Microsoft texture dimensions limitation annoyance

[Blackbird]

Hey, I have made a few models in the past for FS2004, and always the limitation of having the texture be ( 512X512, 256X256, 128X128 and etc ) has caused me annoyance and problems.

Sure I managed to deal with it using the unwrap uvw. But now I finally came to a problem which unwrap uvw cant solve as far as I can see.

When I apply my texture to an arch type shape which is part of my building, the texture is blurry and leaning no matter what I do.

Here is a pic of my unwrap uvw. Maybe there is something I can do, that I dont know about.

But my real question is, how can I avoid the texture limitation of multiples of 2 meaning 256X256 and so on? Is this possible?

 

[n4gix]

No. The texture size is fixed by FS itself to powers of two.

However, your UVW Map is very, very 'sloppy.' I suspect you've selected/moved individual UVW vertices, and that is a big "no-no."

You can position/scale/move UVW Vertices as a set but should never adjust any single vertex. Doing so will result in the 'tearing and smearing' you see in that screenshot.

It helps if you think of the UVW Map as a "photograph" of your object. It is also critical that the dimensions of the UVW Map itself be perfectly square. In this case, you can use "Size to Bitmap" to set the dimensions if that's easier.

I took your image and cleaned it up a bit, sized to 256x256, and applied it to a square poly in GMax to use as a background.

I then used the Line Tool to trace the outline of the arch, hid the background poly, and converted the new spline object to E-Mesh.

I then UVW Mapped the new 'arch' using the same image. As you can see, there is no 'stretching' or other distortion:

 

[FelixFFDS]

As long as they are powers of two, you can get away with 512x256, 1024x128, etc.

In your case, the arch, you might want to consider a multi-material, selecting different polygons and assigning them different ids..... etc.

 

[Blackbird]

Never mind, I solved the problem using the UVW. As you said, scaling and moving the vertices as a set works perfect.

Thanks you did help me.

You see what I do is, I look at what the actual dimensions of my texture are. Then I decide which power of 2 is closest to that, 512X512 etc. Then I create a bmp of the correct size 512X512 for example. Then I copy and paste the actual texture into the new 512X512 bmp, making sure that its bigger than my texture.

So in the end I have my actual texture inside of a bmp filled with mostly white space. Then since the scale of my texture did not change, UVW unwrap should be able to wrap around my texture, ignoring the white space. In most cases that works, I thought I had finally reached the limit, but you just proved to me that it always works.

Still I find it silly to do such nonsense because of the powers of 2 thing. Can anyone explain the reason why Microsoft does that on all their games, train simulator I noticed is the same way?

 

[Southwest]

You can position/scale/move UVW Vertices as a set but should never adjust any single vertex. Doing so will result in the 'tearing and smearing' you see in that screenshot.

Hope im not over ruling this thread, But how is this done?

Thanks

 

[Blackbird]

Hope im not over ruling this thread, But how is this done?

Thanks

Select all the vertices as they are originally, and as a set move them and then use regular scale or horizontal or vertical scale.

 

[n4gix]

Still I find it silly to do such nonsense because of the powers of 2 thing. Can anyone explain the reason why Microsoft does that on all their games, train simulator I noticed is the same way?

Well, truthfully, the proper way is to use a larger bitmap, and place ALL your artwork on it.

In actual practice, I design the artwork/bitmap layout before doing any actual modeling!

It would truly help for you to open up some of the larger building textures that ACES graphics folks have created, and study carefully how they cram as much as possible on the fewest number of bitmaps!

 

[Mace]

In actual practice, I design the artwork/bitmap layout before doing any actual modeling!

Yes, that's exactly what I do. It always perplexes me when I see people here saying, "Look at this geometry I have made! But I haven't made the textures yet!" And then they show an untextured bare object in Gmax.

I can't imagine doing it that way.

In fact now, when I am making my initial artwork, I am also thinking AHEAD about how I am going to make the geometry, because that design decision affects the other.

Now, that complex UVW mapping scheme you all were talking about for that arch? All I can say is, I am glad I have not had to model an arch yet. I wonder what initial mapping that was? Face? Shrink wrap?

 

[Blackbird]

I did hear that for better performance you should cram all your textures into as few files as you can, and I will do that from now on, since I figured out the uvw unwrap trick.

But if my building has 6 seperate textures, it doesnt really affect performance or FPS, I know I tested it in the game.

But yea you are right, I will do that from now, although I dont feel like going back to the other 3 buildings I made and redoing them. They have about 6 textures for each building. It really seems to have no impact on the game at all, and I have the highest graphic settings turned on.

Now, that complex UVW mapping scheme you all were talking about for that arch? All I can say is, I am glad I have not had to model an arch yet. I wonder what initial mapping that was? Face? Shrink wrap?

Actually that was Planar. It works just the same. Arches arnt so bad, just make sure you have good textures.

 

[arno]

But if my building has 6 seperate textures, it doesnt really affect performance or FPS, I know I tested it in the game.

But yea you are right, I will do that from now, although I dont feel like going back to the other 3 buildings I made and redoing them. They have about 6 textures for each building. It really seems to have no impact on the game at all, and I have the highest graphic settings turned on.

Not so much if you place the building only once. But place it multiple times and you will notice the difference. I once optimized a building from 11 to 1 draw call (8 to 1 texture) and when placing around 25 copies of the building on screen that about doubled my framerate.

 

[Blackbird]

Yea but the buildings I'm making are monuments, and so they are placed only once in the game in one city.

I'm part of a team of developers. We are totally remaking Kiev, Ukraine.

 

[n4gix]

Now, that complex UVW mapping scheme you all were talking about for that arch? All I can say is, I am glad I have not had to model an arch yet. I wonder what initial mapping that was? Face? Shrink wrap?

Rhett, among the many reasons for laying out the artwork in advance is that you can then "model to the texture..."

For example, for my quick test in the post above, I created a square plane, applied the entire bitmap, then used it as a background while I 'traced the arch' using the Line Tool. I actually used the 'black joint lines' for my vertex points!

Once done, convert to E-Mesh, do a quick Face Extrude on the polys, and voila! Instant 3d arch. Then it's simply a matter of selecting polys, adding a 'square UVW Map', a UVW Unwrap, then Edit the UVW's vertices.

It actually took about 2 minutes, start to finish...

Shot at 2008-07-02

 

[JohnC]

The powers of two thing....

has to do with the way RAM and other microchips chips are designed. Since everything is done in binary logic 1's and 0's at the chip level, it is convenient to do things in 2,4,8,16,32,64,128 ways. Everybody does things in powers of two, not just Microsoft. As a result if you had a bitmap that was 47 by 235, it would take a lot of clock cycles to shift it around and deal with it. If it is in powers of two it exactly fills the slots everybody agrees to use, and there's no cutting and fitting or wasted space. Imagine designing a parking garage that had to fit bikes, cars, trucks, tanks, and 747's and they all arrived at once.

 

[Blackbird]

Rhett, among the many reasons for laying out the artwork in advance is that you can then "model to the texture..."

For example, for my quick test in the post above, I created a square plane, applied the entire bitmap, then used it as a background while I 'traced the arch' using the Line Tool. I actually used the 'black joint lines' for my vertex points!

Once done, convert to E-Mesh, do a quick Face Extrude on the polys, and voila! Instant 3d arch. Then it's simply a matter of selecting polys, adding a 'square UVW Map', a UVW Unwrap, then Edit the UVW's vertices.

It actually took about 2 minutes, start to finish...

I also did it like that. I took the photo of the church I'm making and used the viewport background to trace the arch with the line tool. I always do that. So I guess if thats what you mean "modeling to the texture", I do that also.

has to do with the way RAM and other microchips chips are designed. Since everything is done in binary logic 1's and 0's at the chip level, it is convenient to do things in 2,4,8,16,32,64,128 ways. Everybody does things in powers of two, not just Microsoft. As a result if you had a bitmap that was 47 by 235, it would take a lot of clock cycles to shift it around and deal with it. If it is in powers of two it exactly fills the slots everybody agrees to use, and there's no cutting and fitting or wasted space. Imagine designing a parking garage that had to fit bikes, cars, trucks, tanks, and 747's and they all arrived at once.

I know, I'm in college getting my electrical engineering degree right now, so I guessed that must be the reason, the only thing that made me doubt is the fact that textures which arnt divisible by 2 are even possible. So the CPU has to convert all that eh. Its just that some games allow any texture dimensions that you want, but those games usually have models which arnt fully 3d. Sim City 4 BAT pack for gmax for example. I also model in that sometimes, and any texture sizes are allowed, but the models use LODS and arnt fully 3d.

 

[FelixFFDS]

I know, I'm in college getting my electrical engineering degree right now,

Good man, there's hope for you yet!

(another EE but from '75)

 

[scruffyduck]

Good man, there's hope for you yet!

(another EE but from '75)

Clearly there are too many of us around My first degree is in Electrical and Electronic Engineering

 

[nickw]

It actually took about 2 minutes, start to finish...

Shot at 2008-07-02

You know Bill... You should get a hold of Camtasia and do some video tutorials like the Gate one.... I, for one, would love to see that! We have the hosting space on fsdeveloper.com now to put these things.

 

[n4gix]

I also did it like that. I took the photo of the church I'm making and used the viewport background to trace the arch with the line tool. I always do that. So I guess if thats what you mean "modeling to the texture", I do that also.

My only recommendation then is that you not use the viewport background at all. It really is much easier to create a planar rectangle of the precise dimensions needed, and oriented in the direction you need.

This will allow you to have a completely fixed image against which you can trace your Lines and place vertices...

...also, if you have "Snap to Face" enabled, every vertex you create with the Line Tool will be co-planar (that is flush) with the surface of your background object.

 

[n4gix]

You know Bill... You should get a hold of Camtasia and do some video tutorials like the Gate one.... I, for one, would love to see that! We have the hosting space on fsdeveloper.com now to put these things.

Nick, there's nothihg I'd enjoy more, if I can ever set aside the time. I've had Camtasia from the day they finally made it "free," but...

...I've never even found time to install it.

 

[Mace]

I'm part of a team of developers. We are totally remaking Kiev, Ukraine.

Oh, nice. Is there a Great Gate of Kiev?