[captain_bazza]

I have used 2048x2048 size textures off and on for years and have had no negative feedback. I've never tried 4056x4056 - so, is there any technical reasons why that size cannot be used in Open Rails? (I've heard rumours that modern video cards can cope okay with them.)

Cheers Bazza

[alkomv]

I've not tried, is it possible to convert 4k .tga to .ace ? 2k seemed OK. I have used 4k in Trainz/RW but it never seemed to make a difference in performance, everything on 1 sheet is good, less draw calls in those games.

P.S 4056x4056 should be 4096x4096 yes ?

[captain_bazza]

I tried with a simple model - a cube, with 4056x4056 on each face. Makeace had no problem with processing it, but I haven't processed it into a shape file.

Cheers Bazza

[copperpen]

I tried a full train with that sized texture on a route with dense scenery. Scenery textures loaded, engines loaded with 2048's, but all the cars in the train with 4056's had no visible texture.

[rdamurphy]

Probably because they would need to be 4096x4096, multiples of 64.

I have noticed, just recently, while creating some new cars with HUGE poly counts (20,000+) that poly counts don't have nearly the effect on frame rates as textures do.

Just under 10,000 polys for the flats, close to 17K for the HEMTT (Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck) Freight Animations. And yes, they do run in MSTS...

It did take a while to figure it out, though...



Robert

[James Ross]

captain_bazza, on 06 September 2013 - 06:50 PM, said:

I have used 2048x2048 size textures off and on for years and have had no negative feedback. I've never tried 4056x4056 - so, is there any technical reasons why that size cannot be used in Open Rails? (I've heard rumours that modern video cards can cope okay with them.)

Obviously you want 4096x4096 not 4056 but I assume that's just a typo.

The lowest likely size of the width/height storage in ACE files would be signed 16bit, which means you can theoretically go up to 2^15 x 2^15 (32768x32768) in the file. Makeace and other ACE tools might have lower limits than the file format itself. According to this data your graphics card will probably do up to 8192 x 8192 (though 4096 x 4096 is also a common limit). What might be an issue is VRAM - you're going from 16MB per texture up to 64MB. Although that's not a lot in itself, consider that you only need 16 of them to reach 1GB of VRAM. (You can do better with DXT format textures.)

[Genma Saotome]

I would switch to big textures in a heartbeat IF I knew how to get tiling (a.k.a. wrap) to stay within the limits of the pixel area of the art instead of the limits of the file. How do the guys who do texture atlases do that?

[James Ross]

Genma Saotome, on 07 September 2013 - 09:15 AM, said:

I would switch to big textures in a heartbeat IF I knew how to get tiling (a.k.a. wrap) to stay within the limits of the pixel area of the art instead of the limits of the file. How do the guys who do texture atlases do that?

I believe the standard technique is to repeat 1 row/column of pixels around the edge of the image within the atlas, so that the blending done on the GPU blends with what you want. I'd not be surprised if this was quite fiddly to do, but there's not a lot of other options - until GPUs fix their blending algorithms - AFAIK.

[captain_bazza]

Quote

Obviously you want 4096x4096 not 4056 but I assume that's just a typo.

No, just bad maths. ;)

Thanks for the info.

Cheers Bazza

[alkomv]

Genma Saotome, on 07 September 2013 - 09:15 AM, said:

I would switch to big textures in a heartbeat IF I knew how to get tiling (a.k.a. wrap) to stay within the limits of the pixel area of the art instead of the limits of the file. How do the guys who do texture atlases do that?

I found your post here http://www.elvastowe...464#entry129464 and left a reply, we can chat more there if your interested.