Terrain size

All about making tracks for MX Simulator
Post Reply
christianjonse
Posts: 420
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2017 8:36 pm
Team: Privateer

Terrain size

Post by christianjonse »

Is there a way i can make the map size bigger?
Wahlamt
Posts: 7934
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:15 pm
Team: MLG Compton
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Terrain size

Post by Wahlamt »

This this video might contain some info about it, if not, quote me and I'll respond.
ColtonD719
Posts: 631
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 4:15 am
Team: Privateer
Location: Oregon
Contact:

Re: Terrain size

Post by ColtonD719 »

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Some of it is out of date, "texturelist" for example, but still a lot of good basic info.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:
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.
The higher your scale, the larger your terrain will be, horizontally. The larger your maxaltitude, the higher your terrain will be, vertically.
Jakob Hubbard
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:16 am
Team: Phil's
Location: Cold
Contact:

Re: Terrain size

Post by Jakob Hubbard »

is it at all possible to get 4096x4096 and upwards?
Image
Wahlamt
Posts: 7934
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:15 pm
Team: MLG Compton
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Terrain size

Post by Wahlamt »

Jakob Hubbard wrote:is it at all possible to get 4096x4096 and upwards?
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.
Wahlamt
Posts: 7934
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:15 pm
Team: MLG Compton
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Terrain size

Post by Wahlamt »

Wahlamt wrote:
Jakob Hubbard wrote:is it at all possible to get 4096x4096 and upwards?
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.
4097 and 8193 didn't mark an end of what's possible, just felt meaningless to continue.
Jakob Hubbard
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:16 am
Team: Phil's
Location: Cold
Contact:

Re: Terrain size

Post by Jakob Hubbard »

Wahlamt wrote:
Jakob Hubbard wrote:is it at all possible to get 4096x4096 and upwards?
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.
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?
Image
Wahlamt
Posts: 7934
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:15 pm
Team: MLG Compton
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Terrain size

Post by Wahlamt »

Jakob Hubbard wrote:
Wahlamt wrote:
Jakob Hubbard wrote:is it at all possible to get 4096x4096 and upwards?
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.
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?
No it'd be 11, 12 for 8k
Post Reply