Quick Question!
-
i’m planning to make my skin again in 8192x8192 but i have 2 questions: 1 is it possible?, Will bms support 8k textures? 2 how can i do it, Resizing a 4096x4096 to 8192x8192 will do, doing this will make the textures bigger than the model?
Sorry by my handicap questions but i need to know before i do something.
-
1. Yes. But if many expect a higher load time cause of HDD read and initial load to mem and vram.
2. No.
Resize will fit perfectly even if u go @ 100000x100000. This is why in 3ds max it’s called uv mapping.
Scaling up an existing texture will not offer anything at all but performance decrease.
Setting the texture in 8192 first and then work in it is the way. That way you get more details and plurality.Small example a Taxiway texture. The yellow lines are pixelated. If u scale up they will be exactly the same, but if you redo the lines working on higher resolution the lines will be better and in even higher they will be flawless and you can add details like ware, stains etc that are tiny and you actually see them clear if you zoom in, but from far they look more natural and not a toy paint.
It comes down to scale like one or two pixels how many cm or m of the actual model are? Going as closer to 1:1 you can, the result will be better. So one pixel for 50cm of aircraft means text or symbols or lines will just not be there or if u have them there will be super large.
I believe going to 1:4 - 1:2 or close to it is more ideal, going higher gets it to Overkill.
Overkill for performance but and for producing such, specially on a low specs PC.
I believe this is clear enough to understand it.Στάλθηκε από το MI 5 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk
-
As Arty already said, 8192 texture will mainly affect HD load, RAM and VRAM, and won’t give you much other than maybe when looking from REALLY close.
A texture for 3D model should match the model’s size, using very high size texture for relatively small geometry is just a waste as 99.9% of time the insane high res texture quality won’t even be noticed. -
As Arty already said, 8192 texture will mainly affect HD load, RAM and VRAM, and won’t give you much other than maybe when looking from REALLY close.
A texture for 3D model should match the model’s size, using very high size texture for relatively small geometry is just a waste as 99.9% of time the insane high res texture quality won’t even be noticed.thanks for the answer I-Hawk, I shall use 4k instead then.
-
Well if your system permits , u can go 8192 and provide a 4096 texture also. Downscaling is easy from the 8k texture and u don’t loose that much unless you go for killer details and you still want them there.
Example a one pixel width scratch line… Well it will be gone when you downscale it or become fatter.
You can always provide higher resolution textures as there is a high res texture folder that users can use.If u have 8gb of ram , I wouldn’t suggest going 8k. It will kill your HDD and your nerves and spend much time waiting. Been there done that.
For 8k I wouldn’t even suggest it for 16gb of ram if u work and create 3d models. Cause u will have 5-6 memory crunchers applications.Now using substance painter the last months if I want to work on high details it goes 24 just for fun .
Though on SP u can work on 1024 and then just produce only 8k on final stage, no need to see the 4k or 8k details all the time while you work on the model, it will be just awesome.Στάλθηκε από το MI 5 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk
-
Yea it’s always better to keep the source as high as you can make it, because maybe in the future we will all need 8-16K textures, who knows. But for now, 4K texture for small AC is already too much, but OK.
-
… because maybe in the future we will all need 8-16K textures, who knows. …
Makes u wanna cry of happiness…
-
Makes u wanna cry of happiness…
But it was a general statement, don’t take it as something that WE will have. It could be that in 10 years from now GPUs will have 64 or 128GB VRAM and so 8K textures will be the standard, that’s what I meant
There are no plans to make BMS use such high res textures, also there isn’t much sense to that. Maybe in very special cases 1 sheet can replace many small textures, but that won’t be the general rule. -
But it was a general statement, don’t take it as something that WE will have. It could be that in 10 years from now GPUs will have 64 or 128GB VRAM and so 8K textures will be the standard, that’s what I meant
There are no plans to make BMS use such high res textures, also there isn’t much sense to that. Maybe in very special cases 1 sheet can replace many small textures, but that won’t be the general rule.Well till yesterday 4k textures in BMS was unthinkable… and here we are now talking about 8K.
-
It could be that in 10 years from now GPUs will have 64 or 128GB VRAM and so 8K textures will be the standard.
and still i’ll have a crappy pc :rofl:
-
We all are assuming that 8192x8192 texture are all about quality.
I’m using 8192x8192 not because of tex quality but for texture number optimization only.
I can use only one texture for everything instead of having 2, 3, 4 - 4k or 2k textures in the directory.
Nevertheless 8k textures will increase HD and RAM usage. I have a 8 year old pc and still works fine