I remember it was possible in early versions.
Now it imports 8192 and shows -In-Game resolution 4096.
Am I making something wrong ?
How could I import 8192 texture ?
Take a look at this site: https://docs.unrealengine/latest/INT/Engine/Content/Types/Textures/SupportAndSettings/index.html#textureresolution 
Engine Texture Resolution Limit
Unreal Engine 4 defaults to limiting the maximum number of texture mips to 13, which effectively limits the largest rendered texture to 4096 (1x1 to 4096x4096 is 13 mips). This has the side-effect that imported 8192 textures will only render up to mip1 of 4096. The constant MAX_TEXTURE_MIP_COUNT which defaults to 13 in the engine source files can be modified to a value of 14 to support 8192 texture rendering. This constant is defined in the following source files (as of QAMar09, be sure to verify on other QA versions).
Src\D3D10Drv\Src\D3D10Device.cpp
Src\Engine\Inc\RHI.h
Src\Engine\Inc\UnTex.h
Src\Engine\Src\RHI.cpp
Src\Engine\Src\TextureCube.cpp
It is a shame that an engine claims to be next gen and supports up to 4096.
Pure shame.
You can always go in the base files and change it! But 8192 (8k) textures are HUMONGOUS: 85 MB uncompressed, 43 MB compressed. Just one texture like this will seriously eat up your memory budget, and unless you’re playing in 4K resolution or something, you really won’t be able to see the benefit.
Who would need 8k textures lol, That would happen to something like an HD version of a game like Crysis 3 and no more than a handful of people would actually download the pack and play with these high-res textures…
While we are at it, I want megatextures. Carmack said they are cool 
(Sorry, couldnt resist :))
UE4 is a PBR engine. Even a 2k texture is enough to destroy most last gen games.
Albedo, Roughness, Metal, Normals, Ambient Occlusion at 2k would look better than a single 8k map.
One issue with megatextures is they’re still too blurry and inefficient. It is much, much, much more efficient to use tiling assets than to expect an artist to just make a super-massive texture that stretches for a square mile without some form of proceduralism in it.
I’m working on a system that can effectively tile sharp assets with lower detail maps so you can achieve the square-mile-without-tiling look. Most of my high-res assets are 1k, and the largest of my low detail maps are 256x256. This is enough surface area to cover 300 square miles, and the sharpness of the texture is absolutely brilliant in 1080p. Now imagine this with 4k assets and a low detail map 512x512. That’ll quadruple the surface area, it will never appear to tile to the player, and the assets would look just as brilliant in 4k.
This UE3 document shows what this concept is based off of:
://udn.epicgames/Three/MaterialBasics.html#Detail Texture
Of course, some of the texture is procedural, but then randomly tweaked by the artist. Like a procedural network of roads with individual and unique potholes.
True if you are alway “stick to the ground”. But climbing on a tower or get airborne in a helicopter, and you will see the tiling becoming quickly appearent once you gain altitude.
You can try working with clever mipmapping but it always looks strange…
PS: the request for megatextures should be read in a slightly humoristic context )as the smiley indicated). For a serious call for megatextures, we need more GPU RAM for reasonable money… 
Well, two years later that’s starting to happen. 
I’ve heard rumours about 128GB consumer cards on the horizon too. Can we have megatextures and 16k textures yet? 
While we’re at megatextures, having a big texture to stretch over a big terrain and get the color information from it isnt actually that bad. Then we can channel pack all the diffuse textures and just overlay. Same thing is being done in battlefield 3/4 - star wars battlefront 3 as well.
Edit: But they are not using 8k though. 8k is just so bad for resources. 
Edit 2: I wonder about that plugin on the UE4 blog that said we could use as many high res textures as we want without actually using more memory and decreasing performance… 
I actually just did that as well. I decided to use an 8k texture anyway since it’s like, my only texture. I’m not sure if it’s actually displaying in 8k, so oh well.
Sorry to wake up this thread but I’m a bit tired to read this kind of answer “who need 8k textures ?”, nothing personal though.
Here is a case I would be glad if you give me ‘the’ answer not involving 8k and in fact, even more high-res textures:
Lets say you want to simulate a situation where you are in low orbit around the planet earth, that is at an altitude of ~400km above the planet surface. Then you want the planet to spin (because you are in a ISS like space station that actually orbit around the earth), you don’t want just a fixed, static matte painting nor ‘skybox’, you really want something dynamic, with animated cloud cover (spinning as well).
If you simulate this situation in your 3D DCC, you will realize it is a real challenge. You are so close from the planet surface that even a 8k texture covering the all planet is far from sufficient.
I’m actually doing some researches on this matter in Unreal 4 and so far here is my result: I have to simulate UDIMs in a material, where the all planet texture is split into 2 rows and 4 columns of 4k textures (virtually a texture size of 16kx8k) and… it is not yet sufficient, in order to be ok I have to double those numbers by using 8k textures, so a virtual resolution of 32kx16k. This, displayed on a full HD monitor, not even a 4K one.
Does this enlarge your vision of texturing and make you understand that there are situations where 8k textures are, in fact, needed ?
That said, there may be a wiser solution to this kind if issue and I would be glad if you could enlight me. The only alternative I can think of right now is to pre-render a movie of the visible portion of the earth spinning and camera map it on a mesh of that portion. But then it is not dynamic anymore (can’t change the lighting direction, day/night cycle, etc…).
Any idea ?
Cheers,
.
Hey i get what you’re saying, It wasn’t the idea of “Oh it’s useless cut it out”. More like for me in VFX it isnt quiet common and in most games it isn’t but a rare occurance in my understanding just like the example you gave where you will go extremes, In a few instances need panoramics and so on. I do believe after this long time and with a bit more experience since when i replied that it would be best to be an option and people to choose w/e they like rather than limit everyone.
Back to your question, A really good shader with camera direction etc would probably solve your problem there of a panning earth. However if you’re looking at something closer to what Star citizen has done then that is a whole different beast in my little understanding.
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘a really good shader with a camera direction’ because this is probably what I’m currently doing. Check the attached image:
I’ve created a Houdini asset that simulate the situation I’m talking about and discard the useless geometry. Nonetheless, in order to have the planet spin, I have to ‘rotate’ the UVs and have all the textures available at the right resolution. In the main Viewport on the left, you can see the point of view of someone at an altitude of ~400km above the Earth surface and on the small viewport the actual portion of geometry visible from this POV. It is a very small portion, actually and I have to nearly use the full resolution of the available NASA textures for that. But as in Unreal I can’t use texture of 32k or more I have to simulate UDIMs in the Shader, which currently use 8 textures units with dynamic branching and this just for the albedo. I have yet to setup the normals and I would like to setup the specular and possibly the night textures as well, but Unreal says I’ve used 8 TU over 16 ? Hmm… Need to investigate more.