FOSS gamedev and creative worlds

by **LazyJ** » Sat Nov 24, 2012 00:31

Of all the texture packs that are available, which ones are more suitable for older, less powerful computers?

File size

FPS

Overall performance vs visual quality

Please post suggestions based on actual use of the texture packs and keep in mind that this list is for *old*, single-core computers. Suped-up, gaming rigs won't provid a fair comparisson on some of the results.

Thanks :)

by **VanessaE** » Sat Nov 24, 2012 02:23

My old laptop, a Dell Inspiron 9200 (1.6 GHz single core Pentium M) with onboard ATI Mobility Radeon 9600 graphics chip runs the default game textures at about 22 fps or so on average, while my 64px HDX pack tops out at about 18 fps on that machine.

The size of the texture pack download has little bearing on performance, since the textures will be expanded into a different, internal file format.

It just boils down to texture resolution - smaller is better, to a point. In practice, any 16px texture pack should perform the same as any other 16px pack. Same for any other resolution - one will be about the same as another of the same resolution.

Some folks have had some luck with 8px and even 4px textures, but the smaller you go, the less detail you can see, and most video devices won't show any further benefit at those sizes (indeed, some folks may even see a performance loss).

by **jordan4ibanez** » Sat Nov 24, 2012 03:49

My special 1x1 texture, it's completely random too, all you have to do is delete all the textures and BAM, you get a very fast minetest!

by **Josh** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 02:49

jordan4ibanez wrote:My special 1x1 texture, it's completely random too, all you have to do is delete all the textures and BAM, you get a very fast minetest!

Lol, now that made me laugh :)

by **Josh** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 02:33

Just curious, but i have an old laptop with 16MB of ram and it's running Windows98.
If i use Menches 4x4 textures or something will it run minetest?

by **Menche** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 03:15

I tested my 4x4 textures vs. the default 16x16 textures on my netbook. The FPS for both was around 15; there was very little difference performance-wise; a big reason I made the pack was just for the effect. If you have a computer that has too little video memory to load all the default textures it might be useful, though.

by **Josh** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 03:42

Menche wrote:I tested my 4x4 textures vs. the default 16x16 textures on my netbook. The FPS for both was around 15; there was very little difference performance-wise; a big reason I made the pack was just for the effect. If you have a computer that has too little video memory to load all the default textures it might be useful, though.

Thank's for the information.

by **tux_peng** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 20:55

Josh wrote:Just curious, but i have an old laptop with 16MB of ram and it's running Windows98.
If i use Menches 4x4 textures or something will it run minetest?

How does that even run Win98? With that RAM, I would even think twice about a headless unix-server! ;-)

by **Josh** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 02:05

tux_peng wrote:
Josh wrote:Just curious, but i have an old laptop with 16MB of ram and it's running Windows98.
If i use Menches 4x4 textures or something will it run minetest?

How does that even run Win98? With that RAM, I would even think twice about a headless unix-server! ;-)

I think it's actually running Windows95

FOSS gamedev and creative worlds

Q - Which Texture Pack(s) Uses Less System Resources

Q - Which Texture Pack(s) Uses Less System Resources

Who is online