35 replies to this topic

[unclewilly]

What size did you do the texture. That is the only thing I can think would cause it to be blurry, or do you have fxaa, enabled.

You can always try 104 104. Which was the initial size of the uv map.

I've done 2 tables with almost all primitives. I'm starting to get the hang of it, using blender and all.

If you need anything else primitive wise, let me know.

Maybe I'll get a table object table together to put up on the forum with some basic common table objects

[ICPjuggla]

I left the texture the same size you had it, I'll try 104 104 and let you know.. :-)

[unclewilly]

I'm sorry damn phone.
1024 x1024

[ICPjuggla]

no dice at 1024 1024 still blurry.. hmmmmmm

 

 playboy_wip_v4.png   718.65KB   3 downloads  playboy_wip_v5.png   1.8MB   3 downloads

[unclewilly]

You have fxaa on

[StevOz]

mmm...just curious as to what the rendering would look like on a normal VP drop wall target and if you could overlay that onto the primitive, assuming it does render better.

[ICPjuggla]

You have fxaa on

 

I have on board radeon in my laptop (aka build PC)..

 

I'll throw the table on my cap in a little wile and check it out over there running 2 nvidia cards with fxaa off.. :-)

 

On my laptop I have fxaa of in video settings, tis isn't the 1st time primitives have shown up blurry for me. Maybe it's just the laptop.. :-(

[ICPjuggla]

here is the dummy table screen shot and vpt with the texture I'm using...

 

 DT_test_texture.png   161.28KB   4 downloads

 

 DT_test_texture.vpt   596KB   7 downloads

[kiwi]

I am glad that the first issue has been resolved, made ​​me a headache, but it was also fun.
 

For the second question, blurry, appear to be due to your laptop or video card settings.
With my Radeon 5770, I can clearly see the target.

 

 

Max

[ICPjuggla]

I am glad that the first issue has been resolved, made ​​me a headache, but it was also fun.
 
For the second question, blurry, appear to be due to your laptop or video card settings.With my Radeon 5770, I can clearly see the target.
 

 
Max

Damn laptop........ lol

Awesome thx for checking this out kiwi, my struggle with primitive dt's are over.. :-)

[mukuste]

I recommend making the texture smaller btw, 1024x1024 is WAY overkill for such a small object. D3D then has to scale down the texture (which will be worse quality than doing it in a good image editor) and use more space in the progress. So both for image quality and resource usage it's better to use something smaller.

Edited by mukuste, 02 June 2014 - 11:26 AM.

[ICPjuggla]

I recommend making the texture smaller btw, 1024x1024 is WAY overkill for such a small object. D3D then has to scale down the texture (which will be worse quality than doing it in a good image editor) and use more space in the progress. So both for image quality and resource usage it's better to use something smaller.

Cool no problem. what would you recommend for a size?

[gtxjoe]

Probably best to try trial and error here.  Assuming screen is 1920 pixels across in desktop mode and 1080 in cab mode, the target size is pretty small - 60x60 or less.  But again experiment - I should try this on my skateball table. the target images are blurry but the actual image is sharper...

[kiwi]

The size of the image must be power of two,2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, etc.....
I suggest you try with 256 x 256 and 512 x 512 to verify the quality difference.

For small objects could be enough even 128 x 128 or 64 x 64 px.

 

Max

Edited by kiwi, 03 June 2014 - 02:19 PM.

[mukuste]

The size of the image must be power of two,2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, etc.....
I suggest you try with 256 x 256 and 512 x 512 to verify the quality difference.

For small objects could be enough even 128 x 128 or 64 x 64 px.

 

Max

 

It's actually not true anymore that it has to be power of 2, the new DX9 renderer now uses arbitrarily sized textures. Still it might be slightly faster to use power of two. For the rest I agree, 256x256 is probably a good starting point.

[kiwi]

 

The size of the image must be power of two,2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, etc.....
I suggest you try with 256 x 256 and 512 x 512 to verify the quality difference.

For small objects could be enough even 128 x 128 or 64 x 64 px.

 

Max

 

It's actually not true anymore that it has to be power of 2, the new DX9 renderer now uses arbitrarily sized textures. Still it might be slightly faster to use power of two. For the rest I agree, 256x256 is probably a good starting point.

 

Good to know, thanks.

 

Max