texture size

[MADe]

I understand what this does, but I have a question because of another thread.

The human eye can only input so much. We have frame rates, monitor refresh rates and basic Hertz frequency. Hertz being the predominant factor, USA uses 59 Hz.

For the human eye, 30 F/S is really all that's required to get smoothness. Most film is 24 F/S.

ie: 2048 vs 4096
So at what point do the higher texture counts because superfluous to game viewing and a detriment to performance? Even on a high end machine. Considering the other mentioned factors.

 

[Chalenge]

The U.S. Air Force test on this subject determined that if a fighter pilot sees just one frame out of (I think it was) 960, then the fighter pilot can identify the aircraft type. So, you see a lot more than you think.

Texture sizes are superfluous only when your GPUs memory becomes saturated, and that is usually because of other factors as well (AA, resolution, etc.).

[38ruk]

I understand what this does, but I have a question because of another thread.

The human eye can only input so much. We have frame rates, monitor refresh rates and basic Hertz frequency. Hertz being the predominant factor, USA uses 59 Hz.

For the human eye, 30 F/S is really all that's required to get smoothness. Most film is 24 F/S.

ie: 2048 vs 4096
So at what point do the higher texture counts because superfluous to game viewing and a detriment to performance? Even on a high end machine. Considering the other mentioned factors.

 

I can say without doubt that there is a difference between 60hrz and 120-144hrz in smoothness.  I see the stuff about the human eye can only see XXX fps and it makes me wonder who put that info into circulation because its so easy to see the difference .

[MADe]

I can say without doubt that there is a difference between 60hrz and 120-144hrz in smoothness.  I see the stuff about the human eye can only see XXX fps and it makes me wonder who put that info into circulation because its so easy to see the difference .

known science

I wonder about textures cuz ultimately, no matter what you subscribe too, they fly by fast. So fast that I wonder about low textures with the better AA. or monster textures with no AA?????
ie: I let sweetFx do AA etc.....

My rig has always provided smooth so I cannot judge by that. 120MHz refresh rates with 59 Hz electricity??????

Needless to say, where do you draw the line with texture size and what it gets you? Yes better rig, equals more but where does it peak and enuff is enuff. Which was the original question, ........

[Chalenge]

It's not just airplanes, and I already answered your question. You can only go 4096x4096 as a maximum, but that size will use a huge amount of memory and if you add AA then even more. You want to balance what you see with what your system can handle, so that you get smooth, consistent frame rates.

[Krusty]

The whole 30 fps deal came from 1 century ago when they had low-speed films which captured motion blur from frame to frame. That was the bare minimum to make it look smooth without breaking the illusion. It was never a maximum nor an ideal standard. It was the most cost effective.

You can see a hell of a lot more up to 60fps and your gameplay will be very much smoother and the experience better if you have 60 fps compared to 30 fps.

[Chalenge]

The whole point of textures is to allow you to improve the appearance to the degree with which your system can perform the best. Right now a 4096 texture is fairly high end. Eventually we will have 8k, and 16k textures, but right now it is difficult to use 4k textures for most people.

Look at the screenshot topic in the beta forum. I posted three screenshots on the last page (pg.13). The first two are straight up Aces High at 4k. It's hard to tell, because there is not a lot of ground showing in pic 1, and pic 2 is at night. Pic 3 is on a production monitor with a HDR color profile loaded. Every monitor comes with its own color profile included with the driver. This monitor can be configured to use different profiles, and therefore the video editor can capture the video stream with known color accuracy. Also, it allows Premiere to make adjustments for white balance, blacks, contrast, and so on. It is basically a very expensive version of SweetFX, except in hardware. If only that was available for a few hundred dollars!

[Bizman]

Comparing smoothness in movies to that in a game is like apples and oranges.

In a movie our imagination fools us to see smoothness in a row of pictures. We simply fill the gaps and omit inconsistencies for the sake of enjoyment. In a game or real life taking note of such minor incidents is crucial. You won't see a wheel of a fast bypassing car wobbling at 24 fps but in real life you'd immediately notice it might fall off any minute.

A movie feature that used to amuse me a lot as a kid is the wagon wheel poles moving backwards. So much for smooth movement.