[Starman01]

Hello,

just a short question, before I work on new models. What's an acceptable or the best efficient texturing for models:

Currently I try to make capships that use max 3 maps with 2048x2048.

But what is better for fightermodels (around 1500 polies) in a way of performance. 2 Maps with 1024x1024, or one with 2048x2048.

Afaik the less textures, the better it is. But isn't a 2048 map very heavy for a fighter ?

[DaBrain]

Uhm you can't compare it this way.

One 2048*2048 map has twice the ammount of pixels of two 1024*1024 maps.

It needs the double ammount of memory too. So it's worse for PCs without much ram/gfx ram.

[Starman01]

I know, but isn't it better for the performance in a HT&L engine, when there is only one map that must be rendered ?

AFAIK, the HT&L engine renders the model completly for each map involved, so one map means only one rendering time ?

[DaBrain]

Das hängt nur vom PC ab der verwendet wird.
Wenn die Grafikkarte genug Ram hat, dürfte die Variante mit der 2048² Map schneller sein.

Wenn die Grafikkarte nicht soviel Ram hat, ist die zweite Lösung besser.

Ich halte zwei Maps bei einem Jäger noch für ok.

Wenn die Qualität von zwei 1024² Maps ausreicht, würde ich mich dafür entscheiden.

[Nico]

Originally posted by DaBrain
Uhm you can't compare it this way.

One 2048*2048 map has twice the ammount of pixels than two 1024*1024 maps.

It has 4 times the amount of pixels actually.

[WMCoolmon]

I'm not sure if Bobb has completed his overhaul of the tex system.

But before it would be the one map, as you'd only need 3 render passes (shine/glow maps) as opposed to six.

[DaBrain]

But the render passes for the bigger map would take longer, right?

And it needs more memory anyway.


... For TBP, I'd say "Go for the big texture", because TBP doesn't use very much memory, but I don't know about WC:Saga.

[DaBrain]

Originally posted by Nico

It has 4 times the amount of pixels actually.

Hehe nope.

2* 1024² = 2097152

1* 2048² = 4194304

4194304 / 2097152= 2

[Kie99]

Originally posted by Nico

It has 4 times the amount of pixels actually.

One 2048 x 2048 has 4 times the amount of pixels as a 1024 X 1024.
Therefore one 2048 x 2048 will have twice the amount of pixels as 2 1024 X 1024s, which is what DaBrain said.

[Taristin]

Umm, no... Each step up is a 4x increase.  Because your essentially adding 3 more of the same image space.

See?

[DaBrain]

Raa... did you really read what I wrote... ?

Starman asked about two 1024² maps.

[Taristin]

Me? Read?

(BTW; yah, two files, I'm not disputing that. of people still seem to think that the 2048 is only 2x more than the 1024, though. So whatever )

[DaBrain]

I know, but I've worked with maps long enough to know this stuff.

[Taristin]

Then it wasn't for you

[Nico]

Originally posted by DaBrain


Hehe nope.

2* 1024² = 2097152

1* 2048² = 4194304

4194304 / 2097152= 2

yeah, sorry, missed the part where you said two 1024x1024 maps.

[Starman01]

Thanks for the answers and explanations

So it looks like each version has it's up and downs, either effective rendering operation, or the lower memory usage.

I think, I will then decide it according to the models, though 2048 er maps seem to be more logical, since the older machines will die sooner or later

[KARMA]

I'd say to put everything into a single 1024x1024 maps, which should be enough for almost any fighter, this way you won't have any doubts:p
BUT personally, I'd go in that situation for 2 1024 rather than a single 2048
it is true that the more textures the more passages, but with 2x1024x24bit you save around 10 mb compared to 1x2048 if I'm not wrong, which doesn't sound that few to me, talking of just a fighter. I may be wrong but to a common sense I'd say that gpu's calculation power grow more than gpu's memory in perspective, and that if you drain the memory, you slow down the calculation time too; it's not a problem if it happen for a single model, but if you do it regulary I dunno what could be the result. I'm thinking at how the high res packs for fso can be intense even for non old PCs, sometimes. Well I'm curious to see what bob will say

[Nico]

I'd say, stick with one 1024x1024 map. With fighters, higher resolution is really not needed, unless you spend more time in external view looking at your ship from every angle. The original map for the ezechiel was a whooping 4096² map, that I cut down to 2048² for ingame, but eventually, I reduced it to 1024 (and iirc I joined a 512x512 map for lower specs), and it's as good, considering you can't stick your nose that close to the ship anyway.

[aldo_14]

I don't see a need for anything about 1024 for a fighter, to be honest.  Even then a lot of the detail is pretty much invisible to the player fighting at combat range.

[Bobboau]

you know the dimentions of the texture need to be power of two but the texture does not need to be square so 2048*1024 is just fine, so if you have two 1024 textures, just squash the first texture's coords to one side and the other texture's coords to the other, then just expand the canvas size of the first texture and paste the second onto the side of it, and tada! done.

and yes larger textures meen slower passes, it's like this, a render pass takes about five years, if you double the size of the map it takes six years, so what's slower six years or ten years?