Download

Is it possible for gameengines to support PTEX (MUDBOX) instead UV's ????

Hello… I just wanted to ask that what if UE4 starts to support PTEX (MUDBOX)…is UE4 working on it???.. these days animated movies using PTEX so just thought that is it possible for game engines to support PTEX???

I dont think Epic will integrate PTEX into Unreal Engine since PTEX is not intended for real-time rendering. I’m not sure though so you should wait for someone with more experience to reply. :slight_smile:

I agree that PTEX do not support realtime rendering but when i say PTEX all I want to say that isn’t it possible to apply UV like PTEX like u don’t have to unwrap ur model and all those steps to bake all details ???

But exactly that is what makes a model “game ready” for realtime

Not possible, the UV process and baking to a regular texture is fundamentally required for a realtime renderer to work.

I don’t know much about PTEX (this is the first I’ve heard of it), but NVidia seems to think it’s doable at runtime: https://developer.nvidia.com/sites/default/files/akamai/gamedev/docs/Borderless%20Ptex.pdf

From what I’ve read, it looks like game engines could support it in the future; it just becomes a question of whether the reduced workload for artists & lower memory consumption is worth the runtime performance cost. I wouldn’t expect it any time soon either way.

If, from my understanding PTEX can replace UVs it would be awezome. UVs is a pain.

MY lord NVIDIA is the lord of computer graphics the fact is if they wanna see PTEX in game engine and use it for realtime rendering they can make it happen.

It’s like making a cake it asks efforts, the quick premade cakes looks and taste bad :wink:

PTex could definitely be supported–what it is is that basically every polygon gets its own texture map, so you don’t have to worry about stretching or UV’s or anything. Only issue is you can’t edit the texture in something like Photoshop.

Wouldnt that then cost one draw call per polygon?
(The same way each material element costs one).

If you look at the NVIDIA presentation, they use Texture arrays so it wouldn’t be one draw call per polygon.

No, it’s all saved in one file and it keeps track of what polygon goes where.

exactly 5fd9f4d050de27b25aed075dfd102665f5c00b45.png This is true that PTEX use arrays and I am pretty sure that it will be possible for game to render in realtime and industry is capable to find another to bake texture when PTEX will be new standard for realtime rendering in fact it must be because (UV) texture is the only element that cost alot I mean its sooo heavy its takes unnecessary space (texture UV’s) in VRAM (which is simply waste of memory and reduces the game performance so PTEX is the solution to increase FPS + it will also helpful for DirectX12 to render even more faster than before and thats what BEST FOR BUSINESS. 037_rf.png

darthviper107 said that you can’t edit texture in Photoshop…Thats not totally true you can still make or edit your texture in photoshop that you wanna apply on your 3D model and then you can bring that texture in mudbox or anyother application that support PTEX and then you can use that texture to apply it on your model directly using PTEX like you do in MUDBOX.

You can use images created in Photoshop to paint with on Ptex using a 3D painting program like Mudbox or Mari, but you can’t open the Ptex in photoshop to do edits to the texture there, since it will be indecipherable.

I don’t know that Ptex would be any faster, it might be more processing than UV’s.

Also, it probably wouldn’t work with something like Substance.

Wouldn’t each polygon need three UV values then? The amount of vertex and UV data would spike by a lot, unless PTEX does something else to avoid that.

I don’t think its impossible to avoid UVs for todays talented developers…I am not against UV’s but developer gonna bring something new instead UV’s the reason is UV texture takes ALOOOOOTT space in VRAM which could be use to increase FPS of games + to increase overall quality of the game and that point is very big for video game industry cause imagine your texture size reduces its also gonna reduce the overall size of the game + if you played the game called Rage and if you have ur second monitor open it and open your task manager (performance tab) and Right click on desktop go to Graphic card properties and go to the system topology tab…

 now start game (Rage) or any other game in another monitor go to its graphics properties and increase texture quality and look how much RAM it swallo in task manager + see how much RAM left in graphic system topology Texture does take  RAM more than anything infact more than it needs the reason behind it is UV's once this problem solve I guarantee game performance will increase ALOOOOOTT especially for mobile developers it will be even more beneficial.

Todays talented developers know how to use UVs. Its the people unfamilliar with who wants to avoid them :slight_smile:

UVs are 2d texel information. They only describe the mapping, not the texture data itself.

I like UV coordinates :smiley:

The task manager gauge is not really reliable for this kind of testing…

The only benefit would be texture memory savings (which are gonna be huge as a lot of models needs to pack not too much islands to be intelligible when editing in PS)
I actually prefer UVs, since with Ptex you would need to paint directly on models to texture them, and this could mean that tricks to create additional maps (roughness, spec, ect) won’t work anymore, or at least they would work for an alien or anyone owning mari (that has an outer space price tag uahahaha).
Mudbox would be “meh” in this case, at least for me.

Performance wise, the nvidia paper doesn’t shed too much insight. It’s still unclear how much runtime performance is lost in managing ptex, since they divide the project in two phases (and the first seems a lot more expensive).
For a PC the extra memory savings would not make a difference in one year, but for console it could be a huge win.
Let’s see how research pans out in the next months.