Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
CarlML

DX11 Texture aspect ratio - Does it matter?

Recommended Posts

Would a 1024x16384 texture generally perform as well as a 4096x4096 texture? Memory wise they should be the same but perhaps having such a large dimension as 16384 would be worse anyway?

 

I'm considering making a texture atlas like a long strip where it would be tilable in one direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
10 minutes ago, CarlML said:

Would a 1024x16384 texture generally perform as well as a 4096x4096 texture?

Normally as long as you use power of two on both axis your fine. So 64x 1024 is fine. However most graphics cards in use now supports 4K not 16K. So more computers can use 4096x4096 than 1024x16384.

You will be storing the same amount of data but will have more problems with the 16K one. There is no real reason you can't do it, just that more computers will have a problem with it.

Most DirectX 11 cards can read 16K textures. Still more than 50% of the worlds population don't have graphics cards that support DirectX11. The number grows if we include mobiles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CarlML said:

What would be the drawback of having a non power of 2 texture size like 1024x10240 (1024*10)?

A list to big to post here.

In short computers work with 0 and 1. So there is 2 possible states. This means computers work from the root up in power of two. That would mean performance problems and calculation problems if you don't use power of two.

Take mip maps, they are formed using a cubic calculation. So 1024 -> 512 -> 256 -> 128. Also because each mip is half the size of the other before it they can all fit on one texture of the same size. So your 1024 can use a 1024 texture to store all it's mips.

now if you broke the power of two rule, the mips can't be formed using the same calculations. So most engines just disable mips for none power of two textures. This leads to performance problems and noisy looking textures.

 

The good news is there is an easy fix. You can just fill the rest of the texture with black pixels till you reach the nearest power of two. So a 1000x1000 texture is converted to 1024x1024 with black edges. This fixes all calculation problems and you can still pull the 1000x1000 from the other image.

A atlas is also intended to fix this. Say you had 10 buttons of 250x100 pixels you could fit them all on a 1024*1024 texture and have space for more buttons. So instead of having 10 bad textures you have 1 good texture. This saves a lot of performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, yeah mipmaps is a big thing. 1024x8192 might not be enough for my purposes though so the next step would be 1024x16384. That is a lot... but perhaps it would not be a bigger deal than having a 4096x4096 texure, as long as the card supports the size?

Edited by CarlML

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you hooked on 1024x16384 for an atlas when 4096x4096 is the same thing and supported on more cards?  Unless your textures are 1024 in width going into the taller one you're going to be implementing a full featured texture atlas class/suite anyways. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mike2343 said:

Why are you hooked on 1024x16384 for an atlas when 4096x4096 is the same thing and supported on more cards?  Unless your textures are 1024 in width going into the taller one you're going to be implementing a full featured texture atlas class/suite anyways. 

The idea is to have it be tilable in one direction. Tiling parts of a 4096x4096 texture is tricky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CarlML said:

The idea is to have it be tilable in one direction. Tiling parts of a 4096x4096 texture is tricky.

You can still make it tile in one direction. To be clear a atlas is only where you store a texture.

Think of this 1024*64 as your long one.

long.thumb.jpg.b9df2691ef56f9e860d3a6383060471c.jpg

Now I can just store it as 256*256:

Fat.jpg.fccede8ec31b15c7d8c51085fb805db5.jpg

See it's still tiling in the same direction, there was no need to have it tiling in a new direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scouting Ninja said:

You can still make it tile in one direction. To be clear a atlas is only where you store a texture.

Think of this 1024*64 as your long one.

long.thumb.jpg.b9df2691ef56f9e860d3a6383060471c.jpg

Now I can just store it as 256*256:

Fat.jpg.fccede8ec31b15c7d8c51085fb805db5.jpg

See it's still tiling in the same direction, there was no need to have it tiling in a new direction.

