[quote="KrushBrother":u7mmu88w] Bursar wrote:That's OK then, so the OPs graphics will be padded to 2048x1024, and not 2048x2048 as suggested.
Padded out to the nearest power of 2 makes most sense, and I don't believe Ashley and David would have padded to the nearest power of 2 square for a second.
Most of the time it will indeed be padded to 2048x2048. This is not a Construct limitation, but a graphics card limitation it seems.
[quote="Ashley":u7mmu88w]I think all graphics cards can support 1024x1024 textures, so for greater convenience you can cut textures in to chunks of that size. If you have edges to cover, you can cut them in to say 256x256 squares and they will use less VRAM than another 1024x1024 texture. Basically, the rule of thumb is to assume your texture is placed on the smallest square power-of-two size surface that can entirely fit your image (so 1024x50 size textures is probably a bad idea - it could use 1024x1024 size surface and waste VRAM
- but some modern cards might be able to use rectangular power of two and place it on 1024x64).[/quote:u7mmu88w]
I quoted Ashley from this thread, where efficient high res texture loading is discussed at length. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6053&hilit=power+of+two
Mindlessmalk - If you use the grid and selection tools in photoshop it shouldn't be such a drag to get through