Random Texture Thread

[Myth]

GOGOGO




edit 1st 2nd generated by me (2nd one gives me the creeps...),
the containers are based of a few http://www.cgtextures.com/ textures and that liandri symbol http://liandri.beyondunreal.com/ enjoy

[Creavion]

In the era of highres textures, please don`t stick on such low res textures. Even 512² is rather lowres.

[--=PsyXandeR=--]

Mine, self photoshopped, for abandonned map. Have normal \ specular \ phrallax maps as well.

[Saya-chan]

In the era of highres textures, please don`t stick on such low res textures. Even 512² is rather lowres.

May I post 8192x8192 textures then? Since I got this new graphics card and realized it supports them (previous one was limited to 4096x4096)

[Creavion]

In the era of highres textures, please don`t stick on such low res textures. Even 512² is rather lowres.

May I post 8192x8192 textures then? Since I got this new graphics card and realized it supports them (previous one was limited to 4096x4096)

[papercoffee]

[Myth]

soo many off topic posts...
post useful stuff not bull$hit

This is a flare texture, wasted 2 hours getting that perfect color gradient and high color quality and I ended up not using it.

[papercoffee]

Sorry Myth.... next time maybe I post the Food Fight textures.

[[did]Madis]

In the era of highres textures, please don`t stick on such low res textures. Even 512² is rather lowres.

Derrrrrp. I know you're used to delivering high quality maps, but if you're designing something that's going to be played mostly online you might want to stick to regular texture resolutions. Anything higher than 512x512 *can* have compatibility issues with older rendererers (learned that the hard way).

256x256 are fine. People who play UT or Unreal are more than willing to 'bear all those low res textures'. It's not UDK, it's unreal engine 1, and you've got to remember that regular players don't stare at all the gory little details you people build, they play the maps and see the big picture.

[Feralidragon]

In the era of highres textures, please don`t stick on such low res textures. Even 512² is rather lowres.

Derrrrrp. I know you're used to delivering high quality maps, but if you're designing something that's going to be played mostly online you might want to stick to regular texture resolutions. Anything higher than 512x512 *can* have compatibility issues with older rendererers (learned that the hard way).

256x256 are fine. People who play UT or Unreal are more than willing to 'bear all those low res textures'. It's not UDK, it's unreal engine 1, and you've got to remember that regular players don't stare at all the gory little details you people build, they play the maps and see the big picture.

True. Personally I apreciate all kinds of textures as long they look decent enough, be 256x256, 128x128, etc. Besides there are many 2048x2048 textures out there that look worse than certain 256x256 textures (some of them look too plastic compared to 256x256 ones).

Anyway, Myth is right, let's not go offtopic. I don't usually make normal textures (like for maps and such yet), but I produce my own skins and effects (40% modified from current UT texture effects and 60% from scratch), so here's a little contribution for the topic (not much, but 100% from scratch, quite easy to do as you might imagine):

SLightning1.png

A lightning effect from a weapon of mine.

[Creavion]

Derrrrrp. I know you're used to delivering high quality maps, but if you're designing something that's going to be played mostly online you might want to stick to regular texture resolutions. Anything higher than 512x512 *can* have compatibility issues with older rendererers (learned that the hard way).

256x256 are fine. People who play UT or Unreal are more than willing to 'bear all those low res textures'. It's not UDK, it's unreal engine 1, and you've got to remember that regular players don't stare at all the gory little details you people build, they play the maps and see the big picture.

Ever checked packages like Ancient or XbpFX? You are not aware about that some stock textures have 512² pix. (which is maybe not highres but at least a decent resolution for textures)

And seriously, if something.. special should come "soon" MAYBE (if you want to know what I am talking about, let me know and I will send you a PM with all the important details

Edit: have done it anyway, read it if you want

), the times of the old d3d are nearly over anyway (since the UT1 d3d driver is completly bullshit compared to the one of e.g. wheel of time maybe ) and I dont give a goddamn shit about the less whiners with 10 years old pcs.

[[did]Madis]

512x512 tex are fine, but overusing them in a intense multiplayer map will be a pain for anyone who still uses an older rig to play UT. And theres plenty of people like that.

[Feralidragon]

Ever checked packages like Ancient or XbpFX? You are not aware about that some stock textures have 512² pix. (which is maybe not highres but at least a decent resolution for textures)

And seriously, if something.. special should come "soon" MAYBE (if you want to know what I am talking about, let me know and I will send you a PM with all the important details

Edit: have done it anyway, read it if you want

), the times of the old d3d are nearly over anyway (since the UT1 d3d driver is completly bullshit compared to the one of e.g. wheel of time maybe ) and I dont give a goddamn shit about the less whiners with 10 years old pcs.

512x512 tex are fine, but overusing them in a intense multiplayer map will be a pain for anyone who still uses an older rig to play UT. And theres plenty of people like that.

I have a laptop where I barelly can play UT on, yet I have absolutelly no problems with heavy use of 512x512 textures either on meshes or on the maps BSP there (the performance is quite the same). The only problem about 512x512 textures in UT is the loading time, which can be really high since they aren't compressed, and each 512x512 has at least 257Kb (8 colors), and if you use it for mapping, you have to save it with mipmaps, so add more 80Kb or so to each one, but now regarding performance, it's basically the same, being it 512x512, 256x256, etc (of course there's a little difference in performance, but it's so small relative everything else that you shouldn't bother with that).

Now, 1024x1024 and beyond, now that is really pushing the edge for some older systems, besides I really do not advice the usage of 1024x1024 uncompressed textures on maps (although I already used myself, and I noticed it doesn't make that big of a difference of quality in the overall map, so stick with 512x512 max), as it not only has a huge filesize, as the quality difference from a 512x512 texture in a map is not that much, specially when using D3D8 or D3D9 drivers, and if people want 1024x1024 and beyond, there's always S3TC.

But either ways, just think that a bigger resolution doesn't always mean greater quality, so if something looks quite the same either with a 512x512 or 256x256 texture, use the 256x256 version instead. Be wise when selecting and using textures.

[Myth]

Oh, it's this debate again...

It's getting old now... just close this thread then... Like YOU did the last 100 times...

Until then enjoy these.

[mackkaif]

thanks for sharing

[advertisement removed, one more time = ban]