Petty much there are a lot of ideas out there on this topic, Here everyone can have there 2 cents (or a dollar in some cases.)
Personally I have to say 512 dosen't cut it nowadays. I think a 1024x1024 and 512X512, is nice for a normal character in this day in age.
And we know that developer will use what ever they can get (higher-res the better, with-in reason)
What do you all think??
Pants used a good example saying RTS games are not using 1024 textures, neither are most games, people tend to get caught up in PC FPS game tech and think its the industry standard for all games, this just isn't true.
Another good point from Pants was that if you want to be in games as a cross platform viable artist you need to be able to do the low end as well as you can do high end or else your not as
employable.
Don't get me wrong, I love large detailed textures where you can see every bead of sweat etc and its true that higher resolution maps will obviously look cleaner and are more and more common place but (and I think this is an important but) what coder/employer wouldn't pick you over someone else if you could make your lower resolution maps better than most who can only get that detail with a higher map size.
I don't know how anyone could think creating a map at 512 is easier than a 1024 if they have to both end up with a similar quality.
One more thing and this has been said on the other post a few times, how many games lend themselves to the player being able to spend copious amounts of times at extreme zooms on textures? Not many, fps games where you play as snipers and...um..er..hmmm.
I don't see why this thread has the name "high-res vs low-res", they all have there merits and a place in the industry.
Ture many good points. I think i will wait before i have my said just now. But I would like to say you can to very nice Hi-Res textures you can easy do low-res ones (just but changing a number, an empolyer knows this) But if you have Low-res texture there is nothing saying you can do Hi-Res. The empolyer maybe able to see protenal, but dosen't know for sure.
also a Hi-res is only for close ups (mip-mapping and all) 90% of full 3D game you can go up and look at a character close up (one of the reason you can't be lazy with game art.) Also more and more games are doing in game cinematic.
This clean and High detail work is what sets the GFX amazing looking games from the not so good ones. I would love to see a game come out tomorrow with 512 textures look better then one with 1024 (from developers with same level empolyees and money/time.)
Im not a 3d guy (well not yet) but wouldnt it be easier to create for hi res then scale down to low res? Working with graphics i have learnt that it is always better to do the hi res first, cuz if u start on the other end of the scale, and then try to 'scale up' your work, u r left with less than moderate results. Things that were once small and clean, are now big and blurry etc. To me, this would also apply to 3D, but then 3D is a different beast to 2D so i don't really know how that side of things work.
Also, once the new tech comes out, low res low polys wont matter as much as it does now. It will all become a thing of the past. In my opinion you are better off learning to create things photo realistic, and then scale back accordingly.
Shonuff: I think you missed the point, it wasn't wether creating it low res then scaling up was bad, thats just obviously wrong.
It was wether its harder to create a low or high res texture and not be able to tell a huge amount of difference between them and wether most games need you to be able to create great art in lo or high.
Also, I keep on about this but no one seems to listen, most games aren't using the most advanced tech yet, MMOG's, simulators, strategy and games your mum plays when shes bored still outsell and out numbered FPS games especially in Asian markets. I was pointing out that to be viable across the board low-end skills are still a big plus, not better than high- end just that they 'are as valid'.
Half life 2, Doom 3, Far Cry, Stalker, Dues Ex 2 etc all use the new tech, but they have one other thing in common....FPS name a sim game using normal maps and 2 x 1024 maps?
There is alot of exciting uses for new technologies, higher res textures and larger polycounts and for nearly every genre of game but keep in mind that only a small percent ever use the top tech in the first few years of its inception, remember bump maps? been around for ages and only a handful of games use them even now.
I guess what I'm trying to say in a rambling sort of way is this. [:P]
The new tech is great, I love playing with it and I can't wait to have photo realistic models in my brand new copy of Warcraft 10 but its making it easier on artists ,not harder, and i still like having challenges so I won't be forgetting my roots anytime soon.
Dean
quote:I love playing with it and I can't wait to have photo realistic models in my brand new copy of Warcraft 10 but its making it easier on artists ,not harder...
I think its most certainly the opposite; an artists job is getting much harder. Or more precisely, an artist has to do much more work to create a finished asset.
