[project1dev] Re: Models + Texture Cost/Practices
- From: Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:18:17 -0700
yeah totally (:
Nick++
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Nick Klotz <roracsenshi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Oh, that's awesome to know. So for temple walls that are meant to encompass
> the entire room I can make a very large model (eg: 400x700x10) and have it
> textured relatively cheaply, as a grainy stone type.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> That's a good question you ask.
>>
>> basically the answer is there is no clear cut answer it's kind of
>> something you have to weigh on a case by case basis, but there's something
>> good in this battle of texture memory.
>>
>> You can repeat textures across an object.
>>
>> for instance you could have an image of a single floor tile and put it
>> onto a floor model, but tell it to repeat 10 times on X and 10 times on Y
>> and it would give you a 10x10 grided floor of that image - FOR FREE.
>>
>> so texture repeating is a good tool to use
>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Nick Klotz <roracsenshi@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>>
>>> I hate to sound redundant; but when building a very large area (such as
>>> the temple is turning out to be) is it cheaper to go with more
>>> models+smaller textures or fewer models that are much larger+larger texture
>>> sizes?
>>> We discussed previously that larger models cost about the same as smaller
>>> models because it's based off of faces and vertices (correct me if I am
>>> wrong), but that textures can become very costly when larger.
>>>
>>> So what would the tradeoff point be? I just want to build a level
>>> optimally if possible; though I know very little may be permanent.
>>>
>>
>>
>
Other related posts:
