(02-12-2012, 05:44 PM)Googolplex Wrote: (02-12-2012, 05:36 PM)Arvuti Wrote: This, 4096 is just unneeded for a game. 2048x2048 is really the highest that a world texture should go to. And still, even if you're texture is 4096x4096 it's still going to look like crap without normal, specular, parallax maps etc.
You think I don't make normal and specular maps? data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2106d/2106d16f2c143485d40e51e8dad273098aeb58c0" alt="Big Grin Big Grin"
Lol, you really should take a glance how these textures look ingame.
And it doesn't slow down performance to an unplayable level. Actual graphics cards are able to handle that.
Also there would be used mip-maps for scaling a smaller texture in distance.
See also this here, this is my announced mod:
http://www.neoseeker.com/news/15503-penu...n-the-way/
Battlefield 3 never has detailed textures than this one:
http://i.neoseeker.com/n/3/penumbra_ep1_googolplex.jpg
Well, that's certainly a really dumb thing to say. Sure, a really great graphics card could probably handle it, but not everyone can afford to dish out $1000 bucks on a graphics card. As for Battlefield not having detailed textures,
I beg to differ. Looks pretty fucking detailed to me. Also keep in mind that there's more than textures that has to be processed. In Battlefield most of the game takes place outdoors. It has to accomodate upwards of 64 players in a single match. It also has to be playable on consoles using 6-7 years old technology. It's just common sense that they had to sacrifice a bit of texture detail to make that possible.