terrain texturing: tile vs single big texture
What is better?
Tile based terrain texturing or single big image?
Tiles:
easy to edit map, less space needed for textures,
high resolution, allows very big maps.
Single image: unique terrain texturing,
allows static lighting be mixed into texture,
allows to generate texture which exactly corresponds to hightmaps.
What another advantage/disadvantage?
Thanks
vlad
Perhaps a blend of both? Large texture defines lighting, small textures blended in defining rocks, grass, etc.
if your landscape is big enuf u can''t use a single texture , well u could but it''ll look shit. with my landscape see conQuest http://members.xoom.com/myBollux/home.html its pretty small at 64x64 i tried a 2048x2048 texture spread over it but it looked like shit. note the shadow is a in them shots a 1024x1024 texture spread over the whole map.
don''t use too large of textures. remember that not all of your end-users will have AGP graphcis cards. even with good graphics cards you get much slower performance than normal.
JoeMont001@aol.com | www.polarisoft.n3.net
JoeMont001@aol.com | www.polarisoft.n3.net
>if your landscape is big enuf u can''t use a single texture
I use not single texture, but one big image (4096x4096) splitted into 128x128 blocks. It takes only 10M on disk in s3tc format.
Problems begins only with bigger images. (editing, generating)
Tiled terrain has so many limitations. Tiling do not allow exact conformity between texture and hightmap. Maybe it''s possible to use hightmap tiles in conjunction with texture tiles?
I use not single texture, but one big image (4096x4096) splitted into 128x128 blocks. It takes only 10M on disk in s3tc format.
Problems begins only with bigger images. (editing, generating)
Tiled terrain has so many limitations. Tiling do not allow exact conformity between texture and hightmap. Maybe it''s possible to use hightmap tiles in conjunction with texture tiles?
>if your landscape is big enuf u can''t use a single texture
I use not single texture, but one big image (4096x4096) splitted into 128x128 blocks. It takes only 10M on disk in s3tc format.
Problems begins only with bigger images. (editing, generating)
Tiled terrain has so many limitations. Tiling do not allow exact conformity between texture and hightmap. Maybe it''s possible to use hightmap tiles in conjunction with texture tiles?
I use not single texture, but one big image (4096x4096) splitted into 128x128 blocks. It takes only 10M on disk in s3tc format.
Problems begins only with bigger images. (editing, generating)
Tiled terrain has so many limitations. Tiling do not allow exact conformity between texture and hightmap. Maybe it''s possible to use hightmap tiles in conjunction with texture tiles?
You could use both. I use a detail texture for all the terrain and some unique texture for height block(64x64 or 32x32). Remember that the TNT cards have a texture liimt of 2048x2048.
vladimir 10mb is a heap to use for texturing the lanscape. what happens when the whole landscapes in view and someone whoose card is like mine a tnt2 16mb ( ain''t that old) which doesn''t support s3tc, what happens frame rate drops to 0
Yoshi,
>You could use both. I use a detail texture for all the terrain
>and some unique texture for height block(64x64 or 32x32).
So you have same detail texture on the ground, on the grass and snow? Not very good too.
>Remember that the TNT cards have a texture liimt of 2048x2048.
I don''t use such big texture blocks, even on geforce uploading big textures works slow.
vlad
>You could use both. I use a detail texture for all the terrain
>and some unique texture for height block(64x64 or 32x32).
So you have same detail texture on the ground, on the grass and snow? Not very good too.
>Remember that the TNT cards have a texture liimt of 2048x2048.
I don''t use such big texture blocks, even on geforce uploading big textures works slow.
vlad
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement