Texture resolution - pixels per square meter

[Prospero 1]

Does anyone have a handy "pixels per square meter" figure for textures? Let's face it, that's the most relevant figure - rather than talking about 256x256 or 1024x1024, since the area to be textured must be taken into account.

If you've watched the intro to OFP whilst you have the Desert Island selected, you'll have noticed that those burnt out wrecks have pretty high res textures. Yes, I know I could work it out, but does anyone know a figure?

Other thing I wanted to ask is to do with repeated textures - if you use a texture repeatedly, does it take up more memory?

Can clever randomisation of small textures solve the memory problem?

Prospero

[Guest]

Since you can assign each polygon a texture of its own, I fail to understand the question really. You can make the polygon arbitrary small so your pixels/m^2 can be infinite..

[Prospero 1]

It's very simple really.

Large area (say, deck of huge aircarft carrier) - apply texture - low number of pixels per meter^2 - very blocky when up close.

Small area (say, side of relatively small car) - apply same texture - high number of pixels per meter^2 - not very blocky when up close.

Hardly brain surgery.

Prospero

[Guest]

Yes, exactly what I said to you. If you make the large area consist of many polygons, you can define a high res texture to each of this polygons thus making it not blocky at all.

Aereal density of pixels = texture resolution / area that you want to texture.

You can make the area that you want to texture arbitrary small thus making the denisty arbitrary large.

As you said, hardly brain surgery.

[Prospero 1]

Yes mate, but my point is that it comes down to texture memory, or we'd all produce photorealistic aircraft carriers.

Oh my word! That's precisely what you'll get for your $4.99 soon;)

Prospero

[Guest]

You asked two questions:

1)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Does anyone have a handy "pixels per square meter" figure for textures? Let's face it, that's the most relevant figure - rather than talking about 256x256 or 1024x1024, since the area to be textured must be taken into account.<span id='postcolor'>

2)</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Other thing I wanted to ask is to do with repeated textures - if you use a texture repeatedly, does it take up more memory?

Can clever randomisation of small textures solve the memory problem?

<span id='postcolor'>

I answered number 1) saying that a "pixels per square meter" measure isn't relevant but that a "pixels per polygon" is

[Prospero 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Prospero @ Oct. 01 2002,21:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Does anyone have a handy "pixels per square meter" figure for textures?<span id='postcolor'>

I refer the honourable gentleman to the spirit and substance of the question I asked some moments ago.

Prospero.