texture size 2048 question
Blitz3D Forums/Blitz3D Programming/texture size 2048 question
| ||
| It seems my cheap radeon can handle 2048^2 textures. I remember somebody said some cards have a max of 1024^2 down texels per texture and Blitz would scale 2048 textures internally to 1024 in that case. Does anybody know what cards cannot handle 2048 textures? |
| ||
| Here I am still using 512x512? :\ |
| ||
| Well me too for materials, sometimes even 256*256. But for some operations I need a texture that is bigger than the screen resolution (see ScaleImageFast in the code archives, it will copy the backbuffer to a texture, then scale a sprite and take a render, then copyrect a certain part of the backbuffer to get a downscaled image quickly) |
| ||
| Everything before GF5 / Radeon 9200+ is most likely 1024. And all on board tend to have similar restriction because their chip power. I would not use a 2048x2048 texture anyway. Because it is around 20MB of VRAM with MipMapping and thats a really large amount when the most common amount is still 64MB ... |
| ||
| well with flag 256 it may be 16 megs. Usually a game needs 128 megs or more, so I don't think it's a problem, when it allows fast Bloom etc. But you're right, since it's not supported on many not so very old cards, it shouldn't be used. In my special case it would be an option to use it if it's supported, but when it's not then simply set a screen resolution max of 1024 pixels, so the 1024 texture can be used nevertheless for the scaling tricks. Cards that don't support 2048 textures probably don't like resolutions higher than 1024 anyway. |
| ||
| The game that needs 128MB of VRAM constantly would be something new (beside 3D shooter which I don't like anyway) ... I have a 64MB card (9700) and no problem with it (Age 3 on next to full detail). But a single texture with 16MB that would definitely be there constantly, would cut the remaining VRAM down to 48MB effectively which might might be enough or too less, depending on the amount of stuff going on on the screen. And I fear your conclusion is wrong. If you check out notebooks for example, you will see that there are quite some which come with X600 / X700 and similar cards but only 64MB onboard ... New cards do not mean that they waste energy on VRAM not really needed ... Its not the error of the GPU maker, that Mark still didn't write the little bunch of code for DXT compression which solves this kind of problems very effectively (sad that Tom's DLL had some stability problems with new cards, ATI and different drivers ... it was a really great addition :( ) |
| ||
| DXT would be a godsend indeed, its a real pain to work around vram limitations that you otherwise wouldnt have to worry about so much. |
   |