open discussion regarding texture size !

[Rice]

When making a high resolution texture from the original texture, most people increase the texture by 4x4, making a 32x32 to 128x128, a 64x64 to 256x256 and so on.

Memory requirement is increased dramatically by increasing the texture size, and the texture package file size gets easily to a few megabytes.

Shall we reconsider the texture size? Do we really need a new 256x256 texture for the original 64x64 one? Could a 128x128 be just enough for our N64 emulation purpose?

To look at the memory requirement quickly (32bit RGBA textures):

16x16 1KB
16x32 2KB
32x32 4KB
32x64 8KB
64x64 16KB
64x128 32KB
128x128 64KB
256x256 256KB
512x512 1MB

We clearly don't need a texture larger than 256x256.



Btw, because most original textures have width and height of 2's powers, it does not have to save the memory to create a 3 times larger texture instead of 4 times. A 3 times larger texture of original 32*32 is a 96x96, which will be loaded in DirectX and OpenGL as a 128x128, uses the same memory as a 4 times larger texture.

[PsyMan]

Let's be reasonable. The native resolution of N64 games is 320x240. By doubling the textures' size we manage to make them look better on high resolution monitors that miss some features that TV screens have (when we use higher resolutions).
A texture that is four times larger than the original whould be useful only if we use resolution equal to 1280x960 (or higher) and only if the creator of the textures enchanced them enough in order to make them better than smaller textures.

Since it's not possible to gain more memory by creating slightly smaller textures, the usage of textures that are four times larger than the originals does not help when we use lower resolutions (either because of a slow video card or because some people use their TV screen when running console emulators) and the size of these textures is quite big it whould be better to use textures that are two times larger than the original ones.
On the other hand, people with better hardware will gain better quality when using higher resolutions together with textures that are four times larger than the originals.

So we now have to choose between 2x textures and 4x textures... Why not adding support for both of them, plus 8x textures? Of course the textures will have to be drawn again but the whole idea sounds quite good if you think about it (there will be support for PCs of multiple classes/hardware capabilities).
The only drawback (apart from the system requirements) is the will of the texture creator to make textures of different sizes and then to categorize them.

[Rice]

It could be better for the texture creators to just create 4x textures, and use automatic resizing tools to downsize all the 4x textures to 2x ones in a batch processing (Paintshop can do it for sure).

it is also possible that texture creators only create 4x textures, and the plugin will determine the texture size to load (4x or 2x) depending on a user selectable option (which allows user to select 4x, 2x or automatic decision by the plugin according to the current screen resolution). The plugin should be able to downsize a 4x texture to 2x one.

[pilm]

A resizing option in the plugin would be a nice idea, it would let the choice between "hi-rez" and "ultra hi-rez", and/or maybe some exclusions for big textures...

[PsyMan]

it is also possible that texture creators only create 4x textures, and the plugin will determine the texture size to load (4x or 2x) depending on a user selectable option (which allows user to select 4x, 2x or automatic decision by the plugin according to the current screen resolution). The plugin should be able to downsize a 4x texture to 2x one.

I see... By downsizing the size of a texture through the plugin you manage to have textures that have quality and multiple memory requirements without having to re-create them multiple times. This option could also be used for other texture sizes (8x, 6x, 5x, 3x).

Since there aren't any video cards nor monitors that can handle resolutions up to 2560x1920 (it's unlikely that there will be in the near future) a x8 option is not needed yet.
Of course the memory requirements for any other options do not worth the trouble (except maybe from the 6x option that can be fully handled by some monitors and video cards).

[Federelli]

Since most of the textures are so small, i really don't see an issue here. Specially when 512MB Vid Cards are available .

Don't like the texture size? Downsize it yourself, or don't use it .
If it where my call i'd make everything 2kx2k .

Still for those that don't want 4x, a plugin option would be neat.

[Reznor007]

Actually, 640x480 is 4x 320x240, so 1280x960 would be 16x the standard res.

Even an old PC game like Quake3 uses textures that are 256x256-512x512 on average. A quick glance through one of the game files finds a 256x1553(yes) texture, 384x856, and 196x1408.

I would say that 8-16x the base N64 texture would be no problem at all. In fact, Rice could add something from the DX SDK that will compress the new textures to DXTC texture compression as it loads them to save on texture memory with slightly lower quality, or no compression for people that have 256MB or 512MB video cards.

[optimus$prime]

Since most of the textures are so small, i really don't see an issue here. Specially when 512MB Vid Cards are available .

Don't like the texture size? Downsize it yourself, or don't use it .
If it where my call i'd make everything 2kx2k .

Still for those that don't want 4x, a plugin option would be neat.

i agree

there are also lots of ci textures which don't reach superb quality

[Kolano]

Texture memory is currently plentiful. I don't think there is a real concern from most folks with using 4x textures. As others have also noted, I'd be in support of even higher resolutions myself.

[PsyMan]

Actually, 640x480 is 4x 320x240, so 1280x960 would be 16x the standard res.

Even an old PC game like Quake3 uses textures that are 256x256-512x512 on average. A quick glance through one of the game files finds a 256x1553(yes) texture, 384x856, and 196x1408.

I would say that 8-16x the base N64 texture would be no problem at all. In fact, Rice could add something from the DX SDK that will compress the new textures to DXTC texture compression as it loads them to save on texture memory with slightly lower quality, or no compression for people that have 256MB or 512MB video cards.

You don't seem to understand how "2x" and "4x" are meant. We are not talking about the sum of the texture's size but for each of its axis independenly (ie: (A)x(B) will be (2A)x(2B), (4A)x(4B)... ...(yA)x(yB). If the texture is 16x16 it will be 32x32, 64x64... ...(y16)x(y16)).

That's because we want to keep the original aspect ratio which is 4:3. In order to achive that each texture must have size that "fits" with each resolution. Some examples:

• Resolution: 320x240 Texture: (A)x(B)
• Resolution: 640x480 Texture: (2A)x(2B)
• Resolution: 1280x960 Texture: (4A)x(4B)

If we don't keep the original aspect ratio of each texture the new textures will look bad unless we use specific non 4:3 resolutions (in that case the rest of the game may look bad).