Recommended texture size

Anything and everything that's related to OGRE or the wider graphics field that doesn't fit into the other forums.
Post Reply
Spudder
Halfling
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:25 am

Recommended texture size

Post by Spudder » Tue Apr 19, 2005 10:50 pm

I'd like to hear people opinions on recommended texture sizes for use within OGRE. The general opinion of the people I'm involved with who are making the maps for the project is to use 1024x1024 for the texture sizes but I'm a little concerned on the possible performance impacts this might have - especially as the finished maps themselves will be quite large in size.

From what I've been reading on the 'Net it seems 512x512 seems to be the current "standard" texture size so is there any real advantage to using larger textures?

Thanks in advance.
0 x

User avatar
Devine
Kobold
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 1:21 am
Contact:

Post by Devine » Tue Apr 19, 2005 11:02 pm

It depends on how many textures you are going to be using at once. If you have a large scene with lots of different textures than 1024*1024 will kill your available memory. I would recommend 512*512 and maybe even smaller on some of your objects if you can.
However if you are using only a few texture maps than 1024*1024 is fine.
0 x

Spudder
Halfling
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:25 am

Post by Spudder » Tue Apr 19, 2005 11:08 pm

Well the maps themselves will be large outdoor levels with a large number of buildings so there stands a good chance of a fair few textures being used at any one time.
0 x

User avatar
dennis
Gremlin
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 4:21 pm

Post by dennis » Tue Apr 19, 2005 11:09 pm

Actually stitching 4 512*512 maps into 1 1024*1024 map is a generally accepted optimizing technique. You will reduce managment overhead and renderstates. So if your design allows it, use 1 big map instead of many small maps.
0 x

User avatar
Mr.Bloodworth
Halfling
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:19 am

Post by Mr.Bloodworth » Tue Apr 19, 2005 11:38 pm

allways use the texturing of the "avatar" to deturmine the resolution and scale of your "world" textures.

It also depends on the approach and intended use of each texture.

Are you refering to textures you are going to use on a terrain in a splatering techique?

Are you refeing to avatar textures?

are you refering to static geomertry?

are you refering to small items like guns and swords?

It depends on "What" they are for..is my point it seems.
0 x

Spudder
Halfling
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:25 am

Post by Spudder » Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:32 am

The textures I'm referring to are the static geometry textures.
0 x

User avatar
celic
Gnome
Posts: 363
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 11:05 am
Location: Chisinau/Moldova
Contact:

Post by celic » Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:42 pm

This also depends on your videocard memory amount.
0 x

User avatar
sinbad
OGRE Retired Team Member
OGRE Retired Team Member
Posts: 19265
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2002 11:19 pm
Location: Guernsey, Channel Islands
x 2
Contact:

Post by sinbad » Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:59 pm

Consider using .dds files with DXT compression to save GPU space for large textures.
0 x

User avatar
dennis
Gremlin
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 4:21 pm

Post by dennis » Wed Apr 20, 2005 2:26 pm

sinbad wrote:Consider using .dds files with DXT compression to save GPU space for large textures.
GPU space ?!?! You mean vidmem ofcourse. How costly is DXT compression on GPU cycles?
0 x

User avatar
:wumpus:
OGRE Retired Team Member
OGRE Retired Team Member
Posts: 3067
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 12:53 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post by :wumpus: » Wed Apr 20, 2005 2:33 pm

Obviously he means video memory.

It doesn't cost anything in GPU cycles, it's even faster, as the GPU is memory bound and this results in less memory bandwidth.

If you can live with the slight quality loss it's always better to use DXTx. (just remember to not use alpha with DXT1 as some nv cards have trouble with this. Use DXT3 or 5 if you need alpha)
0 x

Post Reply