Which engine to use? Thread

Working copy is a 4096x4096 multi-layer image, merge file is 2048x2048 ( max texture size for the sick card owners ). Has a lot of different layers though ... and yeah, that might be a bit off

Depends on the texture format you're using... if you're using a lossy format (ie JPEG) vs TGA... gonna be massive differences. If you're using JPEG you shouldn't be.

Yeah, I don't use JPG, at last not for something I can't afford a loss of detail ( like stuff which is not important ). I use in general PNG for my engine. DXT would be nice but unfortunately the compression sucks. I've got huge problems with image quality using DXT like compression ( or whatever it is, under OpenGL the graphic card driver decides what compression he uses ) as artifacts are highly visible ( also using Windows version of the same driver ).

What goes for the texture size 2048x2048 is the upper limit and only used for important objects like player models. In-game it runs well but as you can imagine it still eats quite a bit of memory.

Approximate estimates, but should be about right.

Uncompressed, 16Mb
DXT5 compression, with all mip-maps 4Mb
DXT1 compression, with all mip-maps 2Mb

Edited by: ambershee

With our project, most of our source art is 4096x4096. Some of our ingame maps (for example used in the sky mesh) are as large as 4096x2048. Other large textures are 2048x2048. Most maps are 1024x1024, with a few (such as masks, or those used in small, or low detail objects) reduced to 512x512. Thus far we haven't gone lower and haven't yet exceeded our 250Mb budget (notably, we are not aiming at 256Mb video cards, but at GeForce 8 series plus).

You probably wouldn't notice the detail in a deathmatch shooter, but in a more slower-paced game on a high-res monitor I think you'll notice the difference. Won't make the gameplay any better, but visual detail done right does add to the immersion and emotional impact of a game.

At the end of the day, if the hardware is there, and the artist wants to add the detail, why not let them? We can always downscale for older systems and framerate whores

I kind of like the general 1024x1024 limit.

I've tested with this a bit, and I've found theres eventually a point where you can only detail it so much before it becomes useless.
Not to mention I'm making a decently fast paced multiplayer game. Extreme detail will only hurt lower spec computers rather than help with high spec computer users.

I've had a few complaints when I switched from TGE to TGEA since I'm basically cutting many users off.
Not to mention TGEA is XP compatible only. I've been working a linux version, but so far looks virtually impossible. Though still a nice thought.

I had a single player project at one point. Though it was only one level, I found it very neat to cram it full of all the textures and models I could.
But for multiplayer, can't and won't do that.

Generally, I'd be worried if your textures are the minority in a modern GPU's dedicated video memory. Either way, with a 250Mb limit, we're aiming for the 512Mb+ card variations, and hoping that we'll still be able to run on the rarer 320Mb GT series. We do have automatic fall-back materials and shaders for lower end systems, but just like UT3, scaling it down that far will look pretty poor.

Though I'd like to do some calculations myself, I'm still not anywhere close to running into problems with my 90MB of textures so far.
Not even on older computers.
Well luckily you can always do stress tests to be sure.

Actually I did a stress test lately. 1000 3k poly models with a 1024x1024 texture knocks FPS to about 20-30. Though I'm personally looking forward to online stress tests.

2048 n 2048 is very common in RTS for ground textures or skydomes. Just depends on how large the object is and what it takes out of the resolution. No one wants a tiny crate or chair to have 2048 by 2048 texture, that eats away and wastes at system resources. Efficiency is what is important. Knowing the limitations of a card also helps