50 minutes ago, Mike2343 said:

I just like to point out that Rage and Doom 2016 use very large and rectangle texture atlases on irregular terrain/models (everything on screen pulls from the texture atlas).  If they don't have issues, I do not see why you would.  None of their atlas textures tile either and they don't have bleeding issues at extreme viewing angles.

This is a completely different tech. Virtual texturing an unique baked giant textured world. They run with dynamic atlasing indirection texture and usage feedback from the GPU drawing.

I personall hate vritual texturing done that way. It hurts texel density to fit on disk. It hurts texture quality by doing some jpeg to BCn plus ugly "bicubic" upsample to try recreate data that does not exist. Without saying that deal a lot with tile border and filtering bugs and caveats. I don't think you will see more than 4x aniso in doom or rage for example.

More recent hardware can help a little to ease implementation, with virtual memory, but it is still a huge piece of crap that create more problem than it solved. 

3 hours ago, galop1n said:

More recent hardware can help a little to ease implementation, with virtual memory, but it is still a huge piece of crap that create more problem than it solved.

Weird, I liked Dooms implementation (I was just using Rage as an example of a large texture atlas, streaming or not), looked great and from what I read they used it in the latest Wolf game which looks even better.  The texture details were amazing and got a lot of praise.  I've implemented a streaming texture atlas system that works quite well (only use power or two textures myself) and quite liking it.  It's even cheaper GPU wise on Vulcan and I would assume DX12 APIs/hardware.

It really does cut down a lot on texture change costs, I did it as a test not out of need, but actually prefer the simplicity of only ever having 1-8 textures loaded at any one time.  Of course not talking render targets and the such also.

Sure everyone has read it, but a decent write up on the mega-texture and Doom's overall rendering: http://www.adriancourreges.com/blog/2016/09/09/doom-2016-graphics-study/

7 hours ago, galop1n said:

This is a completely different tech. Virtual texturing an unique baked giant textured world. They run with dynamic atlasing indirection texture and usage feedback from the GPU drawing.

 

I personall hate vritual texturing done that way. It hurts texel density to fit on disk. It hurts texture quality by doing some jpeg to BCn plus ugly "bicubic" upsample to try recreate data that does not exist. Without saying that deal a lot with tile border and filtering bugs and caveats. I don't think you will see more than 4x aniso in doom or rage for example.

 

More recent hardware can help a little to ease implementation, with virtual memory, but it is still a huge piece of crap that create more problem than it solved. 

You don't need to do virtual texturing with one, master texture for the whole world. You'll need to do blending again but you can just use it almost exactly like traditional texturing, not worrying about texel density or disc space at all. The latest Trials game does this (at least what they're GDC presentation indicated)

12 hours ago, FreneticPonE said:

You don't need to do virtual texturing with one, master texture for the whole world. You'll need to do blending again but you can just use it almost exactly like traditional texturing, not worrying about texel density or disc space at all. The latest Trials game does this (at least what they're GDC presentation indicated)

I was just commenting on Rage/Doom comment. That is Mega Texturing ( one huge mega texture and the world geometry is uniquely mapped to it without any reuse ), that by way of consequence, use virtual texturing ( either with handcraft indirection texture and mip selection or with hardware support of PRT ) to achieve that.

On 2/3/2018 at 1:15 PM, Scouting Ninja said:

Normally as long as you use power of two on both axis your fine. So 64x 1024 is fine. However most graphics cards in use now supports 4K not 16K. So more computers can use 4096x4096 than 1024x16384.

Just to be pedantic..4K as I think its being used here has nothing to do with GPU supported texture resolution as that is a HW limitation. Most modern GPU are capable of support 16K textures, but as mentioned, this large resolution texture comes with a price.