Silly Texturing Question...

What is the easiest way to make a texures span multiple objects...
ie I have a 20x20 flat object (4 10x10 panels linked) and a texture I want to stretch/span across all 4 making them look like 1. Any ideas?

Hi Doug

This one is pretty easy ... so I am the right person to help! Just put the full texture onto all four pieces. Then, you adjust the horizontal and vertical settings for "repeats" and "offset," for each individual panel. You goal will be to display a different quadrant of the texture on each panel. So, you set the "repeats" value to 0.5 for each, and then adjust your offsets accordingly to slide the texture into place.

This would be so much easier to show you in world

If you woud like some help, please feel free to IM me later when I am online.

Oh nevermind.

Got it Persephone! TY...thought there might be an weasier way but this works - I appreciate it

Persephone's way is great--i've done that myself.

However, if you're wanting the best looking resolution on an area larger than 10x10, then you divide it up into sections in photoshop and apply the corresponding texture to each section. Of course, that's assuming you have more than 512x512 pixel resolution to start with. If not, you may as well use the one texture and stretch like Persophone suggested.

Then again, I suppose you could upload a 1024x1024 section and offset it. maybe that would work better.

Does anyone know if SL has a limit to what size texture they will display? Does everything end up 512x512 regardless?

No offense to the one who suggested it, but don't divide your textures into pieces for several reasons. To spread a single image across multiple prims, always use SL's repeat and offset settings as Persophone outlined. Here are the main reasons not to pre-cut in Photoshop:

1. It causes more lag.
Every texture eats up a certain amount of video memory. One of the biggest reasons SL is so ungodly slow is because most users are boneheaded about texture management. They'll do things like put a 1024x1024 on a 1M sign in a mall. Multiply that by the hundreds of signs in the mall, and it's easy to see why malls lag so much. Every 1024x1024 uses 16 times as much memory as a 256x256 and usually they look just as good. One of the things SL is really, really, really good at is blowing small textures up to full screen size and making them look like they were made that size to start.

Now, you might say, well don't four texture slices at 256x256 use the same amount of memory as one texture at 1024x1024? The answer is technically yes, but the result doesn't look any better (actually it looks worse; see below) so why bother?

What's really bad is when people use slicing to make their textures unnecessarily huge. Max texture size in SL is 1024x1024 (answers your question, Blaze). That's more than enough detail for the broad side of a barn, even the most ornate and lavishly decorated barn in the history of the world. However, some people tend to think that if a wall is made of 4 prims, why not give each prim its own slice at 1024x1024? Well, guess what? Everyone who does that is lagging the hell out of themselves and everyone else within visual range, and for no good reason. Probably one 512x512 or maybe even a 256x256 would have sufficed for the job, but all those 1024's means a ton of unnecessary video load on everyone. That's silly and unfair.

For everyone's sake, keep all textures as small as possible. Generally speaking there's almost NEVER any reason to go bigger than 512x512, and usually no reason to go bigger than 256x256. I always say a good rule of thumb is keep 75% of your textures at 256x256 or smaller, about 20% at 512x512, and about 5% at 1024x1024. (I'm speaking in arial equvilants, by the way. Of course there are variations like 256x768, 128x1024, etc. It's the total area that's important, not any single dimension. For example a 128x512 is arially equivilent to a 256x256.)

2. You often end up with a visible line at the prim joints.
SL has an unfortunate habit of shrinking textures slightly when they're applied to prims and putting a border of sorts around them. Often this border bleeds into the image itself. As a result when you put two textures next to eachother that are slices of the same image, you often end up with a line down the middle where the two prims meet that you can't get rid of.

3. It's unnecessary work and unnecessary margin for error.
Offsetting within SL works perfectly. Cutting up your images beforehand is just an extra step (or many extra steps, depending on the number of cuts). It's work you really don't need to do. Also, screw up one of your cuts, and you've got to do the whol thing over again. It's way too easy to cut at 127 pixels when you meant to cut at 128. That might not seem like a big deal, but trust me, it is. You won't like the results.

4. It increases your upload cost
Again, this can be just a little extra or a lot extra, depending on the number of cuts. It may not seem like a lot for one job, but consider that every time you spend L$40 to upload 4 images slices when L$10 to upload the image as a whole would have worked just fine, you've quadrupled your cost. Spread that out over the course of a year or so, and that's thousands or even tens of thousands of linden dollars. That's equivilent to a few hundred to a few thousand US dollars! You could buy a brand new computer, a used car, or a nice vacation with that kind of cash. Waste not, want not.

Woohoo! I'm efficient with texture uploads, so here I come, Aruba!

<searches for bikini>

Well shit. Making one will be at least L$300 in trial and error uploads. Ah, forget it. I'll stay home and make intricate barn textures instead.

LOL. What kind of bikini do you want? I'll be happy to make one for you.

TY for the detailed response Chosen...it is appreciated

Barn's done...let's hit the beach!

@Doug, Persephone, Blaze, Chosen: ty ty ty! this info is SO timely now.. just learning to do more with textures on things and a build this time.. ty ty ty !