7 réponses à ce sujet

[PDubulous]

What are you all using?  I know the old conventional wisdom says 512 for most, but times have changed.  I have been using 1024 on most of my work now and I don't really ever have performance issues.  Do you guys like 512 with an optional hi res pack of 1024?  We are talking placeables.  On the smaller placeables, I usually combine textures and still use a 1024. 

[Morbane]

your overall file size e.g. your hak will be much much larger - depending if you are publishing your work or not.

nice compact file sizes are the best way to go in the end

[-Semper-]

depends on screen size and amount of usage. weapons, shields, small placeables and the like are still 512 candidates. usually they don't have that much detail which would justify a 1k map. if you are often using special assets or a group of them which share similar or reused textures, it's better to combine those textures into a larger one - a 3mb 1k texture leaves a smaller print in vram than ten 0.5mb 512x512 textures.

everything bigger than a human is worth a 1k texture. with texture sets (for different buildings with the same reused textures) i would go for a 1024x2048 texture. regarding the performance: with today's standard 2gb vram you can load a lot of textures into memory before there's any swapping happening.

[Dann-J]

I'd personally only go to 1024 for extremely large placeables that players are likely to get close to. Otherwise large texture file sizes aren't really contributing anything to the look of the models. Unless you compress the crap out of them as DDS files, in which case compression artefacts will be undoing your high resolution details anyway.

Although if you're using generic textures and applying them to a lot of separate placeable models, then a single 1024x1024 texture will probably be smaller than lots of separate 512x512 or 256x256 textures. There's no guarantee it'll look much better though.

High resolution textures can look nasty if you scale the placeables down too much though. Some antialiasing settings don't seem to handle very fine details very well, especially if the normal map is also of equally high resolution. I find you can often get away with a normal map that is of lower resolution than the diffuse map, and sometimes the tint map can be smaller yet again.

Let's face it - NWN2 graphics suck compared to more recent games. Often 1024x1024 textures are wasted on the game. And if players are noticing minor texture details at all, then the module or compaign they're playing can't be all that engaging.

[Morbane]

so, reusing a single large is better than having an individual small texture for each plc

but, for textures that are not being reused for many plcs are best left in the smaller format?

[-Semper-]

Morbane wrote...

but, for textures that are not being reused for many plcs are best left in the smaller format?

depends on the screen time, the screen size and the targeted quality your plc has. if your texture is full of small details which are "important" or if your plc is really big so that your texture is too blurry it's better to use a 1k texture. in the end it depends on lot of correlating factors

[PDubulous]

I agree that some hi res textures look out of place when placed against stock formats. As far as file sizes go, I don't really think about the file sizes when working with NWN2. My first modding projects were terribly high poly, but as I have gotten better, I have brought that under control. While there is a difference in file size for 512 vs 1024, it's doesnt seem to be significant IMO. In the day and age of so much digital content and large HDDs, 100mb seems paltry to me. From a bandwidth perspective, I have Fios so I dont really have an issue. A bit snobbish I know. I do cut fat where I can. I reuse textures and I don't use alphas unless I need them. I will even down scale and double up textures. Are you guys were seeing and big issues using mostly 1024?

[-Semper-]

if the graphics card of the common nwn2 player ain't 10 years old there should be none.