syedhs wrote:Merging 16 1024x1024 texture into 1 4096x4096 sounds like a good performance tips. In many cases, it trims batches count from 16 to 1.
Exactly, but for ease of workflow I'm only going for 1024x4096, so I can at least tile textures on one side and this comes helpful when modeling large areas like large walls.
@PolyVox: as you surely know the main trick is to use multiples of 2, or much better 8 (or even better 16
), to store different textures on the same image.
This way even when objects are far and mips come into the game, you won't notice anything bad.
Another dirty trick for artists is to make border of textures in similar colours. So in example you will put on a brickwall with borders of bricks on the side, in a darker colour, and put textures with similar brightness one near to the other
Easy and intuitive, and it works, I grant it
Oh, and by the way as I wrote over here, I find it much comfortable to use only 1024x4096, so I can tile on one side at least.
Mapping proportion is not 1:1 but 1:4 and this is not very fun but I think any good UV mapper can deal with this.
Also, as I am working on very high quality textures, one of them 1024x4096 in PSD formato on HD is 350 MB at the moment, because I keep high-res inside the PSD file, I wouldn't be able to deal with bigger dimensions.
Last but not least, there are some other problems on the workflow side if you want to work with "too big" textures.
Yes, you would have the fastest possible rendering with the very less possible drawcalls, but once you want to maybe change something in the texture here comes hell: you must remap all your models
and another couple subtle that arise in different occasions but nevertheless they very often arise and then you understand that it's not easy or really convenient to work with a single supertexture
Oh and by the way, do you know a tool from Nvidia called Texture Atlas? Maybe it's still used but I can't integrate it in my workflow anyway.
