Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Lab Assistant
Original Poster
#1 Old 11th Jul 2005 at 2:23 AM
Default Texture Maps and Game Performance
I guess most people are aware by now that poly counts should be kept as low as possible--but what about the texture maps? I know that if I have a whole bunch of objects with large texture maps in my game, it's going to slow it down, but how much difference does a slightly larger texture map make?

If I make several objects that have a 512x512 map instead of Maxis' original 256x256 map, for a similar size object, for example--is this generally as bad a practice as say, making objects that are 3000 polys for something like a simple vase?

I like to make my maps a size up from the original in some cases, for the extra texture detail, so I was just wondering if anyone knew...

Thanks,
Suzanne
Advertisement
One of those Maxoids
#2 Old 11th Jul 2005 at 6:57 AM
Since there are so many unique objects a user can have in their game, it is recommended that you try to keep your texture sizes as small as possible and try to be clever with your UVs. As well, not everyone has a video card with 128-256 mbs of RAM, so these users will probably already have mipped down textures, but still may have to texture swap.
Fluffy
retired moderator
#3 Old 11th Jul 2005 at 10:22 AM
that's an interesting point, Suzanne,
I hadn't thought about that
but most of my objects look like crap if I put a small texture image on them
I suppose it would help if you have a decent uv-mapper,
one that doesn't leave so much 'space' between the parts that need to be coloured
Field Researcher
#4 Old 11th Jul 2005 at 12:31 PM
I use 512 as its easyer for me to see what im doing when texturing also iv somtimes link other textures but dont have the extras colour enabled, This is so I can make the object more real whith detail.

Iv never had lag or slowdown on any of my computers with this my Harley Davidson - MotorBike: has the most

Its trial and erorr each and every moder has his or her own technic.
Poly are a big thing though as I find more than 6000 slow my pc down I try and stay under 4000 for the big stuff.

Look at the Harley for multi textures.
http://www.modthesims2.com/showthread.php?t=68815
Scholar
#5 Old 11th Jul 2005 at 1:46 PM
Doubling the size of your texture image will make it take 4 times as much memory on the video card. Even with the very best of video cards (which most people do not have) there is a limit and either your game will slow down or the card will resort to degrading the image quality.

It is a much better idea to do as Maxiod Tom said, and make a properly done texture map.

I have seen a lot of nicely done objects with very poorly done texture maps.

Check out some tutorials on game texture-mapping, don't ever use that incredibly space-wasting "box map" option on your texture map.
Lab Assistant
#6 Old 11th Jul 2005 at 2:21 PM
Quote: Originally posted by crowridgestudio
I guess most people are aware by now that poly counts should be kept as low as possible--but what about the texture maps? I know that if I have a whole bunch of objects with large texture maps in my game, it's going to slow it down, but how much difference does a slightly larger texture map make?

If I make several objects that have a 512x512 map instead of Maxis' original 256x256 map, for a similar size object, for example--is this generally as bad a practice as say, making objects that are 3000 polys for something like a simple vase?

I like to make my maps a size up from the original in some cases, for the extra texture detail, so I was just wondering if anyone knew...

Thanks,
Suzanne


Maxis went bigger with the EP, mostly to 512x512. I believe they did this because they realized that 256x256 looks crap up close.

My game doesn't take a performance hit for these kind of changes, so I can't tell you how much difference it makes in that but I can tell you it makes a lot of difference in object detail.

Brasstex
Admin of Randomness
retired moderator
#7 Old 11th Jul 2005 at 2:30 PM
I thought that when I say, pick texture detail medium, that what the game is likely doing is taking a smaller sized texture map - each object has a whole set of them. So people with slowdowns could use the smaller texture map.

Also, I found that not using SimPE to directly import my new textures but using the other method makes a huge difference in the detail issue.
Lab Assistant
#8 Old 11th Jul 2005 at 2:47 PM
Quote: Originally posted by tiggerypum
I thought that when I say, pick texture detail medium, that what the game is likely doing is taking a smaller sized texture map - each object has a whole set of them. So people with slowdowns could use the smaller texture map.

