ORIGINAL: locopuyo

It is really only practical to do it for textures such as wood and stone. Things that are big and have parterns. Like if there was a wood dock. You could create a bunch of random wood textures for each plank and it would look awesome, no plank would be the same. For things like characters it usually isn' t worth using it.

I' d have to disagree, loco. If you can reduce the texture size of all elements in a game, then you could either; A) free up space for other content, or B) as you stated, add more textures to increase the realism of objects in the game.

In other words, if I could reduce the texture size of ALL elements in a game I' m developing, why wouldn' t I? This is assuming that hundreds of man hours aren' t necessary for the job (which may, or may not be the case).

The question is; would this make the PS3s problems with RAM irrelevent? I mean, if you don' t need as much memory for textures, wouldn' t this be great for them?

The thing is a lot of characters don' t have large areas where the textures are a pattern based. The extra time that it takes to get it to work might not be worth the minute space that it would save for characters. This also depends greatly on the game. If you have a great variety in characters that have patern based textures then it might be worth it as you' re spending more textures on the characters.

I guess we' ll see, I' m sure game progarmers and artists already have this all figured out.

Actually, it' ll still be years before this tech becomes a standard tool - if at all!

ORIGINAL: Agent Ghost

The thing is a lot of characters don' t have large areas where the textures are a pattern based. The extra time that it takes to get it to work might not be worth the minute space that it would save for characters. This also depends greatly on the game. If you have a great variety in characters that have patern based textures then it might be worth it as you' re spending more textures on the characters.

I guess we' ll see, I' m sure game progarmers and artists already have this all figured out.

Basically, they created a tool that does textures more efficiently than what is currently used...

Their claim is that the current tool of choice for most games artists, Adobe Photoshop, is not ideally suited to making textures for games.

...and they want it to become the industry standard. Once developers have a working knowledge of the system, then there would be no " extra" time, per se.

This is a totally different development tool, that is to replace Photoshop as the de-facto industry standard for creating and encoding textures. As such, you wouldn' t just use this program when you wanted to save space. You' d just create all your textures in ProFX and they' d just be smaller. If this thing takes off, it will have a pretty big impact on the video game world.

I' m interested to see how some of the video game developers we have on the forums see this.

Actually all it does is save on disk space, because it creates the textures and puts them into memory. So it wouldn' t help the PS3 at all.
The thing is it will usually take way longer to produce the textures with the equations than to just load them off of a disk.

ORIGINAL: locopuyo

Actually all it does is save on disk space, because it creates the textures and puts them into memory. So it wouldn' t help the PS3 at all.
The thing is it will usually take way longer to produce the textures with the equations than to just load them off of a disk.

Oh, I see. So the code for generating the textures would be on disk, but the actual texture would be the same when loaded in the RAM! Yes, Pinky! YES!

The question becomes, how much longer would it take for a game to load if it uses this method versus the current method? I guess that' s what could make or break it, eh?