Texture Map Size Question

kimchee519

Hey guys,

I was wondering, when creating a texture map for a 3d asset it is more beneficial to start your texture map at a very large size and then downsize it later on in the pipeline when your ready to bring the asset into the game engine? For example say I was modeling a barrel and started my texture map size at 2048x2048, then later on when I am ready to bring the finalized piece it into the game engine and have decided what will work with that asset shrink the texture map down to a 512x512. I've herd this method works well or is it just a hassle and should I always start my texture size the way its going to be finished?

TrampledUnderFoot

Working at double res for small assets is usually a solid option. I don't think I would do a 2k map for an asset that was going down to 512, 1024 makes more sense for that situation.

kimchee519

@TrampledUnderFoot
Thanks man, if I was working towards a 1024x1024 texture would you recommend going 2048x2048 and then just downsizing when final texture is achieved?

Synaesthesia

I've heard valid arguments for either approach. You get more control over your texture's sharpness when you develop it at-res, but you'll have to remake it if there's ever a need to have the next-higher step in resolution. I'd approach it this way:

If the game is never going to require a 1024x map and will only use 512x or lower, you're probably better off developing for the target resolution. If there's any possibility that the target resolution will be changed, I'd work a step above and downscale.

levigilbert

Ben Mathis did a nice little article on this topic: http://poopinmymouth.com/tutorial/resize.htm

I agree with not resizing textures, but I have done it on models in the past because that's how the studio did it.

kimchee519

@levigilbert
THanks for the good read at http://poopinmymouth.com/tutorial/resize.htm
That really help make a lot of sense out of the question I was asking. Overall it looks that it is best to sit at the resolution you will be planning on using for the finished product.

@dustinbrown
I agree, if I was freelancing I may think twice about maybe using doubling up my texture map size and shrinking down, but other than that I'm planning on sticking to a set size that I plan to use in the final.

ultim8alex

I always work at higher resolutions, because a lot of times when baking you will not get all the information in your bakes. For example my friend was having problems getting all the detail in his Normal Map and Vertex Color bakes via xNormal, and when I suggested he bake at a higher resolution (4096 instead of 2048) the map started to reveal all of the information.

kimchee519

@ultim8alex
4096 seems quite giant. I'm mainly referring to in game art ready assets that will be used in the engine. Correct me if I'm wrong, but realistically most textures are no larger than 1024 when it comes to that situation if I'm not mistaken.

Santewi

kimchee519 wrote: »

@ultim8alex
4096 seems quite giant. I'm mainly referring to in game art ready assets that will be used in the engine. Correct me if I'm wrong, but realistically most textures are no larger than 1024 when it comes to that situation if I'm not mistaken.

It depends on the game type and platform. Sure, 2048 maps in current gen console games or MMOs are rare, but the newest (and this is probably gonna change a lot as the next gen consoles are getting a ton of more RAM) games, especially on the PC, can have 2048 or even 4096 maps for things that need a lot of detail, like characters.

But yeah, 1024 maps are still pretty common, but don't restrict yourself to a specific resolution. If you need more detail and you can afford it performance/memory wise, go for it.