Just a quick (food for thought) example: painting a 256x256 texture may take me 4 hours. If i were to then paint a 512x512 texture (which is 4 times the space) it should take 4 times as long. I will paint at the same quality; i can't simply afford to do lower quality work because there is more texture to work with.
Hey, that means a 1024x1024 should take me... 64 hours... good god.
Smeg: I think you disproved your own point with that time thing man. [:P] No one spends 64 hrs on a 1024 texture, well no one who wants to get paid for it.
'Generally' it takes me around the same time to do a 256 as it does a 1024, don't know about anyone else, although correct me if I'm wrong but I think Pants is the same, that true man?
Different process, same amount of sweat.
Didn't mean low-end is harder for everyone just that I'm personally finding its getting easier to be an artist with newer tools and higher texture sizes/polycounts etc, not everyone, just me. Lucky me I guess.
Maybe coming from a traditional art background is why I feel that having 6000 polys and 2 x 1024 maps etc feels easier and has a more natural workflow.
With that sort of creative freedom you are closer to being able to create assets the way you would in real life, for example painting and sculpting.
Low-end and high-end texturing are to a degree different disciplines that borrow largely from each other, I don't see how in general one is harder than the other.
I personally find the challenges of doing things lower-end just as rewarding as high-end, especially if the end product is nearly indistinguishable from someone who had alot more to work with.
They are both valid and as games artists we should really strive to excel at both, high-end keeps us in the game versus others for future advances and low because most games still need to be playable for the consumer with mid-low end hardware.
I think 512 textures can often cut it if we learn to optomise geometry and only use definition where it's really needed. It can become a balancing act with smaller textures vs extra poly's but I think adding more poly's can be more beneficial provided the target platform can handle it. As an example, I specialise in modeling cars and I generally only have one or two (maximum) 512x512 textures to work with for any typical XBox game. One will be taken up for the interior, so I'm left with a single 512x512 for all the lights, logos/badges, grills etc. By modeling all the shutlines I can get a far superior looking car with higher texture definition for the other parts than if I were to paint the shutlines on the texture thus shaving of a couple of hundred poly's in the process. It definitely helps when we have realtime shadows/shading and numerous other special effects which all do there part in helping keep the texture budget to a minimum.
The point i am making is that you should make an effort to use all of the texture space you have at your disposal; just as you would polygons. If you can look at your 512 texture (for example) when you're done and say "y'know what, i could have got away with a texture half this size..." then half it.
There are extremely good texture artists who can squeeze every last pixel from a 256 map. If they texture a 512, it will look phenomenal because they can use those resources to do more of the same. If you compare their work to your 512 map (mentioned above) you?ll understand the point I am making.
Just because you have more pixels to play with doesn?t mean you can simply do the same job. Malus, you yourself have said on many occasions that 2000 triangles is very different to 6000 triangles; this is the same concept only the results can be even more pronounced.
This brings me back to the point of my original post; for an artist to complete an efficient, polished asset, they have to put in much more work on a 1024, 6000 poly model, then they would a 256, 2000 poly model.
I seriously recommend everyone check out [url="http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20030409/rubin_01.shtml"]this[/url]
GDC 2003 Video:
Jason Rubin's "Great Game Graphics... Who Cares?"
quote:Originally posted by Malus
The new tech is great, I love playing with it and I can't wait to have photo realistic models in my brand new copy of Warcraft 10 but its making it easier on artists ,not harder, and I still like having challenges so I won't be forgetting my roots anytime soon.
This is not true and maybe why you have a different out look on this. Modelling in general is getting easier to pick out because for higher polycount and better modelling tools, but good modelling is getting harder a lot harder. I have Only been don't art for about 2.5 years now and I would hate to have been starting now then starting then. I find that good nowadays is harder because of the extra res. And good work these days looks a lot better then say a year ago. Look at T2 that was some amazing art work in 1994 (I think that was the year) but if you were a to make that model today it would take about one tenth of the time, but it would be classed as shit work.
Back to mine point, you should be adding a lot more to your Hi-res work then low-res, there are things that are too small and fine a detail you wouldn't be able to fit and to look good on a 512, but on a 1024 you need to add these things to make your work stand out.
