Understanding texture sizes
-
I imported some wine bottle models and checked out the textures. Some were very large in pixels,over 3,000 across. So I thought: This could be a problem. So I reduced the textures in GIMP (using the SketchUp texture edit function) so that none would be more than 1024. They still looked good, and, of course mapped the same.
This reduced the reported texture image sizes from MB to KB...relatively speaking, but it did NOT reduce the file size much for the model with about 7 different bottles. All in all the file was about 7 Mb and I figured that was OK. It's working well in my model with many instances.
Did it matter to reduce the textures? What did I do or what should I have done better?
I did try texture resizer and the textures looked very bad.
-
It's hard to say exactly. Suppose you delete the textures from a copy of the model file and check the size? Any substantial difference? Could it be the geometry? For example, do the bottles have an inside surface? Do they include the geometry for the punt? That kind of stuff could be impacting the file size more than the images.
-
It looks like (in removing the textures) the textures account for a few MB of the file size. A little less than half. (the bottles are average good poly wise, no insides but slightly more detail than needed). However looking at the list the original textures amount to well over 10 times the MB as the file itself. So I see they aren't "stored" in the file. How is it that I can give the file to someone else and they have the textures?
Nevertheless, I take it on faith, using an image that is smaller in pixels and MB is better for performance in SketchUp, or is this reduction a fruitless exercise.
-
"So I see they aren't "stored" in the file."
Actually the textures are stored in the file. That's how you can send someone else the file and they can see the textures or pry them out of the file.
Did the wine bottles come from the 3D Warehouse?
Advertisement