I have a 660ti, dual xeon, just over 2ghz 8core. Thanks
As a general rule, “the highest resolution that you can get.” But it depends very much on exactly how you intend to UV-map the texture onto things. The basic idea is to be sure that you don’t see the pixels of the source.
Do sbsar’s work in 2.79b and 2.8? Which is better an sbsar or an 8K? Thanks
That is completely wrong.
What is polycount necessary to produce a cube ? 6 polygons are sufficient.
It is clearly a bad idea to use 6 millions of polys to render a cube.
Same principle is valid for textures. You don’t need an 8 K texture to create a texture representing a smiley on a badge on a cloth of a character if you don’t produce a movie projected in IMAX theaters with a big close-up of the smiley.
The general rule that you should have in mind is to use the sufficient resolution to describe wanted detail.
The smallest the resolution is. The smallest texture filesize is. The easiest computation relative to that texture is. The fastest the render is.
About substance file format, blender does not support that. You have to use standard image file format.
https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/latest/data_system/files/media/image_formats.html
Depends how big is the area you want to texture, or how zoomed in your camera is. Read about texel density.
If you want to use 1 texture for a whole cave, then 8k can be… too small. You know, 50 meters wide, 40 meters tall, you would be able to see pixels.
However, for a 20cmx30cm a 2k would be an overkill.
However, if you zoomed on that 20x30 wall enough - 2k would be too small.
Check this addon, might be useful for Substance and Blender integration: