PDA

View Full Version : two(2) 2048 normal maps...Overkill?


Cyborgguineapig
08-25-2006, 01:04 AM
This is just a general question. I'm currently in the process of creating a next gen character model for my portfolio and wanted to know your opinion on using two(2) 2048x2048 normal maps on one character. Would you consider this overkill? Face count is around 7000 tris and there are no props for this character. I plan to use a 1024 diffuse map with these two normal maps.

Considering that HL has character models upward of 9000 tri's and 2048 textures(not sure about normals) I was thinking this will be okay.

What is your thought on using 2 normal maps of 2048 res? Overkill or standard? Overkill to 2005 or just fine for games being produced for 2007?

Ghostscape
08-25-2006, 01:32 AM
Half Life 2 doesn't go over 9000 triangles with any of their characters. Alyx tops in around 8500.

2x 2048s is how the guys at Epic are handling their characters. It's not standard now, but it will be in a year, and it's probably best to aim for the horizon rather than whats hip right now.

Although you really ought to keep the diffuse at the same level of detail as the normal map to prevent strange color bleeds, etc.

ArchangelTalon
08-25-2006, 01:53 AM
Half Life 2 doesn't go over 9000 triangles with any of their characters. Alyx tops in around 8500.
I think the high detailed GMan is around 10k (the one you see in close-ups in the intro sequences). The one you see in the game proper is lower poly, though (~7k I think?).

The fisherman from the Lost Coast demo uses 3x 2048 diffuse and 3x 1024 normal maps, too...



But, yeah, go for it, just gotta make sure you make real use of the 2048 textures and polycount :)

I would agree that your diffuse should be equal to or larger than any other texture you use, so I'd make sure you use 2048 diffuse textures, too, rather than your proposed 1024s.

BurrowingDuck
08-25-2006, 04:02 AM
I would agree that your diffuse should be equal to or larger than any other texture you use, so I'd make sure you use 2048 diffuse textures, too, rather than your proposed 1024s.

Definately

aesir
08-25-2006, 06:07 AM
just something to think about, what resolution would a monitor have to be at to actually even see all of that detail?

Yes, its overkill imho, but then, as a portfolio piece, it really doesnt matter that much. Its something thats simple to resize in any case.

kaylon
08-25-2006, 03:13 PM
A simple rule...is 2 ...

That's what one of my art leads said to me once many yeas ago when I first started doing texturing. two is the universal scale factor of most things when texturing and not only the power of 2 for texture size...but the rough resoultion settings requaried on a monitor to accuratly see the detail. So to actually see the detail of a 2048 texture in all it's glory the base resolution of a monitor has to be around 4096...not many monitors around go that high :). High Def monitors do change the rules a little though...this is just a guide though and is not accurate in anyway :) but it does kinda work.

I think it's a bit overkill :)

SHEPEIRO
08-25-2006, 03:42 PM
if you can reallly use all that texture space go for it, if your learning, go for something smaller and get that right. i think you can do badass stuff with 2x256*, remeber a 2048* is 64 times as much work if you give each pixel as much lovin. if your really good at textures and you want to push it go for it, otherwise i think your giving yourself more work than you need to.

its a hell of alot of work. id say, from experience and talking to others that a good hand painted 512* takes around a week. a 1024* about 2 weeks and a 2048 upto a month depending on how much painted detail you have in there.

if your baking out maps, then its much easier to produce large maps, but if theyre hand painted they take ages.

GradiusCancer
08-25-2006, 05:37 PM
It's for your portfolio so why not?

When you get to your final renders, test it out with your 2048's, then with it scaled downt o 1024. If you don't have a real noticeable lose of detail go with it!

RO
08-25-2006, 06:49 PM
I always work a bit bigger on my texture sizes... since in the game engine you can usually force it to just see the lower midmap.... This is for PC games of course. And even than you can always lower your texture maps down later. I have seen many cases that 2048x2048 scaled down to 1024x1024 make no real diff in the visuals.



You can make them 2048x2048 and later scale down. So people find it easier to make larger texture maps anyhow. It depends on your work flow really.



