Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

FPSC Classic Product Chat / It seem FSPC can display hi-res textures (at least 2048x2048)

Author
Message
gps
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Dec 2004
Location: England
Posted: 3rd Jan 2006 07:15 Edited at: 3rd Jan 2006 07:18
Link
I took a 512x512 brick wall texture, resized it to 2048x2048, then wrote the words RESOLUTION TEST in 14pt Ariel Narrow across a single (and now very fuzzy) brick.

I was curious to see if FPSC would actually recognise the 2048x2048 texture, and whether the in-game result would be a re-sampled blur. Check out the attached screenie to see the result.

At 2048x2048 the letters are 14 pixels high. Re-sampled using PSP7 to 512x512 they're approx 5 pixels high and illegible. If FPSC is resampling the texture internally, then it's doing a far better job of it than a dedicated art program, which seems unlikely.

My guess, FPSC can use any size of texture providing that it's dimensions are a power of 2. I suppose there must be some kind of performance penalty, but it doesn't seem to affect frame rate - I was getting 31 fps in editor test mode. Presumably large textures hit memory harder than they tax CPU performance. For the record, I have 1Gb of memory and a 128Mb graphic card.

Cheers

- Graham


BTW, I haven't tried slapping a ridiculously large texture on a character yet - that probably would clobber the frame rate


EDIT

Ahem, yes I do know I called it FSPC in the thread title

Still, First Shooter Person Creator as a certain ring to it

Attachments

Login to view attachments
Back to top
Profile PM
Nigezu
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Nov 2005
Location: Oulu, Finland
Posted: 3rd Jan 2006 10:52 Edited at: 3rd Jan 2006 10:53
Link
I think that didn't look so much different compared to original textures.

Intel Pentium 4 Processor 519 3.06 Ghz, 1536 MB DDR, Ati Radeon 9550 256MB
Back to top
Profile PM
Roger Wilco
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Jul 2005
Location: In the Shadow of Chernobyl
Posted: 3rd Jan 2006 20:57
Link
Woah, if that screenshot's real, then we've got proof that FPSC is capable of using enormous textures, textures bigger than the max-res in the editor.

One thing to look forward to:
The day FPSC v 1 is released
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Vlad
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2005
Location:
Posted: 3rd Jan 2006 21:01
Link
Aren't the "big" texures brought down by the game engine? I think I read this somewhere.

I'm pretty sure I know everything. Doubts are something rare in me and I am never wrong, as this signature can prove.
Back to top
Profile PM
Deadwords
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Feb 2005
Location: Canada
Posted: 3rd Jan 2006 22:04
Link
Yea i read this somewhere, but i think 512x512 Textures means the real resolution of the texture.

Skalex - Nobody can ear you scream ... you're on a forum!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
gps
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Dec 2004
Location: England
Posted: 3rd Jan 2006 22:04
Link
@Vlad - Yep, that's what I thought to begin with - the maximum resolution option when you build a game is 512x512, but I noticed that some of the characters had 1024x1024 textures, and they looked better in-game than their counterparts with 512x512 textures. Load the WW2 Tommy (1024x1024) and the SF Colonel X (512x512) into the editor, stand them shoulder to shoulder and then compare the texture sharpness (choose the unarmed variants, unless you want then chasing you all over the level ).

Right now I'm creating a 2048x2048 version of the breeze block wall texture that appears on the service area wall segment in the model pack. This should make for a more useful 'compare and contrast' exercise.
Back to top
Profile PM
Vlad
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2005
Location:
Posted: 3rd Jan 2006 22:24
Link
It will also need more video memory and will generate a bigger distribution file, so use it with care case you thing it's better looking.

I'm pretty sure I know everything. Doubts are something rare in me and I am never wrong, as this signature can prove.
Back to top
Profile PM
gps
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Dec 2004
Location: England
Posted: 3rd Jan 2006 23:03
Link
Vlad's point is well taken, I'm not really suggesting that people start using 2048x2048 textures for segments and characters. But when it comes to modelling large entities (buildings for instance), a bigger map will offer more space for variety and reduce the dreaded tiling effect.

For instance, you won't have to use the same window all the way down the side of your factory building (a standard space-saving trick), you'll have room to put two or three variations on the same map.

I hope to put this to the test in the next day or two - combining a low-poly building mesh with a high res texture and checking out the performance ramifications. I'll release this model to the community as well, to see how it performs on a variety of systems.

In the mean time, here are the segment test results I promised. In each case I jammed the camera as close in to the corner of the room as possible.
Back to top
Profile PM
gps
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Dec 2004
Location: England
Posted: 3rd Jan 2006 23:03
Link
Service Area wall painted with the default 512x512 texture...

