Best size for housing textures?

I am working on a set of textures for gingerbread houses, which I will have out for sale soon. So far, I'm doing in 512x512 PNG and/or TGA for the walls, which have trims and borders and windows and such. Is this best? would 256x256 be too small?? I would like to avoid "laggy" textures
Some of the elements are as small as 128x128...up thru 512x512. Most at 256x256...depending on "detail". I have noticed on one set of blinking trees and lights..done at 512x512...it gets laggy on a laggy sim I have more to upload, and will experiment at 256x256 for the next batch of blinkies.
Am I right in my thinking on this??
I know this is an old subject but....it's always so confusing!

Thanks so much

The general rule is to use the smallest file dimensions that look good, which is a really wussy answer. It's true, though. There's no sense in uploading a file that has a higher resoultion than you can appreciate in SL. It just takes extra time for people to rez. In most cases, the largest files you need will be 512 x 512 unless you are painting the side of a barn or have loads of fiddly detail. The way to find out what is too small is to spend a few L$ and continue to experiments you have been doing. Save the same image at several different sizes, upload them, and see what they look like when viewed at the same size on your screen. Also, read carefully through the sticky on file sizes and formats at the top of this forum.

I completely agree, and when I have purchased textures that turn out to be 1024x1024 (which I find shocking are being sold) I download to my pc, resize to 512x512...but is it safe to go smaller?
and ty for your reply, I've been thru the sticky, tho not recently, will look thru again, and probably again in the future

Safe? That's really a subjective judgment. That's why I suggested doing a series of tests to refine your own judgment. When you reduce an image from 1024 x 1024 to 512 x 512, you are cramming its information into 1/4 of the original number of pixels, with an accompanying loss of detail. If you are never going to be blowing up the image to fill your entire screen, then you'll probably never notice the loss. That's why it's usually silly to save a file as 1024 x 1024. There are some times, though, when that's exactly what you want to do. I have seen artwork and some book pages full of text in SL that would look awful if they didn't preserve all the fiddly detail of a huge 1024 x 1024 image.

When you drop from 512 x 512 to 256 x 256, or from 256 x 256 to 128 x 128, you get the same 75% loss of detail, and whether you can live with it is a matter of personal choice. Frankly, I think many of the simple signs and posters in world would be just as nice if they were 128 x 128 (or even smaller) instead of the 512 x 152 dimension that a lot of artists seem to use as their default. But that's my opinion.

If it weren't for the fact that large images use a whale of a lot of video card memory and therefore load more slowly, it might be nice to use big images all the time. Because most people don't see significantly more detail when you show them a big-scale image, though, it would still be a pointless waste of their memory resources. As it is, large images DO load slowly, so you do people a big favor in rez time by choosing small sizes when you can.

I agree with testing it out, and using the smallest sized textures you can get away with. Especially if you're making a 'for sale' object, you don't have any real control over where your customers will rez their purchase. If they rez it on an already busy sim and your house is loaded with high resolution textures, then it will be that thing that takes forever to rez.

And remember to do the testing in the Beta grid so that you will not be needlessly wasting $L. Please be kind and report any bugs you notice while you are there though.

ya know, the smallest possible might seem like a wussy answer, but really take a low rez texture add some extra sharpness (no so much it makes the colors / edges bleed in world) and you will be quite surprised

add in tiling... theres no real need for making large textures 99% of the time

I never use more then 512 by 512 but I often run into issues if I am trying to do more complex 3d ish 2d type walls that I want certain things in specific locations I often I use grids but I haven't exactly master the use grids to be precise especially when texturing inside hollow boxes or other more complex objects or buildings.

use 512x512 only for big posters, higly detailed figurative textures on large areas (10x10m) , complex sculpties or 'joined textures' (1 texture for multiple areas, set using the texture params). 256x256 is usually more than ok.
For house walls with lots of details, use 512x256.

Remember you can adapt the size of the texture to the area you're (mostly) going to apply it to. Don't ignore sizes like 512x256 or 256x128 for walls, 256x32 for foundations or ledges etc.

as people said, it is all over the place. but I normally only use 512's, if I have the option that is. 1024 is good for text, that's the only use i can think of. Skins too, look a lot better as 1024's as well. and as some noted, half sizes are great, 512 x 256 and double it, most cases it is the same effect, since textures tend to be repetitive anyway.

Most of my wall textures (Victorian style interiors) are done at 1024x1024 - mainly because they contain a lot of detail, much of which gets lost or smudged at lower resolutions - they come out very blurry, on my screen at any rate.

That said, I'd always resize if a customer wanted lower detail, or found them laggy. But, no complaints so far........

Inc

-ehh, i have seen in here that sl actually resizes all textures abowe 512 to 512 (hence a lag) before they are actually rendered to the client
-Would that be bogus or obsolete information?

I have the thought that the pested waiting time infront of signs and add posters where the graphic slowly is sharpened is -exactly- that process

If that indeed is the fact any use of graphics > 512 should be avoided
or..?