Also, I found that not using SimPE to directly import my new textures but using the other method makes a huge difference in the detail issue.


What you use then??? For me, I use Nvidia DDS tools and use 512x512 regardless of object which can have as low as 14 polys and the quality is marvellous to me.
Lab Assistant
Original Poster
#9 Old 11th Jul 2005 at 11:17 PM Last edited by crowridgestudio : 13th Jul 2005 at 9:30 PM.
I'm so glad to get all of your input on this, now I know I'm going to need to learn to be a more efficient UV mapper.

tiggerypum: I totally agree. I would suggest to anyone who is just using the "import" feature to build their texture maps--get the DDS Utilities, and use those instead. They make a huge difference--for this purpose the graphics compression is excellent.

Dr. Pixel: Good idea, and time for me to go back to the tutorials. I didn't know that lots of people's games are reducing textures anyway.

Lethe_S: I love the detail too--and tend to size my texture maps larger also. That's why I started wondering. I'm not a very efficient texture mapper yet, and I admit, there is a lot of wasted space in my own maps.

kyjj911: Some people just use the "import texture" option in SimPE, which results in lower quality graphics.

Actually, using 512x512 maps across the board wouldn't be a good practice? If you read back on what people are saying, it will slow people's games down and the end result is lower graphics quality anyway, unless you have a really good video card, which (as Dr. Pixel said,) many don't.

If you make the best use of space on the texture map you do have, you'll get the good quality you want, and you won't slow games or end up with a reduction of quality in many people's games (which would defeat our purpose of larger texture maps anyway.)

I'm thinking now that it's best to stick closely to Maxis' texture map size for the object you're using as a clone base. (Smaller objects like vases can have smaller texture maps--they just don't need the larger maps like beds, etc. do.) Take a close look at Maxis' texture maps, which are like a study in conserving space. (If you haven't already.) When you "cram" as many useful pixels as you can into a efficiently sized map, even people with average video cards are still going to see all the quality you put into your textures.

If you go up and read MaxiodTom's post, it makes a good deal of sense.

Thanks again, everyone for all your information.

Suzanne
Scholar
#10 Old 12th Jul 2005 at 1:17 AM
Yes, that's what I was trying to say.

In general, if your object is about the same size as the original Maxis object, you really should be able to do a good job using the same texture image size.

Before you resort to using a bigger texture image, first try optimizing your UV map as best you can, and also be sure to use the "build DXT" option in SimPE rather than the "import" to preserve the higest quality of your texture image.

And if you find that you really can't get by with the original image size, first try just doubling it in one direction - for example, try making it 512 x 256 rather than jumping all the way to 512 x 512

An important trick to remember when uv_mapping is that parts of the object that don't need much detail but are only going to get a solid color can be texture-mapped into a small unused space on the texture image, no matter how big the actual part is. Only areas of the mesh that need a lot of detail need a lot of space on the texture image too. In other words, on your texture map there is no need for parts to be "in scale" with each other.

Also "double up" the parts whenever you can. The 4 legs of a table, for example, can all be texture-mapped to sit right on top of each other in one rectangle, rather than have 4 separate spaces for them. Doing this sort of thing will in fact make your texturing easier because you now only need to draw one table leg, rather than 4 identical ones.
Fluffy
retired moderator
#11 Old 12th Jul 2005 at 5:04 PM
hey, those are some very good tips
I hadn't thought about a lot of those
on a more practical note
ideas for a good uv-mapper that actually does those things?
I'm using the uv feature in Blender right now, but uv-mapping with that takes about as long as making the actual mesh
and uv-mapper is out of the question, since it mostly does the box-option
Scholar
#12 Old 13th Jul 2005 at 2:52 AM
Well, UV_mapper actually is able to do a lot more than the quick and easy box-mapping thing.

But, I would suggest trying the older, free version of LithUnwrap found here:
http://files.seriouszone.com/download.php?fileid=198

The only real limitation is that you must save the texture image as a .bmp since it won't open .png files, but the texture image you use is only in Lithunwrap for mapping convienience anyway so it really doesn't matter.

It has a very important feature that the free version of UV-mapper is lacking, which is a 3d preview window which makes things much easier.

It also has a very nice "camera" mapping option where you select parts of your mesh, then turn the 3d preview image to the way you want that part mapped and it will map it as if seen from that direction. Hmmm, that is difficult to explain in words, but just try it and see.
Inventor
#13 Old 13th Jul 2005 at 3:04 AM
While mingling around with Paint for a tutorial I did, I found out this small trick.

Let's say you made a 512 x 512 texture but you wanted to resize it to 256 x 256 without losing any of the texture. Follow these steps:

1. Open the texture in Paint.

2. Choose the 'Select' tool.

3. Select the whole entire image

4. Resize it. It will not crop, but actually resize!


It is very simple. If you don't understand and would like me to upgrade that to a full tutorial with pictures, just say so.
Inventor
#14 Old 13th Jul 2005 at 1:37 PM
I usually use 512 x 512.
Lab Assistant
#15 Old 13th Jul 2005 at 3:53 PM
It is very simple. If you don't understand and would like me to upgrade that to a full tutorial with pictures, just say so.[/QUOTE]



I think you should make a tutorial. I think it would really help people out.

Thanks
The ModFather
retired moderator
#16 Old 13th Jul 2005 at 4:14 PM
I'd like to add my personal experience and some pieces of advice.

I've read some users, here, that usually use 512x512 textures and are glad to reach a very high level of detail. Well, no wonder you have such details; as Suzanne has pointed out before me, we all could use 3000 polys even for a simple object, and we'll get a very high level of details.
But the details are not the point: it's much easier to furnish a house if you have plenty of money; what is difficult is to furnish it with a low budget, while keeping a good level of quality.
And in this case, we all live with a low budget: the game and the PC resources are limited, no matter how hard we deny it. Creators who make excessive use of resources are actually robbing the other creators. No more, no less.

Therefore, I strongly suggest that we all adopt the best tecniques currently available, in order to get the most of the limited resources we have.
Here are some hints that may help.

1) Shared textures: this is the so-called "Texture Repository" tecnique, the we have extensively used in the Grand Trianon. It consists in creating an object, the Repository, that contains the main texture (even a huge one!), and then "link" other objects to the Repository, to let them use the same texture. This way, the texture is loaded only once, but used multiple times. This tecnique is useful when building set (even small ones: for instance a sofa and a living chair); but can be used also for single objects, if you link them to Maxis items (thus borrowing the game textures): if you are creating a new TV, whi not re-using the Maxis texture (that btw is huge and very detailed)?

2) Better UV-mapping tecniques: The most useful (and used) UV mapping method is the "box" projection; frequently, it is used in a wrong way. The simplest "box" projection represent the object surface in a sort of "cross" shape: this representation wastes a lot of texture space.
The first useful trick is to deactivate the "split" option, in order to map the fron and the back of the object on the same portion of the texture; this way, the "cross" becomes a sort of "L". the second step is to rotate the horizontal parts of the UV map by 90°, so to line it with the vertical parts: this reduces even more the used texture (without losing details!)

3) Separate/Slave subsets: if you are going to build, e.g. a glass vase with a decorated border, and you want to give the border the maximum detail, you could split the mesh in two (glass and border): then, use a small texture for the glass (or no texture at all, since it's glass...), and a detailed texture for the border; since the border mesh is small, even a detailed texture will be small, as well. (If you are going to enable colour options for your vase, you can enable the two subsets separately; or bind them together, making the border "slave" of the vase).

I've finally started my Journal. Information only, no questions.

My latest activity: CEP 9.2.0! - AnyGameStarter 2.1.1 (UPD) - Scriptorium v.2.2f - Photo & Plaques hide with walls - Magazine Rack (UPD) - Animated Windows Hack (UPD) - Custom Instrument Hack (UPD) - Drivable Cars Without Nightlife (UPD) - Courtesy Lights (FIX) - Custom Fence-Arches - Painting-TV - Smarter Lights (UPD)


I *DON'T* accept requests, sorry.
Fluffy
retired moderator
#17 Old 13th Jul 2005 at 8:27 PM
ya know, this thread is rapidly becoming a revelation to me
I have just found out that you can actually move stuff around in UVmapper,
like I've been doing in Blender, only much, much faster
I'm such an idiot
so much time is spent on telling people how to make a mesh
but texturing has always been my biggest challenge
so, um, thanks for bringing it up, Suzanne
Lab Assistant
Original Poster
#18 Old 13th Jul 2005 at 9:24 PM Last edited by crowridgestudio : 13th Jul 2005 at 9:46 PM.
Lethe_S,
on my own texture maps to date, there has been a lot of inefficiency, which is why I have often needed to size my maps a step up.

When I think of the game as a whole--I know anything where extra information (like pixels in this case) is added is going to take away from the game's "budget," as Numenor aptly puts it.

So, this has been a revelation to me also, and I think for my case, along with spending more time UV mapping better, learning how to make use of shared textures will be a big step up for me--which I hadn't even thought of until now. I haven't looked yet, but I bet there's a tutorial on the steps for this.

mod_bv,

Actually, if you start with 512x512 in your paint program, and then resize it to 256x256, you do lose some texture detail. You will be much easier on people's games by doing this, so I'm not saying it's a bad practice, however...

Try this: in your paint program, start with your finished 512x512 image. Make a duplicate file, and resize the image to 256x256. Now, size the 256x256 image back up to 512x512. Compare to your original. You'll notice the quality has been reduced--this is because when you go back to the original size, the pixels that have been taken out to make a smaller image have to be added back in. And they are added by your computer "guessing" what they should be. So it just won't look quite like your original.

This is a small point maybe, but I wanted you to know, because what the end of that means, is that the more you map efficiently, like making one half of a tabletop use the other half for its map, instead of mapping the whole table top, will just give you better graphic quality than sizing down your maps alone.

I hope I worded what I mean understandably--I want you to get the most quality out of your textures :kami:

Suzanne
Inventor
#19 Old 15th Jul 2005 at 12:56 AM
O yeah, now I see it. But the difference is not very significant.
Lab Assistant
#20 Old 15th Jul 2005 at 2:08 PM
The information in this thread has been extremely helpful! I've been searching for info on this exact thing for days. I've known something was "different" about my maps and textures but just couldn't figure out what I was missing. Never came across a tutorial yet that told me I could actually "move" parts of the map around or overlap parts or make half of an object use the other halfs map (how do you do all that?). Learned about the "repository" technique a few days ago but didn't know you could "link" others to it. Great information!

At least now I know why my mapping was so "different" - what a waste of space and resources!! LOL Oh, so much to learn! Thank you all for the info and tips - off to look for those tutorials again. If you know of any good ones I'd appreciate the heads up, otherwise I may be stuck in google for days!! :D

You can find all of my creations here

"The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend" Robertson Davies
Lab Assistant
#22 Old 16th Jul 2005 at 4:19 PM
Thank you Dr Pixel for the great links. I now know what I'm gong to be doing today - lots more reading! In my search yesterday I also came across your tutorial for the boom box here at modthesims2 which also has good information. I've gotten LithUnwrap and think I'm really going to like it! I appreciate the generous assistance and wealth of knowledge that is shared here.

You can find all of my creations here

"The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend" Robertson Davies
Back to top