PDA

View Full Version : Better Texturing Methods

TheWriter
08-09-2003, 05:50 PM
I've been doing uv for vehicles etc. However, I've been thinking, about what to do with a simple block, house, cube, etc. Would it not be easier to just use a normal cube mapping? I have grown up in the belief that all game models are uv mapped but now that I think about it, why not cube map something very simplistic? Is there a drawback to this in a game engine?
sutabi
08-09-2003, 09:17 PM
hm.... ^_^ well....

Cube maping is great for painting without streising so much about of a poly will sretch a texture. The draw back if you have to constantly guess at pixel to see where it meets on the model.

Its also not a very effient uv map becuase it can leave a lot of open spaces
TheWriter
08-10-2003, 04:52 AM
Ok so I should still just flatten faces and make it uv. But in theory, the game engine should not slow down depending on one version or the other correct?
sutabi
08-10-2003, 05:02 AM
If it uses the same texture image size and its the same file size then nope!
Jamaludin
08-13-2003, 07:13 PM
Well if im right :eek: if im right that is lol, when you would use cube mapping it would deliver no drawback what so ever, it would even improve performance allot it consumes allot less memory etc etc than uv mapping.
Ivars
08-13-2003, 08:44 PM
When you say cubemapping, what exactly do you mean??
I don´t know of any other way of mapping a game-model, than using UV:s. Unless you´ve got some kind of procedurals.....
:shrug:
TheWriter
08-14-2003, 06:53 AM
To be honest, I had assumed cube/planar mapping would be a lot easier on resources than uv. I guess uv has to store extra info for all the verts you specified and realy does run slower. Damn I realy need a bench mark site for graphics game developers!
CGTalk Moderation
01-15-2006, 09:00 PM
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.