For example: I'm doing a hi-res model of a tribe character and the extra detail I need to add has been so huge it have taken me about 7 hours to do the jetpack (and that is modelling flat out) were it would have taken me about 2 hours at the most to model it the jetpack in low res.
And I think that maybe the problem with work that isn't better from the same artist when they are changing up texture res, they aren't add the extra stuff to there texture and putting in that extra time. I'm not talking about you Malus I don't know your work both low and high res to make a statement like that just talking in general (polycount is a perfect e.g. of what I'm trying to say here.)
I understand what you're saying, but also consider that once you're fairly experienced with painting 1024x1024 textures and resizing them down to 512 or 256, you pretty much know how the texture will look even before it's been resized, therefore it's not too difficult to judge the amount of detail you'll need to paint onto the large one.
I do agree that it does take more time to paint a large texture, put I don't think it's proportionate to it's size, I find that a 1024 texture will only take me slightly longer to paint than a 512.
On the other hand, if you're not resizing a 1024 texture and you have all those pixels to play with, making the most of them can take many times longer than painting a small texture.
Yeah we seem to be getting onto the whole "resizing from a high-es to a lo-res" issue, not the topic.
Smeg: Of course you should use all the texture space, I didn't say otherwise.
quote:Just because you have more pixels to play with doesn?t mean you can simply do the same job. Malus, you yourself have said on many occasions that 2000 triangles is very different to 6000 triangles; this is the same concept only the results can be even more pronounced.
I never said you do the same job, same amount of effort on 'my' part, I actually stated they were different disciplines so yes we agree on that. [:)]
What I don't agree on is that you need to put in more effort on creating a 1024 compared to a 512, I just tend to use a different type of workflow, its personally not harder, just different.
Heres an example my friend, a make up artist, was showing me.
Ever seen stage makeup up close? terrible, looks shocking, but at a distance its perfect, now compare that to makeup for photo shoots, much nicer up close but would'nt be visible in theatre.
Now say I needed to make someone look like they had blushed youthful cheeks and natural makeup on, its 2 different diciplines after the same effect, both would take reasonably similar amounts of time but get there in different ways.
Doord: If you read my post again you'll see I meant easier for 'me', not easier in general. I don't assume to know how everyone works.
Red5: If it takes progressively longer for you to paint a 1024 over a 512 fair enough, thats how you work, just not for me in my personal experience.
You resize 1024's to 256's? you're a mad man. lol
I used to resize by half ie. 1024's to 512's but I've been doing them at actual size recently and find it cuts out the middle man.
Malus, I don't know anyone who paints their textures at 512 or lower unless they're reasonably basic, and I didn't actually say I resize from 1024 down to 256. My textures usually have many small parts and it's quite difficult juggling everything around to fit, so I paint each part individually on a separate texture then move them across and resize them all to fit onto the 512 while making the most of the available space.
Red5: Fair enough, you don't know anyone, I know people who do it either way. Neither is wrong or right.
quote:...but also consider that once you're fairly experienced with painting 1024x1024 textures and resizing them down to 512 or 256....
Just thought you meant that you'd resize a 1024 to a 256 by the statement above. Sorry to imply otherwise.
Is anyone bothering to read the "harder for me" bit or are they just skimming these posts? actually let me rephrase that to more challenging for me.
Just to clarify, even though it should be obvious, I mean its more challenging "for me" to make a 512 look as detailed as a 1024. not 512's in general, doing a cartoonish 512 for instance isn't going to be anywere near as hard, "for me", as a detailed fps 1024 map.
This is my understanding, some of it may not be right its just what I heard.
The Playstation 2 has not much texture memory, so games use 256 and 512 maps when made for this console.
Many games are now made for cross platform.
Playstation licance has a a bit that goes along the lines of "games made for the PS2 and other platforms cannot look substantially better on the other platforms than the PS2 version."
So it goes like this, you want to make games for the cross platform market then you are limited in texture size to what the PS2 can handle.
Welcome to the land of 512 maps.
Thats my understanding, but even if that is wrong I think that it is harder to make a good texture at 512 then 1024 so it is a better way of challenging yourself.
oh and 3D RTS aint using no 1024 with a 512 for the head.
Pantmonger