[CptWhite]

I throw a wild accusation at the community.  After some rigorous testing i now believe that the maximum texture resolution in Freespace 2 is 256x256

this has not come lightly, and i myself do not want it to be true.  however i have been acquriing evidence of this now.

firstly, using writing we proved that the maximum texture res for fighters was 256x256.  i then started to wonder about my video card, maybe we were wrong maybe the max res appeared to be 256, but it was my video card (TNT2 32Mb) that was the culprit !  I looked at my planets for this.  these were 512x512 as was a texture i used on a cap ship.  i thought haha ! its my video card ! te texture is reduced to 256x256 on these things too....maybe we were wrong about the fighters...so i set up a test....ask people with various cards to send me evidence and compared it to my results...the base material? my earth background.  all results including a ATI radeon 32Mb and a GeForce 2 GTS 32Mb have shown the same results a ingame picture that is reduced to 256x256.  now with this in mind we have a number of possibilites left.

first, my card limitation is 256 anyway and so we can only say conclusively that backgrounds are limited to 256x256...this is now almost fact.

looking at the evidence of the fighter and the cap ship i tested it would appear the same is true of any ship in freespace 2 (if you put writing on a cap ship in 512 mode and view in game and out of game - if the defination is the same then 512 are obviously accepted in some sense - post the results here we need proof of this !) i would say ingame if on a 512 texture map the writing will be less defined

so there you have it prove otherwise that that 512 textures are accepted and not reduced whatever your card.  i say they are always reduced!  when posting results pics please make sure your freespace 2 setting are correct (max 3d acceleration) and no boxes ticked in the setting game setup screen (like faster d3d textures)

------------------


[This message has been edited by CptWhite (edited 07-26-2001).]

[Styxx]

Well, I have a tendency to use ridiculously large texture maps on some test models, and I never noticed any texture reduction - but I never really paid much attention. If I get my computer back to it's "normal" state (it's severely screwed as of now) I'll run a few tests.

One thing I can say for sure - on weapon effects, specially beams, I've used really large maps (1200x300) without any kind of detail loss...

[Taristin]

 

Originally posted by Styxx:
specially beams, I've used really large maps (1200x300)

 

[Sushi]

Sweeeeeeet.  

------------------
Sushi- the OTHER white meat!

Accelerate your game-Velocity Mod
Sushi's Freespace Zone-Future home of loads of cool stuff.

[Shadowman]

Hmm, the texture size is a good question, but since I upgraded my video card from an on-board Voodoo 3000 to a PCI Voodoo 5500, i've noticed a visible change in definition to the textures.  Everything is much clearer, and this is going from using 1024x768 on the 3000 to 1024x768 on the 5500.  No res difference, but the textures are quite obviously NOT being rounded down.

------------------
Frazer "Shadowman" Davies - icq: 82624908
The Freespace Universe Reference Project - all you ever needed or wanted to know.
Staffer at GameTech

[CptWhite]

Tomcat cleared up the confusion with this one line :

actually nope..is 256 per Polygon )
there are texture from 900 x500 but Ithink that are not more than 256 per face

this would make sense with my tests

so if you have a single square poly face and apply a 512x512 map to it, it will be reduced to 256x256

however if you have 4 smaller square polys and apply a 512x512 map over all of them you will be ok as each square will recieve 256x256 of the map and so it will not be reduced.  this is the current understanding  

[Nico]

so increasing the polycount of the model would do the job? Well, if someone wants to try the arial black text 10 points  

[Setekh]

Increased poly count means better textures (if you use them). Hmmm, cool...  

[aldo_14]

 

Originally posted by CptWhite:
Tomcat cleared up the confusion with this one line :

actually nope..is 256 per Polygon  )
there are texture from 900 x500 but Ithink that are not more than 256 per face

this would make sense with my tests

so if you have a single square poly face and apply a 512x512 map to it, it will be reduced to 256x256

however if you have 4 smaller square polys and apply a 512x512 map over all of them you will be ok as each square will recieve 256x256 of the map and so it will not be reduced.  this is the current understanding  

But then why does my model become reduced when I apply a 1024*512 map to it - especially as it's 400-odd polys.... I think this would only apply to tiled maps- as using a single map generated (i.e.) with Lithunwrap would still result in the compression regardless of the number of faces it covers.

If that makes sense to you... I know what I mean, but I'm not quite sure how to put it.

