![]() ![]() Hi, I recently tried your extension and it looks great! Thanks for your work. TexturePacker does this for you - with a single click. If you want to use normal mapped sprites for dynamic light effects in your game, you have to create sprite sheets with the same layout for normal maps and diffuse maps. You can even hand off the sprite sheet creation to your artist. The free TexturePacker Importer plugin for Unity automatically re-imports the data as soon as you re-enter Unity's editor. ![]() The polygon packing mode generates tightly packed sprite sheets, reducing the memory amount compared to rectangular packing algorithms. You see all changes applied to the sprite sheet in real time. TexturePacker comes with an easy to use UI that allows you to manage the sprite sheets. The tracer tolerance slider gives you control over the optimization. TexturePacker's high-quality polygon tracer creates meshes with a low vertex count and overdraw. A too low vertex count, on the other hand, is also bad because this hands much work over to the GPU. So reducing the number of vertices is important. Vertices are expensive - because the CPU is required to transform them. Unity creates triangle meshes for all sprites - but the generated meshes often have too many vertices and high overdraw. Use the free TexturePacker Importer from Unity asset store to easily import the sprite sheets into Unity. Pack normal maps for 2d dynamic light effects.Easily manage & pack sprite sheets for you Unity project. ![]() Increase the performance of your game with optimized sprite meshes (Unity 5).So to conclude I am not convinced is a solution for this and I would expect performance to rise, not drop.TexturePacker helps you accomplish things that are hard to do with Unity alone: There is also an article on the Texturepacker website about large performance increase with polygon packing:Īnd they supply another realworld example where this is very useful and very efficient: But for the latter, you know lot more about that then I am. This feature will not only make spritesheets much smaller in a lot of cases, like a post of yourself state above, even the drawcalls could be faster, because instead of drawing a large rectangle only the smaller polygons needs to be drawn. With normal spritesheets this would result in a very large spritesheet, where all images need full rectangles, eventhough they are transparent for large regions that would result in a much larger spritesheet and takes much more time to load. And on the right you see two triangles can use the same space resulting in 50% decrease in used space. You can see here the large round shape now allow the small shapes to fill the transparent hole that normally is just large missing space. With polygon packing we could make spritesheets a lot smaller, like this simplified example (every different color is a different sprite): That could be filled with the smaller images that now has to go outside the rectangles of these transparent images. I figured for a lot of projects there are lots of blanks in spritesheets because the images are 100% transparent on large regions. What I am looking for is a way to keep spritesheets as small and efficient as possible in width and height to have faster loading times. ![]() I just took a quick look at that repo, so I might be missing something here, but I don't see any reason why polygon packing needs to compromise performance during animation and need Spine. The README states it even requires the Spine plugin (eventhough we don't use Spine in a project) and it says it costs performance to use it. But for just polygon packing that plugin seems a bit overload for just polygon packing. Thanks for the nice tip about pixi-heaven. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |