Sign in to follow this  
DJTN

Scale and Aspect Ratio

Recommended Posts

Smaller textures = better performance but at a loss of detail and in many cases- unrealistic repetition due to repeating the texture over a mesh in an effort to provide detail at a lower GPU cost.

Is it possible to have smaller scaled models with decent sized textures but make the world appear to be real-life sized, giving some sense of large scale. And can this be accomplished with the aspect ratio in the projection/view matrix?

There is such a fine line when it comes to scale and detail. I’ve always had a hard time trying to deliver a feeling of large scale and great detail at the same time. The size of the mesh is not an issue; it’s the large detailed textures that tend to bottleneck the GPU. A work around is to use smaller textures, repeating them over the mesh but this looks horrible and unrealistic, breaking the illusion. I was thinking I could scale down everything and use faster textures (512 x 512), maybe changing the view or projections matrices to convey a larger scale.

Is this possible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='DJTN' timestamp='1341672401' post='4956647']
The size of the mesh is not an issue; it’s the large detailed textures that tend to bottleneck the GPU.
[/quote]

How exactly did you come to this conclusion? GPU's are extremely efficient when it comes to traditional texturing. Usually the limiting factory is memory when it comes to textures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='MJP' timestamp='1341686617' post='4956704']
[quote name='DJTN' timestamp='1341672401' post='4956647']
The size of the mesh is not an issue; it’s the large detailed textures that tend to bottleneck the GPU.
[/quote]

How exactly did you come to this conclusion? GPU's are extremely efficient when it comes to traditional texturing. Usually the limiting factory is memory when it comes to textures.
[/quote]

The larger the texture, the more details it can have but it takes longer to render. I assumed this was because the pixel shader had more pixels to process. Is this incorrect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='DJTN' timestamp='1341756477' post='4956935']
[quote name='MJP' timestamp='1341686617' post='4956704']
[quote name='DJTN' timestamp='1341672401' post='4956647']
The size of the mesh is not an issue; it’s the large detailed textures that tend to bottleneck the GPU.
[/quote]

How exactly did you come to this conclusion? GPU's are extremely efficient when it comes to traditional texturing. Usually the limiting factory is memory when it comes to textures.
[/quote]

The larger the texture, the more details it can have but it takes longer to render. I assumed this was because the pixel shader had more pixels to process. Is this incorrect?
[/quote]

No, the pixel shader always runs for each pixel that the geometry is rasterized to. So if you end up with a thousand pixels, then you'll have a thousand instances of your pixel shader running and it will sample your texture a thousand times. Having a higher-resolution texture will use more bandwidth since more texel data needs to be fetched, but in general GPU's are very good at handling the extra latency and also minimizing cache misses. This is particularly true if you use compressed textures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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