Each square would be a different 1024x1024 texture so it would not tile like that. I can be done if the mesh is split up and repeated but that gets tricky with irregular geometry and the mipmapping makes other parts of the atlas bleed into the texture, so you need pixel borders for that. With the atlas in a long strip none of that would be necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, CarlML said:

With the atlas in a long strip none of that would be necessary.

How so? Pixels will still bleed into each other if you use the wrong types of mips and irregular geometry stays the same no matter if the texture is long or square.

Changing the shape of your texture does not change the way it all works.

Can you show a small example of what your trying to do? 

Edited by Scouting Ninja

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  

  • Advertisement
  • Advertisement
  • Popular Tags

  • Popular Now

  • Advertisement
  • Similar Content

    • By chiffre
      Introduction:
      In general my questions pertain to the differences between floating- and fixed-point data. Additionally I would like to understand when it can be advantageous to prefer fixed-point representation over floating-point representation in the context of vertex data and how the hardware deals with the different data-types. I believe I should be able to reduce the amount of data (bytes) necessary per vertex by choosing the most opportune representations for my vertex attributes. Thanks ahead of time if you, the reader, are considering the effort of reading this and helping me.
      I found an old topic that shows this is possible in principal, but I am not sure I understand what the pitfalls are when using fixed-point representation and whether there are any hardware-based performance advantages/disadvantages.
      (TLDR at bottom)
      The Actual Post:
      To my understanding HLSL/D3D11 offers not just the traditional floating point model in half-,single-, and double-precision, but also the fixed-point model in form of signed/unsigned normalized integers in 8-,10-,16-,24-, and 32-bit variants. Both models offer a finite sequence of "grid-points". The obvious difference between the two models is that the fixed-point model offers a constant spacing between values in the normalized range of [0,1] or [-1,1], while the floating point model allows for smaller "deltas" as you get closer to 0, and larger "deltas" the further you are away from 0.
      To add some context, let me define a struct as an example:
      struct VertexData { float[3] position; //3x32-bits float[2] texCoord; //2x32-bits float[3] normals; //3x32-bits } //Total of 32 bytes Every vertex gets a position, a coordinate on my texture, and a normal to do some light calculations. In this case we have 8x32=256bits per vertex. Since the texture coordinates lie in the interval [0,1] and the normal vector components are in the interval [-1,1] it would seem useful to use normalized representation as suggested in the topic linked at the top of the post. The texture coordinates might as well be represented in a fixed-point model, because it seems most useful to be able to sample the texture in a uniform manner, as the pixels don't get any "denser" as we get closer to 0. In other words the "delta" does not need to become any smaller as the texture coordinates approach (0,0). A similar argument can be made for the normal-vector, as a normal vector should be normalized anyway, and we want as many points as possible on the sphere around (0,0,0) with a radius of 1, and we don't care about precision around the origin. Even if we have large textures such as 4k by 4k (or the maximum allowed by D3D11, 16k by 16k) we only need as many grid-points on one axis, as there are pixels on one axis. An unsigned normalized 14 bit integer would be ideal, but because it is both unsupported and impractical, we will stick to an unsigned normalized 16 bit integer. The same type should take care of the normal vector coordinates, and might even be a bit overkill.
      struct VertexData { float[3] position; //3x32-bits uint16_t[2] texCoord; //2x16bits uint16_t[3] normals; //3x16bits } //Total of 22 bytes Seems like a good start, and we might even be able to take it further, but before we pursue that path, here is my first question: can the GPU even work with the data in this format, or is all I have accomplished minimizing CPU-side RAM usage? Does the GPU have to convert the texture coordinates back to a floating-point model when I hand them over to the sampler in my pixel shader? I have looked up the data types for HLSL and I am not sure I even comprehend how to declare the vertex input type in HLSL. Would the following work?
