Jump to content
  • Advertisement

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

UltimaX

456 MB In 2 Textures?

This topic is 5482 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

How in the world can this be memory efficient? Would a video card be able to handle something so big? Or better yet, how do you create textures that big with all of that detail? Sorry, but this just blows my mind -UltimaX- "You wished for a white christmas... Now go shovel your wishes!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
Guest Anonymous Poster
It''s not. But then again this is not for realtime 3D use. This is for rendering packages, then it is a different story. However, considering how the realtime 3D technology evolves, I would "guess" that cards capable of dealing with these kinds of textures will arrive in about 2 - 3 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AP:
Actually it is real time. It's textures for the SOAR terrain engine.

Sneftel:
I know what CLOD is, that's what I use for my terrain engine now. I was just looking around because I heard it's out of date. CLOD, ROAM, SOAR, etc I know about. I just couldn't believe the texture sizes. It takes a few seconds to load/compute the textures I use now. I would hate to see this

EDIT
Actually it might not be that bad. It's at load time, so I don't think it would affect performance would it?

-UltimaX-

"You wished for a white christmas... Now go shovel your wishes!"

[edited by - UltimaX on September 22, 2003 1:46:36 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
I had a look at his soar engine but it requires geo files? where can I find those? (just a sample is needed to see the engine in action)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
Never mind. I recompiled the whole thing to actually work with an up to date libpng instead and I am not that impressed with it. Although the technique is interesting the performance leaves much to be desired. Sometime *I have to say this because I see it more and more recently* people are so into a technology that they forget to ask the question: Does this improve the performance in a way that could not be better in another way? More and more I see fancy math implementations/solutions that performs so badly that they barely compare with older demos/games that push much more polygons. This is the case with the soar engine as well. On a 2.4ghz cpu it hits 40 fps with only 80k polys. That is incredibly bad. There is not even any other content in the sample. No ai, no particles no nothing. If math is not helping improving performance then quite frankly it is not worth of notice. There are modern games that spend more time calculating than presenting content as well. I think is an issue worthy of a new thread to be seriously discussed. What do you think? Is game becoming more effect guided than to actually provide good, fast content? Is games becoming like movies, all effects and no story? (Moderators: Feel free to open this as a new thread if you think that is better. ;-) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

We are the game development community.

Whether you are an indie, hobbyist, AAA developer, or just trying to learn, GameDev.net is the place for you to learn, share, and connect with the games industry. Learn more About Us or sign up!

Sign me up!