Keep invisibility setting of asssets

General Feedback & Requests
, ,
1

I have a huge scene and run into “Video memory exhausted; expect very poor performance” regularly. I have organized my outliner window so I can switch visibility by complete parts of the scene. But each tie I start the project, all assets are set to visible. My request is to keep te setting on startup as they are on exit (so keep the visibility setting)

2

I don’t think there’s any way to start with them all off. Even if you could, once you view them, they will fill up GPU RAM again, and turning them off won’t help. It’s a cumulative process.

I think your main options are one of

  1. Make smaller levels

  2. Use World Partition and only view parts of the map at once

  3. Use level streaming, which means you can split your large levels up into smaller ones

  4. Get a GPU with more RAM. I don’t know how much you have, but I’m guessing it’s 8 or less.

In fact, I think only 4 will really sort it out. But it’s very hard to say, as some people can drive a 24GB GPU into the ground in minutes, just by loading a lot of different textures and models etc.

It also helps to find out what is gobbling the memory, and that means getting good at optimization, which is a whole topic.

3

Option 1: I could make sublevels and place my sub-projects into that. But it means adaptations of, mainly, landscape should be copied between them, I don’t know how to create sublevels sharing one big landscape…
option 2: That was the original idea but the scene already existed as a TPS, and I coped it to a FPS, including the landscape, which disabled world partition, it seems. How to het that back in an existing landscape, I haven’t figured that out yet
Option 3: See option 2: Nice option but how do I do that in an existing level?
Option 4: RTX4090 with 20Gb VRAM. Big enough, I thought…

One option I have been thinking about is to remove all assets that I don’t use, and use as much duplication as possible, in stead of placing the same object more than once. However, in some cases that is simply a bad idea: What is changed in a duplicated one, of one that is duplicated, will be done in all of the duplicates…and that may not be what you want…

1 Like