Image size and hardware
by PeterB · in Torque Game Builder · 09/14/2006 (12:07 pm) · 7 replies
Running some tests in T2D with an image that's 2629x620. I know it's bad practice to have my dimensions other than powers of 2. Also, I assumed that it was too wide, but it worked. But when I tried the project on a lesser computer, the sprite doesn't show up and it says it's an invalid datablock.
So what is the hardward difference between my two computers that accounts for this? Video ram?
What max size should I shoot for?
-ty
So what is the hardward difference between my two computers that accounts for this? Video ram?
What max size should I shoot for?
-ty
About the author
#2
For now your best bet is to break the image up into chunks.
PS. You might want to look at this post.
09/14/2006 (5:59 pm)
Yea... video cards usually have a texture limit size. Most modern cards can do at least 2048x2048, but some are still limited to 1024. At this point TGB doesn't try to fake it using smaller textures, but they've mentioned adding that support in the future.For now your best bet is to break the image up into chunks.
PS. You might want to look at this post.
#3
09/26/2006 (3:11 am)
I've recently skimmed through a few video card databases and the majority of them should support 2048x2048 size textures. The few notables that don't are the ATI Rage Pro's, and one of the intel intergrated chips (both of these cards were released late 2000), the 815's IIRC. Oh and most any video hardware pre 1999-2000 like the 3DFX carsds and the like, but you're gotta move on some time...
#4
I'm not sure how much the release version of TGB helps with this problem (since I know it does more advanced texture management), but on T2D beta 1.0.2 I found I had to keep my texture size below 1024 in either dimension in order to get a playable experience on these kinds of laptops. Simply halving the size of the three or four 1024x512 textures I was using in a scene gave me a 35% FPS increase.
Keep in mind that the unmodified game ran incredibly well on almost all video chipsets considered even remotely decent for gaming, so it depends entirely on your target audience.
09/26/2006 (9:22 am)
Though the more recent Intel integrated chipsets such as the 82855 found in many popular laptops sold today support larger texture sizes, they tend to run very poorly with several of them blending at once. I'm not sure how much the release version of TGB helps with this problem (since I know it does more advanced texture management), but on T2D beta 1.0.2 I found I had to keep my texture size below 1024 in either dimension in order to get a playable experience on these kinds of laptops. Simply halving the size of the three or four 1024x512 textures I was using in a scene gave me a 35% FPS increase.
Keep in mind that the unmodified game ran incredibly well on almost all video chipsets considered even remotely decent for gaming, so it depends entirely on your target audience.
#5
I'm eventually going to test on my computer than has an old gForce 64 MB card. I assume it's still better than the built in intel I have now... but who knows!
09/26/2006 (3:07 pm)
I've got integrated intel graphics in my laptop (Dell Inspiron 2200) and have used sprites larger than 1024x1024 just fine. I havne't, however, tried anything larger than 2048x2048. Most of my graphics are not power of 2.I'm eventually going to test on my computer than has an old gForce 64 MB card. I assume it's still better than the built in intel I have now... but who knows!
#6
Driver quality no doubt has something to do with it too.
I've tested on a Geforce 440MX with 64MB of RAM and it ran substantially better than the Intel, especially before the texture reduction. I also had a run-of-the-mill SiS integrated chipset two years older (than the Intel) that performed about even with the Intel.
09/26/2006 (3:23 pm)
As I mentioned Intel integrated chipsets do support the 1024 texture size, but if you have multiple large textures blending over one another, it doesn't handle it efficiently. As I converted several large textures down one at a time performance improved visibly after each one. In some cases I converted by scaling down the source, others I replaced with multiple smaller textures that added back up to the original.Driver quality no doubt has something to do with it too.
I've tested on a Geforce 440MX with 64MB of RAM and it ran substantially better than the Intel, especially before the texture reduction. I also had a run-of-the-mill SiS integrated chipset two years older (than the Intel) that performed about even with the Intel.
#7
09/26/2006 (5:09 pm)
^Ah. Good to know. I've got a variety of computers at home to test on that should be a good mix of video cards, ram, and processors. Right now my goal is getting it running fine on my laptop. I figure if a game can run well on a budget laptop, it can run well on most systems. :) 
Torque 3D Owner Matthew Langley
Torque