Sign in to follow this  

Large 2D sprites

This topic is 3337 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

My card isn't new (GeForce 7300LE), and it supports up to 4096 x 4096.

As far as I'm aware, "many frames of animation" will have no impact on hardware limitations. It just comes down to size and quantity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It depends on what you mean by "current". SM3 guarantees support of up to 4096x4096. DX10 guarantees support for up to 8192x8192, IIRC. You can pretty much assume that any hardware in use nowadays can utilise at least 2048x2048.

But realistically, you'll be limited more by memory than max. texture size. Amount of memory varies from between 0mb for integrated chipsets to 2GB for ultra-high end cards. Having at least 128mb of onboard VRAM for a dedicated graphics card is a pretty good bet, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of my friends actually implemented streaming animation for a boxing game. Each large frame was loaded from the hard drive, on the fly, and rendered to the screen. It was pretty smooth, but the game and visuals were not demanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There isn't a maximum size just as there is not a maximum size on meshes that you can render in 3D. Why? Because if it is 'too big', then you break it into smaller parts, and render each of them individually. You can do the same thing with 2D images if you are running into space constraints. If you need one spite that is 8Kx8K, it can be just as easily represented behind the scenes as 4 4Kx4K pictures, or 16 2Kx2K pictures. As was already pointed out, video memory will be a bigger problem, but there is only so much space that you are going to be rendering to [the screen isn't that big, and in 2D projects, you can much more aggressively cull unnecessary images]. It really isn't realistic to expect a 2D game to max out the memory on modern graphics cards if you are anything short of wasteful with your memory use.

So no, there is no limit. There are limits on individual textures, but if you need more, you just cut it up and issue more draw calls. Also, you can put each animation frame on its own texture if you want. The number of frames of animation doesn't really effect texture size either, because you can just put each frame on its own texture if need be.

Also, game design?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Drigovas
It really isn't realistic to expect a 2D game to max out the memory on modern graphics cards if you are anything short of wasteful with your memory use.

It's more than realistic. I'd expect a 2D game to be far more demanding on video memory than a 3D game. A 3D character just needs a body and a paint job in v-ram, then you can animate them to do anything. A 2D character needs every trivial action they can perform stored in v-ram. If the characters are large, that space is taken up quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the info guys, I was planning on having 2D sprites in a 3D environment, kind of like the original Doom because I like the look of 2D art over 3D. I think I'll end up going for a maximum of just 1024x1024 to keep them from being pixilated up close and limit how many frames of animation are loaded at once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Cpt Mothballs
Don't use pixels anymore.

Vectoring is the way of the future.


Sweeping generalizations are generally far from the truth. Bitmap and Vector graphics are both valid tools for expressing 2d.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Streaming technologies are sufficiently advance to stream on demand sprite animations with intelligent preaching ( ie first 1-2 frames precached while stream operations executes async on 2nd thread for smooth game play ) only limited by your hard drive space.

Games like Diablo I and II used such a system I believe and they are like 5 years old. With todays hardware you can stream faster and more high resolution sprites than ever before. I guess people don't do this because the cost of making content is so much cheaper as 3D models vs prerendered high resolution sprites. Though that might be changing with more free mature 3D tools coming out.


Good Luck!

-ddn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Thirst
Quote:
Original post by Cpt Mothballs
Don't use pixels anymore.

Vectoring is the way of the future.


Sweeping generalizations are generally far from the truth. Bitmap and Vector graphics are both valid tools for expressing 2d.


Yeah, I guess, but most people don't realise that rotating bitmaps causes this horrible sprite blurring effect and it ends up totally ruining more sprite based games.

That plus with vectoring, you can add a zoom function.

Not so much with spriting.

I guess it's all in how you use it, but I've been doing spriting for a while and doing flash is kind of new to me, but I just like vectoring more. It seems more technical to me.
Haha.

Although Hi-Res pixel by pixel backgrounds are probably the most awesome things ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is 3337 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.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this