terrain will be, vertically.DJ99X wrote:Terrain.hf
resolution scale minaltitude maxaltitude
eg.
10 1.000000 0.000000 250.000000
'resolution' specifies the size of the terrain.png and shading.ppm you are using. The formula is 2^(n+1)+1. So 2^(10+1)+1=2049, hence standard tracks use 2049x2049 pixel terrains.
'scale' is in feet/pixel, so standard tracks are 1 feet/pixel.
-
- Posts: 1152
- Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:16 am
- Team: Phil's
- Location: Cold
- Contact:
Re: Terrain size
4097x4097, 8193x8193, yes. However due to the x4 , x16 or more of terrain data, it's very possible it'll lag. If you want a really big map, going for 2049x2049 and chaning the ft/px would be a better alternative I'd say.Jakob Hubbard wrote:is it at all possible to get 4096x4096 and upwards?
Discord: StorkeN#6883 - StorkenMXS Youtube - StorkenMXS Instagram - StorkenMXS Facebook - TMFR on Faceboook
Re: Terrain size
4097 and 8193 didn't mark an end of what's possible, just felt meaningless to continue.Wahlamt wrote:4097x4097, 8193x8193, yes. However due to the x4 , x16 or more of terrain data, it's very possible it'll lag. If you want a really big map, going for 2049x2049 and chaning the ft/px would be a better alternative I'd say.Jakob Hubbard wrote:is it at all possible to get 4096x4096 and upwards?
Discord: StorkeN#6883 - StorkenMXS Youtube - StorkenMXS Instagram - StorkenMXS Facebook - TMFR on Faceboook
-
- Posts: 1152
- Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:16 am
- Team: Phil's
- Location: Cold
- Contact:
Re: Terrain size
Just out of curiosity, would you just change the first value in the terrain.hf file to 11 to get 4097x4097? Or would it be a different value?Wahlamt wrote:4097x4097, 8193x8193, yes. However due to the x4 , x16 or more of terrain data, it's very possible it'll lag. If you want a really big map, going for 2049x2049 and chaning the ft/px would be a better alternative I'd say.Jakob Hubbard wrote:is it at all possible to get 4096x4096 and upwards?
Re: Terrain size
No it'd be 11, 12 for 8kJakob Hubbard wrote:Just out of curiosity, would you just change the first value in the terrain.hf file to 11 to get 4097x4097? Or would it be a different value?Wahlamt wrote:4097x4097, 8193x8193, yes. However due to the x4 , x16 or more of terrain data, it's very possible it'll lag. If you want a really big map, going for 2049x2049 and chaning the ft/px would be a better alternative I'd say.Jakob Hubbard wrote:is it at all possible to get 4096x4096 and upwards?
Discord: StorkeN#6883 - StorkenMXS Youtube - StorkenMXS Instagram - StorkenMXS Facebook - TMFR on Faceboook