      struct VertexInputType { float3 pos; //this one is obvious unorm half2 tex; //half corresponds to a 16-bit float, so I assume this is wrong, but this the only 16-bit type I found on the linked MSDN site snorm half3 normal; //same as above } I assume this is possible somehow, as I have found input element formats such as: DXGI_FORMAT_R16G16B16A16_SNORM and DXGI_FORMAT_R16G16B16A16_UNORM (also available with a different number of components, as well as different component lengths). I might have to avoid 3-component vectors because there is no 3-component 16-bit input element format, but that is the least of my worries. The next question would be: what happens with my normals if I try to do lighting calculations with them in such a normalized-fixed-point format? Is there no issue as long as I take care not to mix floating- and fixed-point data? Or would that work as well? In general this gives rise to the question: how does the GPU handle fixed-point arithmetic? Is it the same as integer-arithmetic, and/or is it faster/slower than floating-point arithmetic?
      Assuming that we still have a valid and useful VertexData format, how far could I take this while remaining on the sensible side of what could be called optimization? Theoretically I could use the an input element format such as DXGI_FORMAT_R10G10B10A2_UNORM to pack my normal coordinates into a 10-bit fixed-point format, and my verticies (in object space) might even be representable in a 16-bit unsigned normalized fixed-point format. That way I could end up with something like the following struct:
      struct VertexData { uint16_t[3] pos; //3x16bits uint16_t[2] texCoord; //2x16bits uint32_t packedNormals; //10+10+10+2bits } //Total of 14 bytes Could I use a vertex structure like this without too much performance-loss on the GPU-side? If the GPU has to execute some sort of unpacking algorithm in the background I might as well let it be. In the end I have a functioning deferred renderer, but I would like to reduce the memory footprint of the huge amount of vertecies involved in rendering my landscape. 
      TLDR: I have a lot of vertices that I need to render and I want to reduce the RAM-usage without introducing crazy compression/decompression algorithms to the CPU or GPU. I am hoping to find a solution by involving fixed-point data-types, but I am not exactly sure how how that would work.
    • By cozzie
      Hi all,
      I was wondering it it matters in which order you draw 2D and 3D items, looking at the BeginDraw/EndDraw calls on a D2D rendertarget.
      The order in which you do the actual draw calls is clear, 3D first then 2D, means the 2D (DrawText in this case) is in front of the 3D scene.
      The question is mainly about when to call the BeginDraw and EndDraw.
      Note that I'm drawing D2D stuff through a DXGI surface linked to the 3D RT.
      Option 1:
      A - Begin frame, clear D3D RT
      B - Draw 3D
      C - BeginDraw D2D RT
      D - Draw 2D
      E - EndDraw D2D RT
      F - Present
      Option 2:
      A - Begin frame, clear D3D RT + BeginDraw D2D RT
      B - Draw 3D
      C - Draw 2D
      D - EndDraw D2D RT
      E- Present
      Would there be a difference (performance/issue?) in using option 2? (versus 1)
      Any input is appreciated.
    • By Sebastian Werema
      Do you know any papers that cover custom data structures like lists or binary trees implemented in hlsl without CUDA that work perfectly fine no matter how many threads try to use them at any given time?
    • By cozzie
      Hi all,
      Last week I noticed that when I run my test application(s) in Renderdoc, it crashes when it enable my code that uses D2D/DirectWrite. In Visual Studio no issues occur (debug or release), but when I run the same executable in Renderdoc, it crashes somehow (assert of D2D rendertarget or without any information). Before I spend hours on debugging/ figuring it out, does someone have experience with this symptom and/or know if Renderdoc has known issues with D2D? (if so, that would be bad news for debugging my application in the future );
      I can also post some more information on what happens, code and which code commented out, eliminates the problems (when running in RenderDoc).
      Any input is appreciated.
    • By lonewolff
      Hi Guys,
      I understand how to create input layouts etc... But I am wondering is it at all possible to derive an input layout from a shader and create the input layout directly from this? (Rather than manually specifying the input layout format?)
      Thanks in advance :)
       
  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

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

Participate in the game development conversation and more when you create an account on GameDev.net!

Sign me up!