Wide or Tall?

Xenobond

Had some thoughts on what would load faster/overall be a better choice for a 2:1 ratio texture.
With a 512x256 texture, saved out with mipmaps (dds format) the resulting image when opened back up would be 1024x256.
Now with the other one, a 256x512, the dimensions would turn out to be 512x512.

Now, they are both the same filesize, but something in my mind makes me think that the 256x512 would be the wiser choice.

Anyone have thoughts on this, or maybe they know for sure?

Eric Chadwick

Only when opened in Photoshop would it be that size, not when loiaded in the game.

I don't know which fits memory better. But I do know that 1D textures are supported in hardware only as horizontal, not vertical, so for example you would use 256x1.

EarthQuake

Wheres the poll option for "they're both the same, also xeno is dumb"
=P thats just the way PS is loading em, its not actually saved in that fashion, its exactly the same amount of memory either way.
Whats important is the filesize on disk, which should be exactly the same.

Eric Chadwick

Actually, you should ask one of your coders. They're probably doing goofy shit with your bitmaps anyhow, packing them or swizzling things around, stuff artists don't want to do.

monster

When I worked at Terminal Reality any non square textures had to be horizantal. I don't know why, but I think it was for playstation 2 performance.

killingpeople

For environment textures, I prefer a Tall layout for horizontal tiling.

The engine my current project is using creates seam artifacts in specular maps with vertical mirroring.

I don't have a technical understanding of it.

Whargoul

Wide - it's easier to work on in PS (because it's closer to your screen's aspect ratio). Although ask the engineers which is better for the engine (in which typically it doesn't matter anymore).

odium

Its exactly the same performance and memory wise.

The real question depends on what you are using it for, UV wise.

Eric Chadwick

hard choice