I think that I’m going to do another one but only with those really high-quality things in the back and more. I do agree with your statement though, I can’t say I am in favor of all the other ones.
That’s great, I love the water puddles and the depth of field. The new pack I’m making will just be those realistic ones, not the ones that look like they’re going to die.
What is the resolution of the textures for these assets? if you’re leaving them at 1024px that is very bad practice, you should be downscaling these to at least 512, or 256 for best performance, and you can probably go as low as 128 for the metadata maps for roughness, normal, etc. in many (not all) cases.
These are at 2048 by 2048, I would also disagree with this statement, most articles online state that performance in video games is affected most by lighting (Shadows, Lights, Ray Tracing, Reflections, Ambient Occultation, and Global Illumination) and object geometry which I have optimized to the point where if I lowered it anymore, it would begin to actually loose detail. Also, you could probably run these things with 100+ meshes in a game and it would still run on a toaster. Texture resolution really does not make much of a difference with performance and for the loss of quality between 2048 and 1024 is really not worth it unless you are playing on an iPhone from 2013.
Most phones that young people use these days to play Roblox have only 4 GB of RAM, some 6 GB and fewer over. Over 70% of Roblox plays on mobile. 512 is very acceptable quality in your example image given these statistics. With normal, roughness, and metallic maps you can sometimes get away with going even lower than 256, but due to SurfaceAppearance compression I’m unsure if it makes a large difference; nevertheless it is probably still good practice. If you are not optimizing your textures in this manner, you are burning a tremendous amount of memory on mobile devices for just textures alone.