Attachments

Login to view attachments
Back to top
Profile PM
gps
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Dec 2004
Location: England
Posted: 3rd Jan 2006 23:04
Link
Service Area wall painted with my 2048x2048 texture...

Attachments

Login to view attachments
Back to top
Profile PM
Vlad
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2005
Location:
Posted: 3rd Jan 2006 23:11
Link
I must say I'm impressed with the test results simply because I wasn't expecting any. High detail textures always bring a higher photo-realistic scenario to games and this is no exception.

The technical details regarding speed and machine specs would still apply of course, but the truth is that this test may prove it's worth in several aspects for those that are looking for other type of results in graphical terms.

Very nice going gps. After all I've read, it would never cross my mind.

I'm pretty sure I know everything. Doubts are something rare in me and I am never wrong, as this signature can prove.
Back to top
Profile PM
Les Horribres
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 4th Jan 2006 01:25 Edited at: 4th Jan 2006 01:29
Link
Uhh, I hate to say this, in case I am wrong, but this is botched.

Your image 4x smaller

It doesn't look as good as the high res one, but it DEFINATLY isn't anywhere NEARLY as horrible as your low res version. So either your image shrinker sucks, or you are botching it.

Please explain.

[edit]
Download the image, and click open.
Zoom in
[/edit]

Merranvo, The Cool One

Anti-Noob Justice League, an ANJL of Mercy.

Attachments

Login to view attachments
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Vlad
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2005
Location:
Posted: 4th Jan 2006 01:42
Link
Sorry Merranvo but I really need a translation on this. I'm lost I admit.

I'm pretty sure I know everything. Doubts are something rare in me and I am never wrong, as this signature can prove.
Back to top
Profile PM
gps
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Dec 2004
Location: England
Posted: 4th Jan 2006 03:56
Link
Merranvo, by 'low res version' do you mean the first image I posted, or the first of the second two... now I'm confusing myself

Actually the very first image is the proof of the pudding, so to speak - the white brickwork started life as a not particularly sharp 512x512 texture, which I simply blew up to 2048x2048. Up-close it looks terrible. The idea was to contrast it with the text, added at 14pt once the image size was 2048x2048, so I could see for myself if FPSC was resampling it back down to 512x512. The fact that it was still legible proved that it wasn't being reduced.

I was going to attach the new 2048x2048 service area texture so you guys could test it out yourselves, but even at max .dds compression it comes out at 4megs, which deftly demonstrates the major handicap of large textures. Still, if any broadband-using FPSC-ers are interested, let me know and I'll post it.

Perhaps I should mention that the 2048x2048 texture was made from scratch using very hi-res reference images. The 512x512 service area texture is the one supplied by TCG with the model pack.

I haven't actually reduced the size of any textures.

But then again, neither has the FPSC engine... at least as far as I can tell
Back to top
Profile PM
Les Horribres
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 4th Jan 2006 12:53
Link
That explains it...

Vlad, according to laws that I do not know, a image of a larger size textures may be shrunk to reveal what the lower size textures should look like. When I saw the FPSC Texture, and the HighRes texture, I imidatly reconized the fact that they were not the same texture. That is what my image sought to prove.


As texture sizes actually have small effects in FPSC, this could change a lot (Of course I was never an artist, that makes things harder, and blander).

Three Beers to GPS

But I'll Take the Coffee

Merranvo, The Cool One

Anti-Noob Justice League, an ANJL of Mercy.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 4th Jan 2006 13:08
Link
I think you'll feel the pain once you try to use a 2048 texture on a lot of segments, like once it fills the graphics cards memory your running into problems, and with 12+mb images that won't take long.

Whenever I texture something I work in a higher resolution, like 2048x2048 or 1024x1024, the usually squash down to 512x512, the way I see it you double the quality but quadruple the file size so it just ain't worth it. I thought maybe there would be a detail setter, like being able to specify the maximum texture resolution, then resize the images as they are loaded where need be. Being able to scale a tileable texture without having to worry about seams appearing is very handy, perhaps it is already in there.


Van-B

Put away, those fiery biscuits!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
bond1
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Oct 2005
Location:
Posted: 4th Jan 2006 16:46
Link
Well this is some news then, good catch gps. So in effect the texture settings in the build menu don't have any effect?

While I don't think I'll use 2048 textures, it IS good to know that I can use 1024 textures. Maybe I'll have to splurge and get myself a 512mb 7800 GTX.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
KeithC
Senior Moderator
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Oct 2005
Location: Michigan
Posted: 4th Jan 2006 18:28
Link
I've been toying with the idea of using 512 textures as a default in my pack, but including the 1024 texture versions in a separate file. Would this be worth it to people?

-Keith

"Some people are only alive because it's illegal to kill them".
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-24 06:01:39
Your offset time is: 2024-11-24 06:01:39