High resoultion textures needed.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:27 am

Why are you setting it at something arbitrary like 2048.. why not take out the function and all calls to it instead?

Your_Persona · Post by **Your_Persona** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:08 am

Orion wrote:QUOTE (Orion @ Aug 15 2006, 07:27 PM) Why are you setting it at something arbitrary like 2048.. why not take out the function and all calls to it instead?

What are you talking about? I don't understand what you just said. /blink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":o" border="0" alt="blink.gif" />

Zapper · Post by **Zapper** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:52 am

@Orion
/huh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":huh:" border="0" alt="huh.gif" />

@Y_p
Which resampling algorithm is Alleg using?

@Dog
I would always retouch the image in a higher resolution if i need to downsize.
2048 is a good size even if its only 72dpi, and as a Master for future resampling.
It all depends on the resampling algorithm.. is it good enuf or shale it be better(its prolly stolen from m$ Word /mrgreen.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="mrgreen.gif" /> ).

Zap

doofus · Post by **doofus** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:40 am

It's probably been mentioned before, but unless I'm mistaken, the current alleg engine doesn't support mipmapping. In this case, using 2048x2048 textures is going to incur a performance hit. Not to mention that with textures that large, a lot of people will experience texture thrashing over AGP, depending on how many textures are converted to that resolution.

Create the textures at 2048x2048 by all means, but in most cases scaled down versions of those will be better (I'm thinking ships mainly). As DB & Adaven pointed out, the texel to pixel ratio won't justify the cost of leaving it at that resolution in game.

Dogbones · Post by **Dogbones** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:14 pm

Doofus, as I understand it the texture size will be selectable in the menu, 256,512,1024, and 2048. What Y_P has proposed is to resample (and retouch) all the textures to 2048 and then if you want a lower res, by all means use that, and it will be downsampled by alleg at load time.

We are not proposing forcing everyone to use the higher texture sizes.

I do not know what algorithm alleg uses to do the downsampling.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:44 pm

Your_Persona wrote:QUOTE (Your_Persona @ Aug 16 2006, 12:08 AM) What are you talking about? I don't understand what you just said. /blink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":o" border="0" alt="blink.gif" />

I dont feel like finding the code right now, but you pasted a GetTextureSize() function or something along that lines where if the texture size was over 512x512 it was set to 512x512, instead of changing that to 2048, why not just take out the limitation altogether.

Post by **Raveen** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:20 pm

That's not really the point Orion, I presume that the code is going to get a change to allow different texture sizes as a user option. So multiple values that the current 512 can be set to.

The point of this thread is to create new textures at an arbitrary "higher resolution" which will then be scaled to whatever the user selects. The higher res that YP has picked is 2048^2 because anything larger than that is unlikely to ever be displayed on screen at anything like full res.

doofus · Post by **doofus** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:15 pm

Dogbones wrote:QUOTE (Dogbones @ Aug 16 2006, 04:14 PM) Doofus, as I understand it the texture size will be selectable in the menu, 256,512,1024, and 2048. What Y_P has proposed is to resample (and retouch) all the textures to 2048 and then if you want a lower res, by all means use that, and it will be downsampled by alleg at load time.

Oh sorry, I didn't catch that bit. Carry on... /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

Your_Persona · Post by **Your_Persona** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 11:04 pm

Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Aug 16 2006, 01:20 PM) That's not really the point Orion, I presume that the code is going to get a change to allow different texture sizes as a user option. So multiple values that the current 512 can be set to.

The currently proposed patch has an option in the Esc>graphics menu to select either 256^2, 512^2, 1024^2, or 2048^2 as the MaxTextureSize. If the texture being loaded is below or at the maxtexturesize, then no downsampling will occure. This setting is saved in the registry so it persists between sessions.

doofus wrote:QUOTE (doofus @ Aug 16 2006, 04:40 AM) It's probably been mentioned before, but unless I'm mistaken, the current alleg engine doesn't support mipmapping. In this case, using 2048x2048 textures is going to incur a performance hit. Not to mention that with textures that large, a lot of people will experience texture thrashing over AGP, depending on how many textures are converted to that resolution.

This is partially true. There is mipmapping code near the file loading, though it is disabled by a hardcoded variable which alleg checks against to determine if it should do any mipmapping. This would take a little bit of investigation, but it might be a simple trick or two to enable it, or have it be an option.

Zapper wrote:QUOTE (Zapper @ Aug 16 2006, 01:52 AM) @Yp
Which resampling algorithm is Alleg using?

In utah atm, so cant get specific, but its done through DirectX. It may be the 'createsurface' method iirc.

SpaceJunk · Post by **SpaceJunk** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:44 am

I did these from hi-res Venus and Moon surface maps:

Uranium - 1
Uranium - 2

Helium - 1
Helium - 2

(Yeah I skinned a common asteroid instead an he rock, but it works anyway for a screenshot).

There's some clipping at poles but I guess that can be edited easily.
Source and copyright info is here: http://www.oera.net/How2/TextureMaps2.htm
I can't host the 2048x2048 files at photobucket. I just resized them, lowered brightness and raised contrast.