S3TC Textures

[Freddie]

Hi,

I installed the S3TC hi level textures in Unreal Tournament, v.436, following the directions contained in this Forum. I'm using an ATI X1650 video card with 256 MB memory. Also running an Intel Core 2 Quad, 2.66 GHz processor on Vista with 4 GB system RAM.

I've configured the Options as prescribed in the directions. Using D3D rendering (D3D9), which my system supports, I get the following error when I launch UT:

"D3D driver encountered oversize textures without sufficient MIPMAPs"

What should I do?

In the options, I have selected "true" for Trilinear Filtering. I get the error whether this setting is set to true or to false.

Thanks,

Freddie

Later Edit: I think I got it working by using OpenGL, rather than D3D (D3D9). I have no idea why D3D isn't working. Any ideas?

 

[War_Master]

It is an option in the UnrealTournament.ini to turn on and off the S3TC textures. Look for the renderer's options that you use and change it to true. For example:

[D3D9Drv.D3D9RenderDevice]
UseS3TC=True

 

[Freddie]

War_Master,

Thanks, I got it working on D3D9. It looks the same as OpenGL, so is there an advantage to using either one. I can't tell the difference.

Freddie

 

[Dark Pulse]

Not all textures have S3TC equivalents, so a lot of them are still going to be the comparatively blurry 256x256 textures, keep that in mind.

Unreal Engine 1's "optimal" renderer when the game came out was Glide, which is obviously long dead and buried. There's a handful of Glide "wrappers" and nearly all of these use OpenGL to do the rendering, translating the Glide calls into OpenGL ones. Also, the fact that due to hardware limitations, Glide was limited to 16-bit color, whereas with D3D and OpenGL you can select 32-bit color, make wrappers a less-attractive choice (as the 16-bit color textures can have a fair bit of banding) and the framerate hits that would've happened at the time are obviously a non-factor on a modern PC.

I would say OpenGL is probably the "better" renderer, as its lighting is more similar to Glide's than D3D's and thus is closer to how the game "should've looked." Glide is, for all intents and purposes, basically an offshoot of OpenGL anyway. It was basically 3DFX taking the "useful" OpenGL calls for rendering realtime graphics and implementing them in hardware, leaving out the rest - an important thing in 1999 when a top-of-the-line system when UT came out might've been a 733 MHz P3 with a 4 or 8 MB videocard. Proof of this can be seen in the few games that had "MiniGL" drivers, which implemented more of OpenGL without doing the whole thing, and due to Glide's ancestry from OpenGL, ran nearly as fast as Glide did.

Also, you might want to look up the UTRP. It's still a work in progress, but the project aims at making every texture in the game high-quality - even the ones that did not have S3TC textures. The end result is a game that looks graphically superior to the original S3TC textures. Do note that they take beefier specs, though:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Low End S3TC Textures are all from superior quallity and only on a few points smaller than the High End versions.

[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Use:[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Playing only ! (clients)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]CPU:[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Pentium 2 or higher[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Videocard:[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]32Mb, 64 Mb, 128 Mb [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](card needs OpenGL and/or D3D8 support)[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Limitations:[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Do Never use for Mapping, Editing and Servers !

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]High End S3TC Textures: Virtually the highest resolution textures possible for Unreal Tournament.

[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Use:[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Playing only ! (clients)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]CPU:[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Pentium 4[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Videocard:[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]256 Mb, 384 Mb, 512 Mb (card needs OpenGL and/or D3D8 support)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Limitations:[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Do Never use for Mapping, Editing and Servers ![/FONT]

I believe the main difference (perhaps Diehard, who runs the project and obviously would know more about it than I do, can prove me right or wrong here) is that the Low-end textures would be limited to 1024x1024 tops, while the high ends could go up to 4096x4096 or even possibly 8192x8192.

If you've got the graphical horsepower though, you can look up this handy thread in our forums, which even has some example shots.

 

[Freddie]

Dark Pulse,

My ATI Radeon X1650 (256 MB) video card using the Catalyst drivers supports D3D as well as OpenGL, so no problem there. I've settled on using the OpenGL renderer because it seems to work the best overall.

The D3D9 played the game just fine, but I would get a crash and an error message when exiting the Advanced Preferences screen. I tested this result several times, and it caused this problem every time.

So I tried the D3D8 renderer, and that also played the game perfectly, but I would get a problem when launching the game. The game would lock up, though I could still hear the music, the screen would be black. Hitting the Windows key would bring up the Desktop with the UT sitting on the Task Bar. Clicking the UT on the Task Bar would then enable the game to proceed. It would then work properly, until the next launch and the same lock up would occur. Go figure.

Using OpenGL gives me no problems at all. So, I'm sticking with that.

I have numerous custom map Packs installed. While testing these custom maps after installing the S3TC textures, I noticed that a lot of the textures in the custom map packs now also display using the S3TC textures. I like that. However, like you say, not all the textures are S3TC, with the high level textures showing along with the standard low level textures at the same time. That is, the grass, the floor tiles, the carpeting, and other items, will display using the S3TC textures while the walls, trees, etc. will display using the standard textures. I still like it, though. This result is a nice bonus.

Freddie

 

[Freddie]

All,

I can't help but wonder whether this S3TC texturing project could have commercial value in the end. That is, once the project completes, would it then be possible to package Unreal and Unreal Tournament as a new release of old games with a totally new look. Maybe EPIC would be interested in assisting in making such a move possible.

The games could even be enlarged and enhanced by incorporating some of the best levels from some of the custom map packs available. It could even be possible to incorporate some of the levels dropped in the original Beta versions, just to make the games more than simply a release of textures. Of course, such enhancements would use the enhanced textures so as to fit in with the rest of the levels.

Just some thoughts. Is it possible that such a release (of game CDs) would have commercial value? What do you think?

Freddie

 

[IronMonkey]

I believe the main difference (perhaps Diehard, who runs the project and obviously would know more about it than I do, can prove me right or wrong here) is that the Low-end textures would be limited to 1024x1024 tops, while the high ends could go up to 4096x4096 or even possibly 8192x8192.

Diehard has said 2048-4096 for those with ridiculous rigs.

As an experiment (using 2K4), I tried importing and displaying some very large textures (http://forums.beyondunreal.com/showpost.php?p=2234203&postcount=226) and if you are careful you can import and display a 8192x8192 texture.

I think the general trend is for folk to use OpenGL with the UTRP textures - with the slight caveat that there are a couple of spots on some co-op maps where it is rumoured that OpenGL causes a client crash. I've certainly experienced crashes that NeoNite attributed to the use of OpenGL but that hasn't stopped me (or, I believe, NeoNite) from using it.

 

[Dark Pulse]

I use OpenGL now as well, too. D3D9 will crash the game instantly on my monitor's native rez; OpenGL lets it go just peachy.

 

[Diehard]

I can't help but wonder whether this S3TC texturing project could have commercial value in the end. That is, once the project completes, would it then be possible to package Unreal and Unreal Tournament as a new release of old games with a totally new look. Maybe EPIC would be interested in assisting in making such a move possible.

The games could even be enlarged and enhanced by incorporating some of the best levels from some of the custom map packs available. It could even be possible to incorporate some of the levels dropped in the original Beta versions, just to make the games more than simply a release of textures. Of course, such enhancements would use the enhanced textures so as to fit in with the rest of the levels.

Just some thoughts. Is it possible that such a release (of game CDs) would have commercial value? What do you think?

He, he, that would be cool, and i guess i will make me rich overnight And i have no idea about the value of the textures, but an averidge drawing pays about 500-800 Dollars overhere, and i made several thousends for Unreal and UT.


But the other reason is prob even more tricky. When i look at UT2004 and even UT3 i consider those games Low End, and even below that.... And Epic, and other companies simply dont dare to release games that have textures above 1024 on averidge(but read 512 in reality). And Unreal/UT already have textures 2048 on averidge, and the upcomming Extreme End will push that as IronMonkey says(well i did before) to a rediculous averidge of 2048/4096 which is 32 times larger than UT3 on averidge.


Than again, Unreal and UT already proove in the last years its actually very doable, and if Epic sees that, maybe they can be convinced daring such a leap. Quite frankly i dont see it happen in the first 10 years or so, that a game will be released that matches that. And thats not bad for 2 ten year old """crappy""" games


And its even cooler than that lol. Imagine this: And picture 1996/1997 while your sitting in one room with Tim Sweeney, Mark Rein and Cliff Bleszinski while they show Bill Gates the Unreal demo. And than you say; Guys do you know that in 2009 which is 12 years from now, this game you show here, will be capable(without any real modification) of running textures as large as 4096 x 4096 in True color. And not just that, it will beat any 2009 made brandnew game.


They prob all say, NO F$%&ng way thats gonna happen dude, first off the game will be gone long before that happens, second its just like totally, totally, totally impossible. Leave us alone, theres the door.....


Jeeze, what fruitcake was that who the hell let him in,.... idiot.


Yeah right Do we know better lol



So i doubt that will ever happen, but i agree that would be super cool.

My ATI Radeon X1650 (256 MB) video card using the Catalyst drivers supports D3D as well as OpenGL, so no problem there. I've settled on using the OpenGL renderer because it seems to work the best overall.

Theretically that should make it possible to run the High End textures just fine, since i set the threshold to an 128 Mb videocard. But of course, if you notice stottering framerates(videolag) than you might concider the Low End versions, which as said above,still look very, very cool as well.
.
.
.

 

[Diehard]

I believe the main difference (perhaps Diehard, who runs the project and obviously would know more about it than I do, can prove me right or wrong here) is that the Low-end textures would be limited to 1024x1024 tops, while the high ends could go up to 4096x4096 or even possibly 8192x8192.

8192 i never tried really, but i think Unreal/UT cant go higher than 4096, but as said, i never tried, so who knows, its possible.

But yeah

Low End is limited to 1024 with a few 2048 exceptions.
High End is 1024/2048 on averidge with a few exceptions up to 4096
Extreme End is 2048/4096 on averidge, and thats really extreme

You gotta keep in mind with Extreme End, if an 4096 x 4096 texture is used in a map it will use up 42 MB in the vids memory. And if several of those textures are being used, go count lol. Its Extreme alright.

As an experiment (using 2K4), I tried importing and displaying some very large textures (http://forums.beyondunreal.com/showp...&postcount=226) and if you are careful you can import and display a 8192x8192 texture.

Than i would kinda expect that Unreal can do that as well, since they never changed the engine accordingly, because there never was need for it. Theoretically that is....

But i am not sure if my system can handle the saving of a dds file that large. A 4096 x 4096 texture takes about 40-50 minutes to get saved. Not sure if i wanna know how long it will take to safe a 8192 version. On my current system i am pretty sure it cannot be done due to Vista. Its a brandnew top notch system, but it cannot safe files larger than 2048 in dds format. Vista....


But my 9 year old backup system(Win2000) might be able to do so, it does 4096 with ease and no hasle, maybe it accepts 8192 as well.
.
.
.

 

[Freddie]

:

He, he, that would be cool, and i guess i will make me rich overnight And i have no idea about the value of the textures, but an averidge drawing pays about 500-800 Dollars overhere, and i made several thousends for Unreal and UT.


But the other reason is prob even more tricky. When i look at UT2004 and even UT3 i consider those games Low End, and even below that.... And Epic, and other companies simply dont dare to release games that have textures above 1024 on averidge(but read 512 in reality). And Unreal/UT already have textures 2048 on averidge, and the upcomming Extreme End will push that as IronMonkey says(well i did before) to a rediculous averidge of 2048/4096 which is 32 times larger than UT3 on averidge.


Than again, Unreal and UT already proove in the last years its actually very doable, and if Epic sees that, maybe they can be convinced daring such a leap. Quite frankly i dont see it happen in the first 10 years or so, that a game will be released that matches that. And thats not bad for 2 ten year old """crappy""" games


And its even cooler than that lol. Imagine this: And picture 1996/1997 while your sitting in one room with Tim Sweeney, Mark Rein and Cliff Bleszinski while they show Bill Gates the Unreal demo. And than you say; Guys do you know that in 2009 which is 12 years from now, this game you show here, will be capable(without any real modification) of running textures as large as 4096 x 4096 in True color. And not just that, it will beat any 2009 made brandnew game.


They prob all say, NO F$%&ng way thats gonna happen dude, first off the game will be gone long before that happens, second its just like totally, totally, totally impossible. Leave us alone, theres the door.....


Jeeze, what fruitcake was that who the hell let him in,.... idiot.


Yeah right Do we know better lol



So i doubt that will ever happen, but i agree that would be super cool.

End Quote

Diehard,

Think about it. Maybe sending Epic a demo along with a question about whether they'd be interested in marketing a new version?

Freddie

 

[War_Master]

Diehard,

Think about it. Maybe sending Epic a demo along with a question about whether they'd be interested in marketing a new version?

Freddie

This has been discussed for over 10 years already. It is not something that someone hasn't thought of yet.

 

[IronMonkey]

But i am not sure if my system can handle the saving of a dds file that large. A 4096 x 4096 texture takes about 40-50 minutes to get saved. Not sure if i wanna know how long it will take to safe a 8192 version. On my current system i am pretty sure it cannot be done due to Vista. Its a brandnew top notch system, but it cannot safe files larger than 2048 in dds format. Vista....

64-bit FTW!

I was using GIMP on Fedora 9 (or 10?) 64-bit with 8GB RAM. That makes it a bit easier.

Of course, I then had to waste time re-booting into XP64 to get at UED.

 

[Hermskii]

Wow

This is the only time I have ever seen a bot-spammer here. Bummer.

 

[GreatEmerald]

Of course, I then had to waste time re-booting into XP64 to get at UED.

UnrealEd 227 is now fully WINE-compatible!

 

[IronMonkey]

UnrealEd 227 is now fully WINE-compatible!

Really!

This is major news. Every so often I try UED in Wine but so far to no avail.

I've been thinking about doing more with UED for UT but why stop there? Why not go all the way back to Unreal? Anything produced can be made to work in UT if needed.

Thanks for the heads-up.

 

[Diehard]

I've been thinking about doing more with UED for UT but why stop there? Why not go all the way back to Unreal? Anything produced can be made to work in UT if needed.

Yeah i wish more people would think like that, if you make a map in Unreal, than porting it to UT is rather simple, just open the map and safe it again, done....

And if needed add UT specific things after that.


Needs to be said, 227 will make it a bit more complicated, since there now also is Unreal specific stuff. So with 227 it would be like this.

- Create the map in unreal
- When done port it to UT
- Add Unreal specific stuff to the Unreal map
- Add UT specific stuff to the UT map.
.
.
.