A project

Mat-Allum · Post by **Mat-Allum** » Tue Dec 09, 2003 8:29 am

I've been working on a 256x256 track project. I am trying to create a track in which all textures are 256x256 size, yet with no seams OR lag. It's a tough job, but I think I will figure it out. MTM2 needs some new graphics - doesn't it?

Rep Fan · Post by **Rep Fan** » Tue Dec 09, 2003 8:31 am

I look forward it.

Mat-Allum · Post by **Mat-Allum** » Tue Dec 09, 2003 11:04 am

So do I. I am also trying to get spot lighting (like the truck/train headlights) without using the Moving object type.

HaC · Post by **HaC** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 1:17 am

its not possible....mtm2 dont like a terrain full of 256x256 and never will

Mat-Allum · Post by **Mat-Allum** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 9:04 pm

Thanks for telling me before I wasted my time on nothing.

Post by **Phineus** » Sat Dec 13, 2003 12:39 am

You know, it could be an interesting experiment just the same... to see first hand how it goes. Some things are worth trying for their own sake. They may not always be raceable, but trying things helps us learn more.

rocketalces · Post by **rocketalces** » Sat Dec 13, 2003 7:47 am

its not possible....mtm2 dont like a terrain full of 256x256 and never will

Who says so? Why not?

Chug Chug · Post by **Chug Chug** » Sat Dec 13, 2003 4:51 pm

rocketalces wrote:Who says so? Why not?

Chug Chug the Lag Monster says so.
Texture memory is texture memory and not everyone has an infinite supply. The lessons about texture loads were learned long ago thanks to people who used just about every model available on mtmg in their tracks.

ZOtm_BigDOGGe · Post by **ZOtm_BigDOGGe** » Sat Dec 13, 2003 5:04 pm

So true......one of ZOONs requests for track models was to avoid 256x256 textures any way you can...it was difficult, but it was do-able. I think only the plaid couch & chair were made with the larger texture, due to the close-up views racers would get of it as they drove across it.

He had used several 256x256 RAWs in his past tracks, and realized the extra lag they created.

P.S.....this is why nearly all the accessory truck parts I placed at my scrapyard were mapped to 64x64 RAWs...same reason as the tracks...lag reduction.

Post by **Phineus** » Sat Dec 13, 2003 7:07 pm

16 mb graphics card can hold (64k * 250 textures)

arena2.bin is 18x18 squares or 324 textures.

The situation is far from ideal, but still within reach, if somebody wanted to hand create 300+ 256x256 textures. Of course, this is talking about terrain textures only, and it assume unique, unrecycled textures. Models would add to the load too... as would normal processing.

And just for the sake of noting. Zoon was also contending with models and ground boxes maxed out, and everything in close proximity. Compare that to, say, alphaville, for example, which has infinitely more textures but only half as many models and ground boxes, all of which are dispersed widely. The key to making a 256x256 terrain texture track is balance. If you don't strike a good balance, yes, the results could be disasterous.

Still, writing it off before it's even tried is no way to go. Sure, we've all seen texture chug. But a carefully crafted track could still be made... sort of like making a track with undetectable viewing distance. It's work, but certainly doable. I see nothing wrong with trying new things.

rocketalces · Post by **rocketalces** » Sat Dec 13, 2003 9:54 pm

My question was maybe a too short and not not very explicit.
The point is that

lessons learned long ago

are not necessary valid anymore due to the hardware improvements in the meantime.

What I (and as it seems Tarres) would like to know is whether people experimented with such things recently with the hardware available today. I don't feel an urgent need to waste my time in duplicating other peoples work. On the other hand, if Phin (who is a sort of the living MTM2 database) is right with his assumption that nobody knows, it looks worthwhile to continue to investigate in this direction. (I will continue to post my findings in this thread viewtopic.php?t=1380 )

It would be interesting to know the hardware specs of you MTM2 racers. I couldn't figure out how to make a poll with 2 questions: CPU speed and graphic engine, so I start a plain list with my own specs
Athlon 2600+, Radeon 9600

ZOtm_BigDOGGe · Post by **ZOtm_BigDOGGe** » Sat Dec 13, 2003 11:24 pm

2 machines

Pentium-2 / 333 mhz / 32 meg maxi gamer cougar video

Pentium-3 / 1 ghz / 64 meg VOODOO 5 5500 video

Still don't see a need to upgrade yet.....the P3 runs everything I need, and the P2 runs Win98 so I can still use older software...

P.S....I still have my Pent-1 / 233 mhz / Voodoo Banshee machine here in storage, and I still have my 80486 / 66mhz motherboard that was originally in it's case...heh heh....

Drive2Survive · Post by **Drive2Survive** » Sat Dec 13, 2003 11:51 pm

I also have two machines.

My old comp is Pentium 200MHz MMX / 64MB RAM / 8mb Voodoo2 graphics card, running Windows 95. It has just enough steam to run MTM2 at around 30fps when there's not too much going on the screen.

My new/current comp is Pentium4 2.0GHz / 512MB RAM / 128MB GeForce4 graphics card, running Windows XP. I love it and it loves me back. It's not, however, proof against chugginess... I still get the dreaded stutter on tracks like Happy when I hit the built-up area, despite the processing and memory glut of this computer. It seems there's something else at work that makes the game struggle when some parameters are exceeded, like it just breaks down and says "no, I'm not gonna draw this frame, come back and ask me later".

In other words, just because the hardware's advanced, doesn't mean that the game engine has... so, say if BigDOGGe gets frame lag on a track on his computer(s), I'm probably gonna get it on mine as well. The restrictions (whatever they are) for smooth running still more or less apply across the board.

Malibu350 · Post by **Malibu350** » Sat Dec 13, 2003 11:54 pm

P2-450 384mb, nvidia tnt 16mb

I've seen first hand too many times what 256's can do to fr's and it ain't pretty... but like Phin said if it's balanced/spread out enough, then more detail could be applied without much noticable fr drop... but it's a pain.

Mat-Allum · Post by **Mat-Allum** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 2:15 pm

I wrote:Thanks for telling me before I spent my time on nothing.

I take back what I said. Stay tuned for a nicely detailed track!

HaC · Post by **HaC** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 10:03 pm

errr ok then

anywayz ive tried it on my old computer 1.2ghz amd, 64mb geforce 4....still got lag and that was with one 256x256 base texture and models and groundboxes as a test...so basically i dont think it can be done...limitations would be within the mtm2 engine..afterall its just a program, when the hardware changes the software remains the same