Texture Sizes

Started by
1 comment, last by b00ny 22 years, 7 months ago
Hi I''ve been trying to optimise my 3d engine. A particular scene renders approx 200 objects, each having the same texture. I''ve been playing around with the texture sizes and have found the following: If the texture is 64x64x256 I get 60 fps (my minimum acceptable level) If the texture is 128x128x256 I get 54 fps (not good) If teh texture is 256x256x256 I get 27 fps (terrible) This is on a PIII 500 with a Matrox G400 card. The positioning of the objects also seems to have a BIG impact. If I position each cube so it''s directly behind the previous one, I can render a 1000 of them at 128x128x256 and still maintain 60 fps. Position just 200 cubes so that they are partially occluded by others, and the fps drops. Doesn''t seem right to me. Please tell me if this is as expected, or am I doing something wrong somewhere? Gfx card issue ? Thanks in advance, Boon.
Advertisement
Noone got any ideas? :-)
This sounds right...

I don''t know much about the matrox card, but positioning each cube behind one may mean that the other cubes never get textured because they''re occluded, so why bother.

Try this - either turn off vsync or redo your timing so that it doesn''t include the time to actually present. Render one cube. Now render several others behind the first cube. Is your frame rate the same (or very close)? If so, then the above point is correct.

Also, could 32bit textures be better? I know it sounds strange, but sometimes it can be costly to map 8bit textures to 32bit devices, etc... Depends on the hardware...
Author, "Real Time Rendering Tricks and Techniques in DirectX", "Focus on Curves and Surfaces", A third book on advanced lighting and materials

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement