Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Expected maximum texture size


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
3 replies to this topic

#1 Trapper Zoid   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1370

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 07 August 2013 - 05:48 PM

What would be a sensible maximum texture size to expect on today's hardware, factoring in the whole range of graphics cards, integrated graphics and legacy systems that could be realistically be expected to be still in use?

 

I am playing around with some 2D prototypes and am currently making tile sheets to load into an OpenGL texture. I would like to be able to load as much as possible into a single texture, which currently isn't going to be a problem, however it would be nice to know for the future what I should peg as a limit for the maximum size for a tile sheet so I can plan the scope of the available tiles accordingly.



Sponsor:

#2 LorenzoGatti   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2510

Like
4Likes
Like

Posted 09 August 2013 - 01:52 AM

 

What would be a sensible maximum texture size to expect on today's hardware, factoring in the whole range of graphics cards, integrated graphics and legacy systems that could be realistically be expected to be still in use?

 
"Still in use" doesn't necessarily mean that they should be supported, just like in the web design field the Internet Explorer 6 sightings in the wild don't justify the effort and file size increase of supporting obscenely obsolete browsers.

Really old hardware might be still in use, but typically not in computers that videogame players use to play new releases; after gamer kids replace their primary computers, previous ones are typically moved to light duty (elderly parents and grandparents, file/web server, just some word processing, etc.) and it's unlikely they are used again for games (except perhaps old ones).

I suggest researching the cheap integrated graphics of reasonably common low-end PCs of a few years ago, (e.g. early Intel 4000); anything newer and/or less cheap should be better and they cover the rare worst-case scenario of trying the game on a random borrowed non-gaming computer.
Produci, consuma, crepa

#3 samoth   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4496

Like
4Likes
Like

Posted 09 August 2013 - 02:40 AM

If you want to support tablets, you should go no higher than 20482, which is what Tegra 3 supports (iPad3/Tegra 4 supports 40962). If iPad, Nexus, or Galaxy Tab are possible candidates, don't go over 20482.

 

For desktop, 40962 is a reasonable number if you want to account for really old graphic cards (5-8 years) as well, though almost all of them could do 81922 even back then. For reasonably recent graphics cards, 81922 is a mostly OK assumption.

When in doubt, Lorenzo Gatti's argument holds true: Ask yourself if they really should be supported. Not only will your game probably look and feel like crap on hardware that doesn't meet some minimum specs (this gives a bad impression), but also if you plan to sell your game it is highly unlikely that you'll be getting paid. Someone who can't (or doesn't want to) put 20€ into a graphics card can't afford (or doesn't want) to pay you either.

 

OpenGL 4.1 mandates 163842, so if you design primarily for that version, you can blindly use this size without asking. If it takes another year or so before your're finished, the share of cards not capable of doing OpenGL 4.1 will be even smaller.



#4 Trapper Zoid   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1370

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 09 August 2013 - 03:46 AM

Thanks to both of you for your replies, that's just what I needed - a sanity check for myself that expecting 2048x2048 texture support is a reasonable requirement.






Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS