Ok, its only .dds and .tga s perhaps?

Yeah, forget .jpg.....

You need to use .dds for all your textures (you can use .png but it is just more work for the engine to convert it) and .dds will look better anyhow.

There be some super useful info by AE in his wip thread - great read.

Also make sure graphics are set to 'medium' or 'high'.

OldFlak....

You have been around a while, long enough to figure that .jpg is never a viable format. Its obvious and at this point should not even be a consideration . Stick to .dds and you shouldnt have any problems.

I love jpg format and will use it for many objects that doesnt need pbr or a simple normal map. I did buy MAX today and I can only say I love it! I congratulate LEE to something that are really much better than old Gameguru! I did draw My first map and I hated it, I did a second try and i loved it!!! I have always cared much about lightening and the lights are in GTA5 class here...
Just worried about making more rocky mountains shourlnt We have a button for more Classic-like mountains?
They are so very rounded in MAX (But hey thats good too sometimes)!
Great and promising Job LEE....

errmmm, no. We be trying to tell you that you should not use jpg - it is all but useless in 3D space.

Your graphics card wants to deal with .dds... soooooo.... Use .dds - doesn't matter if it is for pbr or dns.

Just do not use jpg. If you read that link I posted above you will understand a bit more why you should be using .dds.

OldFlak....

The problem with jpg Is that it's not designed for 3d, a jpg file may be smaller in file size, but it takes a lot more work on your gpu for it to covert it to a displayable format, dds runs directly without having to be converted, whereas a jpg has to be decompressed, processed, converted, the processed again for the gpu to display it, which means you will be using two or three times more resources than if you had just converted it to DDS in the first place

DDS and PNG support alpha channels which once you get used to playing around with those channels you can get some really awesome results. You just can't do that with JPG.

Well I think quality with dds is rather low compare with The very small files jpegs have. The quality is better than dds in My opinion and using jpgs did speed up My game with around 10fps on an old Asus comp. Nowdays I run a Dell XPS and dont really have to care about speed but its good If Everybody can play My games... Wourld be fun If Anyone courld do a benchmark to test out different formats...?

You're not correct here. File size (as in how many bytes) has little to do with how much memory an image takes up on your video card. It's all about the actual pixel size of your image (2048 x 2048, 512 x 512, etc.). Therefore, even if a JPG file has a smaller file size (in bytes), it won't have a smaller memory imprint on the video card's memory. On top of that, JPG is a lossy format. Even at 100%, there is some information lost and, as a result, you will never get a full-quality image out of a JPG when compared to lossless formats, like PNG, .dds, etc.

As far as DDS, it will give you exactly the quality of the image you feed it. So, if you're getting poor DDS textures, then the fault is not DDS.

Using JPG will NOT speed up frame rates. Again, the file size (bytes) has nothing to do with it. On top of that, as the others have been trying to point out to you, your video card is having to take extra time to change the format from JPG to what it wants to use for real-time 3D content. So, give the video card what it wants to begin with, freeing up some computations for more important things.



There is no need because speed is not dependent on format as the video card will convert it into what it needs. You don't optimize a 3D game by using different formats like GIF, JPG, etc. You optimize by determining what size (in pixels) you really need to be used on any given object so that you can keep load times low and keep memory as free as possible.

Well dds is still a big format in size, take a look AT for example palm06 22mb Times 4-5 for pbr!!! Thats 100mb for one object, You courld have done that with just as good resultat 5-10mb with jpgs. I have all My textures in bmp sence its The best quality and then convert to almost lossless jpg. Rumors talk bad about jpg but If I save at quality 6 of 12(max) Ill get dxt5 quality! Png is Great but too big, and so are most other formats. Loss at 100% is a DUMB thing to say sence the loss is almost zero that means You cant see The difference with Your naked eye.

I don't think there are many engines out there that natively support JPEG. I actually don't know any 3D modelers currently (or in the past) mapping JPEG textures to their meshes?

This small write up explains things a bit more:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=399300304

There is also a bit of comparison made here that reads as:



Full article:
https://support.lumion.com/hc/en-us/articles/360003455654-What-is-the-advantage-of-using-DDS-textures-

I don't think you're really reading what we're all saying here. IT'S NOT ABOUT THE FILE SIZE (MEGABYTES) OF THE TEXTURE. None of that matters once the game is compiled and once the texture is actually loaded into memory. What matters is the size of the image in PIXELS (it's dimensions). This determines how much video memory it takes up.

