Texture size / configuration question

posted on January 31st, 2014, 6:17 am

Hello there,

Simple question really but not one I know the answer to. In the Storm3d engine, is it better to have 1 large texture file, or several small ones? Which is more intensive on the GPU etc, or these days does it not really make a difference?

I ask because a few of my recent model conversions I've gone the whole hog and formed them into one single file, albeit a nice normal 512 x 512 one since their original textures weren't exactly astronomical. I am therefore wondering if it is worth going back and doing the same for some of the older ones (that have between 10 and 20 individual texture files, albeit small ones) or whether it would just be a bit of a wasted exercise.

Thanks

Squire James

posted on January 31st, 2014, 7:10 am

I believe but don't hold me to it that it is better to have one large texture as it means Armada has less textures to load into the graphics cards ram and as armada/flops is a game where textures are repeated over and over as we build a mass of ships then the less the better however with the power of modern day graphics cards and the upgrades from the Devs I don't believe it really matters anymore

posted on February 1st, 2014, 2:00 pm

First post vanished so I retry

Loading speed of a smaller texture is in general faster, but it depends greatly on how many there are and on how detailed the lighting effects are. So the amount of information stored in the alpha channel counts greatly.

Just from my experience 2-3 smaller 512x512 textures load faster than one 1024x1024.
If you have 3 512x512 textures with a lot of detail in the alpha channel 1 1024x1024 works better.

Also to be considered is the level of detail of your mesh, if your mesh has several parts that become visible only on shorter distances a group of smaller textures is better.

Next to consider: depending on the distance to your model/ mesh Armada2 can use different textures with different resolutions.

Just an example: 1024x1024 for high detail close in, 512x512 for mid range and 256x256 for the larger distances / fadeout.
If you want to use that feature it is better to put all texture information in one larger file depending on your mesh. Otherwise different parts of the mesh will show different texture resolutions depending on their distance to the camera. Happens with larger stations and looks not good.

posted on March 9th, 2014, 1:45 am

Just to report on an interesting finding here for anyone that might be interested, I consolidated the 20 odd textures used on the D7C K'T'Inga down to 3. The 20 textures combined were 1.38 Mb. The 3 textures after were 1.50 Mb. So, what you gain in simplicity, you lose a tad in sheer texture memory used it seems. (Albeit slightly)

posted on March 10th, 2014, 8:49 pm

Since I cannot find the original topic, I will repeat myself too:

Graphics power is no longer an issue here: modern day game designers are being smothered because the API isn't able to handle the draw calls of ever increasing textures (both qualities and numbers) and thus bottlenecking the whole thing.

The problem lies in the necessity to fit all these elaborate textures on-screen and get around the problems that people face when handling DirectX and OpenGL applications, and trying to fit even the slightest amount of draw calls to the screen above the API limit results in SEVERE performance degradations.

So you see, the problem isn't that much in the graphics, the problem is how much can you fit within your existing engine at any given time. That's why retexturing old games is such hell, especially if they weren't designed for it.