Texture size and dimension question

[JaydoDre]

Dear experienced users,

I have two texture related questions:

 

1. I continuously find that 512x512 textures are too ugly while 1024x1024 size seems too big for arm-size items.

I know that textures with numbers like 256, 512 and 1024 are more optimised than textures with "non-binary" dimensions, but would 768x768 be a valid alternative to 512x512 or would that cause inefficiency in Skyrim performance?

 

2. Are there any (performance/bug) issues associated with using uneven dimensions like 1024x512 (for items like long swords where 1024x1024 seems like a waste of space)?

I see other people use uneven dimensions, but most Skyrim meshes do not; even the swords get cut in two.

[JaydoDre]

I don't want to bump, but I do have a third question in relation to textures and performance: If I have one object, like a helmet, that consists of two meshes / instances and they are both linked to the same texture in the nif file (but they use different areas of the texture), does that mean that this particular texture will be loaded twice in the game and therefore have a negative performance impact or not?

Edited February 27, 2013 by Jedo_Dre

[billyro]

There are a few vanilla textures which have dimensions of 1024x512 and such, so they seem ok. I'm unsure about the 768x768 texture though, as I think the textures work best with x2 incrementals. This is just my opinion, and I have no evidence to back it up though. Edited February 27, 2013 by billyro

[jiffyadvent]

Different ratio of dimensions of texture do not have effect on the rendering, it all lies in the UV mapping of the mesh if the texture/s needed for the UV map is 1024x1024 respectively and you resize that to 512x1024 you would/might see graphical tearing etc.. You could always view and edit the nifs UV first in nifskope if you want to get into resizing textures to different ratios other than the orig.

 

Hope that helped..