Secondly, if you're using PBR, you don't just have one image (i.e. color), but several images (i.e. color, normal, ambient occlusion, etc.). This will make for a larger file size (again, MEGABYTES).



Again, none of that is going to matter once you complete the game/level and save out your standalone game. Take file formats for 3D objects, as an example. You can import several file types, like OBJ, .X, FBX, etc. However, GameGuru does not use these file types when you export the game. GameGuru has it's own internal file format for 3D files and it will use that instead. As a result, it's not going to matter what the file size (in MEGABYTES) is. What's going to matter is the polygonal count of each model. Likewise, it's not going to matter what the file size (in MEGABYTES) of any image used as the image will be converted to what the game engine (and the video card) require.

I have all My textures in bmp sence its The best quality and then convert to [b]almost lossless jpg.[/b]

I emphasized that last bit because, yes, at 100% it may be near lossless, but it is still lossy nonetheless.



Again, . What matters is size in pixels (the dimensions of the image). For example, you don't want to use a 4K image on a very small, barely seen entity as you'll just be consuming more video memory that could be used to store other textures for your game. Again, the amount of video memory a texture consumes HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH ITS SIZE IN MEGABYTES. So why settle for an "almost lossless" version of your texture when you can have an absolutely lossless one?



It is not dumb because it is true. There is still loss of information at 100% when using JPG, even if you cannot see it. JPG was intended for web sites, to create smaller files IN MEGABYTES for quick loading. It was never intended for textures and materials for 3D models and real-time 3D games. You ever hear of using the right tool for the job? JOG is NOT the right tool for real-time 3D game engines for a variety of reasons and, again, in case you missed it previously, FILE SIZE IN MEGABYTES DOES NOT MATTER in the completed game.

EDIT -

If you have three textures that are ALL 4096 x 4096 in size (pixels), but are three different formats, such as PNG, JPG, and BMP, they will take up DIFFERENT amounts of space to store them on your hard drive, but will consume the SAME amount of video memory in the running game. The difference, as was pointed out the post above mine, is with the DDS format, which actually allows for the same image to actually take up less video memory.

So, DO NOT confuse how large the file is on your hard drive with how much memory it will consume once it's in video memory. A nicely compressed JPG will consume the same amount of video RAM as a totally uncompressed PNG once in video memory.

hmmmm.... Again I will once more try to make it a simple as possible...

\\\\\
Do NOT use jpg - USE DDS
/////

Instead of wasting time of those trying to help you - Read the above posts and forget jpg - it is not for 3D engines.

lol...

OldFlak....

No, jpeg and PNG will use more video memory.

You are wrong. File size rather compression DOES matter. DDS textures are not compressed again by the video memory. A 1024 x 1024 jpeg image uses 2.4mb actual video memory where as a 1024 x 1024 DDS DTX 1 uses 640k more or less. Resolution of a image does NOT dictate the the amount of memory used alone, file compression (rather compression of the DDS texture) as well and especially true when it comes the DDS compression.

RGB Compressed DXT1 adds 0.5 bpp
RGBA Compressed DXT5 adds 1 bpp
RGB 16bit adds 2 bpp
RGB 24bit adds 3 bpp
Alpha 8bit adds 1 bpp
RGBA 16bit adds 2 bpp
RGBA 32bit adds 4 bpp

Total texture size: width * height * bpp

In other words if you have a DDS texture, 4096 x 4096 RGBA 32bit DXT 5 texture. It would be 83mb video memory, a 4096 x 4096 RGB 24bit DTX 1 texture 58mb video memory. Which means you can have a 2048 x 2048 that uses more video memory due to the DDS compression used. If you add mipmaps, which you have to as gameguru and max require it adds about 33% more video memory.

In other words, texture resolution alone doesn't dictate video memory useage at all. The actual compression and format as well. In other words PNG and jpeg will consume much more memory as it needs to be processed(add more GPU load) and compressed into the raw data the video memory needs were as DDS it is used as is and simply converted to raw data regardless of texture resolution.

Sigh. You don't read very well, do you. In my examples, I specifically did not compare DDS but gave examples of non-compressed formats, such as JPG, PNG, and BMP. I even stated that DDS was different.

Video memory consumption is determined by the pixel resolution. So much so, that if you have a non-power-of-two image in video memory, it will consume the next size up power-of-two. For example, if you have a game texture that is 120 x 120, it will use 128 x 128 worth of video memory. That's wasted video memory that could be used for or by other textures. So, yes, pixel size does indeed determine how much video memory is used. DDS, though, as pointed out, compresses the data to help with this (which is why I specifically was using JPG, PNG, and BMP in my example - which you conveniently ignored).

In other words, to make it simple so you can understand it, I was talking about uncompressed textures to make a point about pixel size. Compression changes things. But that still does not mean you should use JPG for real-time 3D textures.

Here's something from a few sources:





The above does not take into account compression, such as DDS. But it does speak to my point - it's not the file size (storage size) of the image, but the AMOUNT OF PIXELS (multiplied by the bits per pixel) that determine how much video memory is used. Compression then comes in to help further with this. So, the point still stands - DON'T USE JPG BECAUSE IT OFFERS NO ADVANTAGES FOR REAL-TIME 3D. And since it is a lossy file format, it should be avoided compared to other, lossless formats.

Your words were

Which is quoted and then you changed



to




So why did you need to edit your post. ?


And again even with the edit you are wrong, a 16 bit bmp will use less memory then a 24 bit bmp, irrespective of resolution the pixel density
(the bits per pixel) will change how much video memory you will use.

Secondly I mentioned that with DDS what you get file size wise is pretty much what you get video memory wise, as you made a statement that is contrary to that irrespective if you intended with regards to jpeg, bmp, and png.

PAY ATTENTION, RESOLUTION DOES NOT DICTATE VIDEO MEMORY USAGE ALONE

so, so, so done with this. !

I didn't change the text at all. I added (see below the "Edit -"). So, you can stop lying now.



Again, you show that A) you don't actually read what someone has written, B) you have a serious comprehension issue, or C) you like to hear the sound of your own (typed) voice. This is EXACTLY what I posted:



Do you see what that says? Can you comprehend it? The amount of memory any image will use is exactly determined by THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF PIXELS in the image, MULTIPLIED BY THE NUMBER OF BITS. So, yes, a 16 bit image vs. a 24 bit image vs. a 32 bit image will use different amounts of video memory. But this is, once again, DETERMINED BY THE AMOUNT OF PIXELS, which is then multiplied by the BITS PER PIXEL.

My original statements were correct. It's NOT the file/storage size of the image (how many megabytes the image is on a hard drive), but the SIZE OF THE IMAGE IN PIXELS (and, yes, multiplied by bits per pixel).

A image that is 256 x 256 at 24 bits will consume the same amount of video memory regardless of whether it's a JPG, a PNG, a TIFF, a BMP, or whatever (not counting modern video compression methods, such as DDS). BUT ... a 256 x 256 at 24 bits PNG, TIFF, BMP, etc. will eat up differing amounts of storage space. THAT was always the point. And I was pointing out that Mr. Love should NOT confuse STORAGE SPACE with how much video memory an image will take up.



One can only hope ...

"IT'S NOT ABOUT THE FILE Size"

Ohh yes it is, IF You are a serious Gamedeveloper size matters....
And If I have The opinion that My games is running smooth with jpg. Then I use jpg.
End of story!

@Mr Love:
have a .... I love 's.
I think if your happy to use jpg, you got for it, but maybe this isn't the engine for you. For this engine, dds is better, jpg isn't.

I guess that's why COD: Modern Warfare (2019) is 250GB, Infinity Ward really care about the size of their downloads...



Your opinion does not outweigh objective truth; jpg is not the best tool for job. If you haven't figured that out after 15 years of game developer then you have no right to call yourself a "serious Gamedeveloper". But look, if you like jpg, go ahead and use it. When you run out of video memory, you'll know why. In my experience though, you're more likely to run out of actual system memory on a Game Guru game than video memory.

At the risk of starting another war between WOI and Argent, and whoever else wants to join, I have a question: when a texture is loaded, does it exist in both system memory and video memory? How do you work out how much system memory a texture takes up? Or is it exactly the same as how you work out its VRAM cost?

AE

I think the engine ends up converting/downsizing textures to its internal format, so.

Oh boy - you can't be serious - lol - all that wasted help in this thread.

OldFlak....

Jpg's lose quality every time you edit and save.
Dont take my word for it try it.
Load a JPG in and save it .. then load it in and save it again .
You will also notice the file size decrease after each clone.





Png's however keep their quality and size much better.
So if you want quality and small try that.

And you can even make png smallest and kipping quality using TinyPNG

Sigh ...

what a time waster, go use ya jpgs, and wotsit off

Have You gone mad? All I wanted was a simple answer AND NOT A LECTURE.

Actually, you did get a simple answer - don't use JPGs. But you came back and insisted that it was fine, that JPGs are not only preferred, but somehow better (due to file size). So, people responded to that, informing you why that is not so. If anyone has gone "mad" here, it's the one that ignored all the advice given you as to why you should not be using JPGs for real-time 3D projects ...

Well looks like you got both

To your original question don’t use jpg for normal textures - it doesn’t have the fidelity to instruct the shader calcs that dds and png do.

For all textures it’s best to use dds format with GG as others have outlined. If you don’t GG will convert internally to dds and add MIP maps anyway. But will lose detail on converting. Better to just do it up front.

Or if you’re not bothered just use jpgs as that’s what you want to do anyway irrespective of ‘received wisdom’. Not sure why you asked the question to be honest if you’re not bothered about the answer.

Cheers.

"Actually, you did get a simple answer - don't use JPGs."

Good answer if it was The question, but it wasnt.


Thanks for info cybernescence!

The question was does bump mapping work with jpegs and the answer is a resounding no, your bumps won't be in the right places.

and this thread is why some GG users will NEVER be professional game devs

Hot Tip: If you post on a forum asking for advice, then expect advice. It won't always be what you expect, it won't always be what you like, but if you ask for it, you're gonna get it.

"Professional" just means you got paid for doing something, doesn't actually mean you are any good at it!

The question was:



The answer was:



Why? Because, no, they don't. Use DDS instead. As was stated ... repeatedly ... but you defended wanting to use JPGs and we responded why you should not. So, yes, it was the correct answer. Have fun, though.

Tried to load a DDS DXT888-8 but The objects was just black??

Any ideas?

Hi everybody,

I am a hobbyist in 3D digital art and I am always glad to learn from advanced users sharing their knowledge in this forum.
I want to share with you three GG Max (alpha 3) projects :
- the first one : 50 instances of a multi-textured mesh with textures in DDS (DX5 format).
- the second one : 50 instances of a multi-textured mesh with textures in PNG format.
- the third one : 50 instances of a multi-textured mesh with textures in JPG format.

For each project, I tried to replicate exactly the same conditions to allow a fair comparison.
DDS and JPG textures were generated using the PNG ones. Paint.Net was used for that purpose.

My Hardware : CPU Intel Core i7-8700K (6 cores) : 16 GB RAM - GPU Radeon RX 580 : 8192 MB VRAM GDDR5 2000 MHZ
GG MAX + Folder "Documents" installed on a SSD.

My OS : Windows 10 Family Edition (version 1909)

This is the link where you can access securely and anonymously those shared projects :
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AjokN1FU3jK1lAuZfH9Lm94hXxrF?e=r65syd

Ah yes; the age old question: "Does size really matter?"

There be medication for that....


Definately No Comment - It would be pointless, as you won't like or listen to the answer

Have fun

OldFlak....

"as you won't like or listen to the answer"

If I like it I listen..

What software by the way are you using to make your DDS or convert to DDS? I use a Photoshop plugin:
https://developer.nvidia.com/nvidia-texture-tools-exporter

Remove any reference to a texture in your X file and assign the texture with the FPE file


https://www.getpaint.net/

Use DXT1 to 5 compression. If you are having trouble with your conversion, paint.net is a free tool.
DXT 3 to 5 are decent for textures with transparency, DXT1 has the lowest file size and largest compression rate. I use it for most of my textures.



-Wolf