Hi-Res Textures KILL b3d??
Blitz3D Forums/Blitz3D Programming/Hi-Res Textures KILL b3d??
| ||
| I've been messing around with using hi-res (512x512) textures, replacing 64x64 ones, and the frame rates plummet through the ground, even on very simple scenes... I have tried loading them directly into vram, same result. I have a very fast system (3.2Ghz P4,1024MB Dual Channel DDR RAM, ATI 9800XT Pro 256MB Video card) so I don't understand this, am I doing something wrong is it a limitation of b3d? |
| ||
| hmm, I didn't notice much trouble with 2048x2048 lightmaps in FMC and the leadfoot racer even on a 32mb Geforce2GTS on a 256mb Pentium 2 400. However if your using a lot of large maps your probably going to suffer. I generaly use 256x256 most of the time. 512x512 for characters and things that require a LOT of detail or take up a lot of screen space. And the really large ones for lightmaps, that get shared with many different objects. Of course without seeing your game and how your using your textures its hard to say whats causing the slowdown. |
| ||
| I concur with Evak. His sizes/uses are fairly optimal. No problems here. |
| ||
| In all my projects I'm using 512x512..no frame rate loss (57-61) on very complex scenes with many interactive things...system is nvidia A310 256MB Video RAM, P4 2.4 GHz, 4 Gig RAM.. |
| ||
| BTW that 2048x2048 lightmap was for an entire terrain. Normaly I'd try and keep those 1024x1024. I also try and reduce them down to 8 bit, (even though they get converted back to 32bit internaly) to save download size, 300 - 500k each for the 2048x2048 as opposed to 11+mb!!! before compression. I really wish that mark would add support for DDS compressed textures. That would go a long way towards improving the overall detail in the majority of blitz games. I guess he must have a reason, but it is a strange ommission, particularly with a free photoshop plugin from nvidia, for photoshop (paint shop pro compatible) and the natve XP image browser and thumbnailer view. Not to mention 3D apps like 3dsmax. |
| ||
| 8 bit, (even though they get converted back to 32bit internaly{sic} ]But do they not occupy the same amount of memory space then... I would just keep it the same and not suffer the reconversion... RZ |
| ||
| Yes they take up the same amount of memory in Blitz but take up less disk space hence smaller download. |
| ||
| yeah, smaller download, allthough it can be tricky getting rid of the artifacts with dithering. I think its worth it, particularly if you want your game to have a 5mb - 10mb footprint and get the most downloads and highest conversion rates. You lose a little quality in the lightmap, but it's often not too bad. Here's a couple of old screenshots of leadfoot GT's early test track, with the lightmaps on. had to   |
| ||
| Hmmm... a few more tests, and I realize I must have been doing something else wrong the other day. Only getting a slight slowdown now. |
| ||
| Strange, I get the slowdown here. I'm using a single surface particle system, it runs like a dream when using 64x64 textures. IF I up the texture by a factor of 2 then I seem to lose FPS by a factor of 2. |
| ||
| Same here , if I use a 256x256 texture on something .. all is ok , if I then use a 1024x1024 a get about half fps. |
| ||
| Interesting. My single surface system is using a single texture of 1024x1024. Perhaps I can get a good increase in performance by dropping it to 512x512 or smaller (I can afford the space, I just never tweaked the system to tailor to this individual need). |
| ||
| Forcing mipmapping for 512 or above textures help me a lot, there is a lot of diference just because of this, but the quality of the of textures may not be so good if it is far away from the camera ... Is this happening with all video cards? do you see a lot of diference with mip or not? Paolo. |
| ||
| Depends on the graphics card alot and what uses the textures have. |
| ||
| Evak... really nice screenies there! |
| ||
| does generally using mipmapped textures improve performance? |
| ||
| does generally using mipmapped textures improve performance? Yes because distant objects will use smaller textures automatically. But do they not occupy the same amount of memory space then... I would just keep it the same and not suffer the reconversion... PNG's are lossless so the reconversion should not cause any "suffering". Surprisingly you can often make the original conversion from 32bit to 8 bit without losing much too, particularly with textures. |
   |