home
products
contribute
download
documentation
forum
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
All posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
MediaPortal 1
Development
Improvement Suggestions
Do we really need Packed Textures?
Contact us
RSS
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tourettes" data-source="post: 416088" data-attributes="member: 10858"><p>Nothing weird in it. Just a simple calculation of texture dimensions and color depth. Almost the same amount of memory is used when no packed textures aren't used at all (you are free to calculate the memory requirements for the single graphics files, althou it might take few hours by hand <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />). It's all just simple math.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>All textures that are rendered to the screen are <strong>always</strong> rendered from the GPU memory. That is how video cards work. No matter are they packed textures (which are just as normal textures in the end) or not.</p><p></p><p><strong>As a final entry to this issue (at least from my side):</strong></p><p></p><p>The issue what some of you are seeing is coming from the following fact: If all required textures (packed or not) for the visible screen area aren't fit into the GPU memory there will be texture swapping between GPU and main RAM (nothing that is related to the packed textures). The overhead is just much bigger when swapping bigger dimension textures (more memory required, more memory bandwidth needed for the swapping).</p><p></p><p>So, there is one possibly for optimization on the packed texture generation to reduce the texture swapping need we could limit the texture dimensions that are added to the packed textures. One educated guess how select the limit for the textures that are put into the packed textures: 1/4th of the area of maximum texture size that GPU supports. So, for 2048x2048 we would allow 1024x1024 sized textures to be packed. Or maybe 1/8th would be more optimal (512x512). Who knows...</p><p></p><p>Combining that and the fact that skinners should <strong>always</strong> match their texture dimensions to the power of two rule, the possible side effects (which are rare and happen only on low end GPUs) would most likely be history (of course there would be still GPU memory that limits the performance on "prettier" skins...).</p><p></p><p>So we have two tasks:</p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Educate skinners to use power of two dimensions for their artwork (this is good for overall GPU rendering performance ad the packed texture´management). For example default B3 skin MePo's should be re-rendered to 512x512 textures.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Introduce a upper limit on the texture packer for the texture sizes that are included into the packed textures (minor code change, but finding the optimal limit needs some testing).</li> </ul></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tourettes, post: 416088, member: 10858"] Nothing weird in it. Just a simple calculation of texture dimensions and color depth. Almost the same amount of memory is used when no packed textures aren't used at all (you are free to calculate the memory requirements for the single graphics files, althou it might take few hours by hand :p). It's all just simple math. All textures that are rendered to the screen are [b]always[/b] rendered from the GPU memory. That is how video cards work. No matter are they packed textures (which are just as normal textures in the end) or not. [b]As a final entry to this issue (at least from my side):[/b] The issue what some of you are seeing is coming from the following fact: If all required textures (packed or not) for the visible screen area aren't fit into the GPU memory there will be texture swapping between GPU and main RAM (nothing that is related to the packed textures). The overhead is just much bigger when swapping bigger dimension textures (more memory required, more memory bandwidth needed for the swapping). So, there is one possibly for optimization on the packed texture generation to reduce the texture swapping need we could limit the texture dimensions that are added to the packed textures. One educated guess how select the limit for the textures that are put into the packed textures: 1/4th of the area of maximum texture size that GPU supports. So, for 2048x2048 we would allow 1024x1024 sized textures to be packed. Or maybe 1/8th would be more optimal (512x512). Who knows... Combining that and the fact that skinners should [b]always[/b] match their texture dimensions to the power of two rule, the possible side effects (which are rare and happen only on low end GPUs) would most likely be history (of course there would be still GPU memory that limits the performance on "prettier" skins...). So we have two tasks: [list] [*] Educate skinners to use power of two dimensions for their artwork (this is good for overall GPU rendering performance ad the packed texture´management). For example default B3 skin MePo's should be re-rendered to 512x512 textures. [*] Introduce a upper limit on the texture packer for the texture sizes that are included into the packed textures (minor code change, but finding the optimal limit needs some testing). [/list] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
MediaPortal 1
Development
Improvement Suggestions
Do we really need Packed Textures?
Contact us
RSS
Top
Bottom