I always start bigger than what it will be at the end. Not because I think it will have "hyper compressed pixel detail" in the lower version... No, I do it since what if your art director tells you that he/she needs a 2048x2048 texture instead of a 1024x1024 like planned.... Than your in deep shit lolů Than you find yourself scaling your 1024x1024 which stretches the pixels and now your job is to recover the lower one and make it look higher res. Or the best and bad thing would be to start over. So yeah that is my reasoning for doing everything a tad bigger than normal. You waste time on what could have been a fast and quick solution of telling him/her I have a bigger version. To be honest making a 1024x1024 and 2048x0248 texture is about the same time diff for me.

JuddWack
08-28-2006, 05:39 AM
I don't think the question is overkill. This will be quite common in games in the very near future. The question is are you ready for such a huge task? Utilizing every pixel on a 1024 texture is hard enough. You're looking at 4 times as much work.

And as far as texturing at higher res and shrinking down I would advise against it. If you're working for a company like RO that pulls stunts where the ask you to change the texture size it would probably be best to start over. Unless of course they don't care about good results, expect you to pump out work and you would like to keep your weekends free. Shrinking down will create a muddy mess since the color of your pixels gets averaged with those around it.

Ranson
08-28-2006, 06:45 AM
A simple rule...is 2 ...

That's what one of my art leads said to me once many yeas ago when I first started doing texturing. two is the universal scale factor of most things when texturing and not only the power of 2 for texture size...but the rough resoultion settings requaried on a monitor to accuratly see the detail. So to actually see the detail of a 2048 texture in all it's glory the base resolution of a monitor has to be around 4096...not many monitors around go that high :). High Def monitors do change the rules a little though...this is just a guide though and is not accurate in anyway :) but it does kinda work.

I think it's a bit overkill :)

A rule that can be applied to world textures. On the average player model you usually never see more than around 1/3rd of the texture at once.

LaughingBun
08-28-2006, 06:56 AM
this really has nothing to do with the post.. but i just found out that Unreal 2k7 weapons are going to be 40,000 to 60,000 polygons.. Just thought i would add that because its crazy!

Oink
08-28-2006, 08:16 AM
this really has nothing to do with the post.. but i just found out that Unreal 2k7 weapons are going to be 40,000 to 60,000 polygons.. Just thought i would add that because its crazy!Source! ;)

Ghostscape
08-28-2006, 04:54 PM
this really has nothing to do with the post.. but i just found out that Unreal 2k7 weapons are going to be 40,000 to 60,000 polygons.. Just thought i would add that because its crazy!

Feel free to post the source because I think that sounds like bullshit when you figure that's 4-6x the number of polygons a character model will have, and typically viewmodels don't go above character polycounts :D

LaughingBun
08-28-2006, 05:42 PM
Thats what the guys from gamespot wrote when they interviewed epic about there game
its in the first paragraph. its actually 40-50,000 though....my bad

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/unrealtournament2007/news.html?sid=6156495&mode=previews&tag=previews;title;3&page=2&q=

urgaffel
08-28-2006, 05:46 PM
its a hell of alot of work. id say, from experience and talking to others that a good hand painted 512* takes around a week. a 1024* about 2 weeks and a 2048 upto a month depending on how much painted detail you have in there.

That completely depends on how hand painted they need to be. I can produce a hand painted 512* in 2 days although it would be with an overlay or two (and voodoo). But it all depends on the detail level... For one game a friend worked on they had 2 days to do cartoony 100% hand painted 512* textures. So it's all up to what kind of style you're doing and how you do it :)

ChimpanG
08-28-2006, 08:41 PM
I very much doubt it LaughingBun
I think gamespot misunderstood their informant and that polycount is for the high polygon model used to make the normal map, like on the unreal technology site they show the high poly model aswell as the low poly and explain that very little so the less techy of us would assume the high poly is used ;) its a better image :)

50,000 polygons for a gun is absolutely insane and to be honest not needed, infact i doubt we'll need guns of that polycount for years to come. characters - yes but not guns.

LaughingBun
08-29-2006, 01:36 AM
thats exactly what i thought....but i dont know anymore. Gamespot knows there stuff

CGTalk Moderation
08-29-2006, 01:36 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.