Texture Size Vs Performance

29 Jun 2015 22:48 - 29 Jun 2015 22:54 #24553 by Neilson
Texture Size Vs Performance

I was talking to Algernon about texture size's for the Lightning T5 Instruments, he would like to make 2048 size for them. Witch would be very clear to read and just look amazing :)


I would like to see what works for everyone Windows, linux and especially Mac OSX users.


A lot of smaller images in FG are at 512 but this is very limited to what detail it can give, 512 runs FG at a very good frame rate, and this also works for many older computers using FG.

1024 is much better for detail and maintains good performance, but with newer computers and FG advancing forward, 2048 should be the new standard because the detail is really good and its moving forward.
At some point 4096 will be about more prevalent.

Most of Garry's Liveries are at 2048 and they looks amazing at it.


I have trouble running FG at 2048 and I think its only me, I lower every 2048 image in FG to 1024 or some to 512 to squeeze some more frames on small bits.

This is why I would like to conduct some tests with different texture sizes on one aircraft to test it on. I can use dropbox the upload anything and use a released aircraft.


I will do some tests in War Thunder and Minecraft and will get the results up, to see if its FG or most Games.


Will have more to come, just wanted to get this started :)
The following user(s) said Thank You: Algernon

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

29 Jun 2015 23:54 #24554 by enrogue
I can test on 4 different machines of differing capabilities:

iMac (Nvidia GT755M, OSX)
MBP (Nvidia 8600M GT, OSX)
Acer c710 Chromebook (Intel HD2500, Linux/Ubuntu)
Asus 1201N (Nvidia ION/9600M, Windows 8.1 & Linux/Ubuntu)

Everything except the iMac will have problems with large textures - although the Intel HD graphics surprises me sometimes

let me know what you want tested & any particulars you want for testing (settings, route etc)
The following user(s) said Thank You: Neilson

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

30 Jun 2015 06:33 #24555 by Avionyx
I'm in this. We've got a Mac Pro which very rarely gets used, would be nice to use it for something!
The following user(s) said Thank You: Neilson

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

30 Jun 2015 09:20 #24559 by Warty
I should be able to help with your testing:


Mac 10.14.1 Mojave, FG 2020.4.0
Attachments:
The following user(s) said Thank You: Neilson

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

30 Jun 2015 10:08 #24561 by J Maverick 16
I'm also in if you need to know some results from a 2011 iMac with OS X 10.6.8, Intel i3 @ 3.2 MHz and FG 3.2 ;) .
Mav

Breakin' the sound barrier every day!
Oh God, that's EGOD!

FG 2020.3.1 - iMac 27" (Mid 2010) w/ macOS 10.12.6 - Thrustmaster FCS Flight Pack + MFD Cougar

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

30 Jun 2015 12:36 - 30 Jun 2015 12:45 #24568 by Tomaskom
I wish to participate in the testing too, my setup is:
Linux 3.11 (openSUSE 13.1)
i5-2450M SandyBridge dualcore CPU 2.5GHz, up to 3.1GHz TurboBoost
8GB RAM
Intel HD3000 graphics (integrated)

The graphics doesn't sound like much, but as someone mentioned it can surprise. I can run full shaders with ALS when I cripple LOD enough (or when I'm in a valley so not too much distant terrain has to be rendered) at 10-15 fps, but usually I just run non-ALS on high but not higest settings with really good framerates. And I can run Rembrandt too, although the performance usually drops below 15fps.

One suggestion: I think that for the testing, it would be best having different resolution textures put in via livery switching, so one can easily adjust it at run-time :) And not only instrument textures, external too, different combinations etc.

"There are no problems in the air. The only problem is hitting the ground."

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

04 Jul 2015 08:58 - 04 Jul 2015 09:18 #24669 by Richard
It's not so much the overall resolution but the DPI. For a screen I tend to use 100dpi (although screens differ from 96 to 300dpi for retina); so if an instrument is 2 inches then that makes an OK resolution of 256 pixels.

On my F-15 I've used 256 for the smaller analogue instruments (e.g. AOA), 512 for the larger (e.g. ADI, ASI) and 1024 for the side consoles (although there are 3 for the left console as I packed it badly).

I did some performance testing on my i3 laptop with IntelHD 'graphics' and it didn't seem to make much difference to the framerate. It will affect loading time, and most gfx cards have gb of ram these days; but even so I've optimised mine for the usual display and allowing reasonable zoom. if you zoom in so that the ASI fills the screen it doesn't look as good; but that's not something I'm worried about - if I'm zoomed at that level it's rather hard to see where I'm going.

If you've got a lot of instruments in a single texture map then it'll need to be sized in inches as above, probably as you say 2048.

My ASI is effectively 256 pixels and it shows (the map is 512x512 but split into 4 256x256 sections).

256x256


512x512 (from a good photo). The drum numbers are in a separate texture that is shared with the other instruments that have drums - which is why the colour balance is a bit off.


512x512 split into 4 256x256 parts - no photo so I had to draw it; and I wish I'd used inkscape as when I'd finished it was too small...


result
Attachments:
The following user(s) said Thank You: enrogue

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.651 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum

Latest Forum Posts

PM Notifications

You are not logged in.

PM Mailbox

You are not logged in.

Latest updated downloads