[Styxx]

The engine doesn't know the kind of mapping you used on your model, it just knows the mapping coordinates for each vertex, nothing else. The   guys said that. (and it's the usual practice on 3D programming)

[Eternal One]

Whatever this thing is, it has nothing to do with uv space of the model....simply a bitmap used by the model is being resized, IF it's being resized at all. Thus, adding polys and that mumbo-jumbo doesn't have any effect on it.

[CptWhite]

aldo_14 i dont think you understand hopefully this will explain it clearer:

Assume texture maps used are 512x512 and planar UV projection is used.  These is texturing in truespace and the effect it will have:

BLUE = selected face
BLACK = model
the other is UV window

   

in this example, although we are projecting a 512x512 map, in game this will be reduced to a 256x256 map (only 1 face is selected)

   

in this example our 512x512 texture will be maintained.  this is because each selected face only covers 256x256 of the texture map itself.

   
now this is the hardest method to understand.  say the area we are texturing is using a small part of a multi texture map.  now just cos its only displaying a small section of the map doesnt mean that the 512 map is any smaller.  the computer still takes it as a 512x512 map, its just that most of it isnt seen. therefore the map is still reduced to 256x256.

   
in this example we are 3 polys high and 1 poly wide therefore we can have 256x512 (width/height).  however because the bottom poly is taller doesnt mean it can exceed 256 polys. therefore if the UV was set as it is our 512x512 map would be reduced to 256x512.  the bottom polys taking up slightly more than half of the height would be reduced to 256 while the top poly would not be reduced at all.  ok ive done my best at explaining its pretty hard to imagine so just get used to the idea.

rules !

basically you should always make multi texture per file maps 256x256 otherwise loss of detail will occur (in most case anyway, can work but im not going to explain when - think about it !)

512x512 textures will work if you select 2 polys high and 2 polys wide. each poly can not overlap in the direction its counting for (ie if a poly makes the Uv window wider then it cant overlap in the direction of the width!)  

understand now ?  good  

------------------


[This message has been edited by CptWhite (edited 07-27-2001).]

[Nico]

but I'm afraid that's wrong since I obviously had 512*512 maps applied on (much) more than 2*2 polys. Look at my phoenix fighter in the other thread about the same subject.it's maped from top with a single map, and the map itself is then covering  many polys. And the map is still sized down.

[Eth]

Well, the tests I ran were on a G400Max 32MB and a GeForce2 64MB.  In all cases the textures are reduced if they were larger than 256 on a side.  At this point I would have to give anyone saying otherwise the "show me" test I gave Venom in my original thread...

Make a backup copy of your texture and then put the phrase "Show Me" on your texture using a 10 point Arial Font.  Now look at the ship (cap, fighter, freighter, any ship) in FS2.  BTW, if you don't think it's FS2 doing it, now look at the ship in the modelling program of your choice or in ModelView32.


Note to CptWhite: when I did the original testing the texture maps were spread out over  100+ poly surfaces.  Tomcat is mistaken in what he said    What he might have been thinking of is that if you have say a surface that is 10 polys wide and each poly is mapped with a 256x256 texture, then in affect the surface resolution is 2560x256.

[CptWhite]

im trying ym best to sort this mess out ! argh !

------------------

[Shrike]

Ah well, we'll just have to make a game that doesn't have those kind of restrictions.

[CptWhite]

well now im stuffed i still havent seen any evidence of a 512x512 map being used yet  


edit:

i just tested my theory about and its wrong , so i go back to my original statememnet at the begining of this topic.  surely they can be used otherwise volition wouldnt have made big maps ! argh !
------------------


[This message has been edited by CptWhite (edited 07-28-2001).]

[Shrike]

I don't think there are any in FS2, stock anyhow.

[Nico]

 

Originally posted by CptWhite:
well now im stuffed i still havent seen any evidence of a 512x512 map being used yet    


edit:

i just tested my theory about and its wrong , so i go back to my original statememnet at the begining of this topic.  surely they can be used otherwise volition wouldnt have made big maps ! argh !

well... look at the nephilim ingame, and the nephilim in modelview... That's sad, but there is a lot of quality loss...
You know, FS2 is like old women, you can put a lot of make up, but under it, the thing will still be oldish  

[CptWhite]

i take it there is a loss in quality  

this goes a long way to proving that 256x256 is the maxium res in fs2, yes it can "accept" bigger texture sizes but there are always reduced  

------------------