In this scene i have one 2048 diffuse texture on the ground and that,s all.It has a compressed size of 2.7mb so why is the profiler saying 1k+textures and 40+mb?not to mentions the mesh and materials claimed.
Here is another completely new project did not import any packages totally blank scene.There is absolutely nothing in this scene
Using the profiler while running the game in the Editor also shows the assets used by the Editor. Yes, itās slightly confusing. Attach the profiler to a build of your project to get more accurate information (Unity - Manual: Profiler overview).
1 Like
What @greg-harding said - you should profile an actual build of your game to get more accurate figures.
If you want, you can change the Memory profiler to āDetailedā mode (hit the dropdown just above the figures that currently says āSimpleā) and take a snapshot, and then you can look through the actual textures that are loaded.
Ok thx for the replies difficult to test the effects of texture size compression ratio;s etc with the profiler been all over the place.I remeber where i could read all the info from a build in a text file but I donāt see where to do that anymore.
Ran a blank build with only a plane and 1 texture along with directlight and main camera and tells me 18 textures in scene. The amount of texture size 5mb is right but why 18 textures?
Itās going to include things like the default halo/spotlight cookie textures set in your render settings, the font textures used for the āDevelopment Buildā watermark, and so on. The Memory Profilerās āDetailedā mode will give you more info.
If build size is what youāre trying to work on, thereās a report in the Editor log file whenever you do a build which gives you some rudimentary info.
Main concern is memory. Build size not an issue. When i run main scene in profiler says 0.91 gb mem but in build its half that . This is a major headache for me as i am well within my memory cost in the final build but i crash in the editor due to it using double the memory . Found a workaround drop the overall textures/8 in editor but some crazy results. In the editor i am using 470mb memory now so down from 0.91 at least but the build is only 18mb textures. Why this massive difference what is using up all this memory?I disabled static and it changed nothing.
Its a bit insane that when i do th /8 editor option my final build ends up with 18mb textures but the editor has it at 480?.Really hope the editor gets some heavy optimization at some point.
So the editor is doubling the textures for some reason?And even when the preferences texture quality value is changed the orinal texture size is maintained with the duplicate textures been reduced alone.This is a huge problem fior me working in win 32 anyway i can get the editor to not run double the textures?.I canāt reduce the actual texture quality because then there is no way to have the original quality in build . If there was a x2,4,8 option in the quality section instead of just a /2,4,8 that would really help out in this situation.
Iām afraid thereās no easy way to do what youāre asking for, nor do we have any plans to add it - in fact weāre looking to drop 32bit support for the Editor as soon as is practical for us. I recommend moving to a 64bit machine ASAP if your project is getting big enough that itās a problem.
If you really really need it, one thing Iāve done on past projects is to check everything into source control, and then resize all the textures down to small sizes, and then be very careful to not commit their .meta files, and revert them when I want to do a build.
in fact weāre looking to drop 32bit support for the Editor as soon as is practical for us.NOOOO!!!
Switching to 64 bit is not a financial reality for me right now but I will find away to work around the editors memory hogs i will need to sacrifice some variety and a bit of quality no doubt to do it .
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Itās probably going to be another couple of versions before we actually do it, but look at the bottom graph - itās already below 10% and itās trending further downwards, so it really is just a matter of time nowā¦
Well the fact unity supports win 32 and unreal doesnāt is something i would think would be worth keeping. Those figures donāt exactly reflect the consumer where win 32 is probably still the dominate os. And I very much doubt that many developers are only targetting the 64 bit market.
Itās probably going to be another couple of versions before we actually do it
By a couple versions you mean Unity 6 +Unity 7:smile:.
Or do you mean unity 5.3 unity 5.3.a etc 
Personally I would keep support for win 32 never hurts to offer something your main competition does not but I am biased here.
Oh, weāre not planning to drop support for 32bit players. Youāll still be able to publish games that run on 32bit systems. All weāre thinking of doing is dropping support for the 32bit Editor, so youād be authoring your 32bit games from a 64bit machine. We actually already did this on OSX a while agoā¦
As for when itāll happen, I donāt know - itās easier to think in terms of time than in terms of version numbers. Suffice to say youāre definitely safe for another three months at least.
Not going to be able to push this baby out in 3 months need at least 9:p. My point is that removing access to unity from the 32 bit user would hurt the casual or hobbyist developer who might go on to become something more than that given the tools and opportunity. I suppose the unity versions that do support 32 bit will not be reverse upgraded to only work on a 64 bit machine?.Well serious developers probably are all running 64 bit. Anyone looking to get there toes wet etc are more likely on a 32 bit machine and they are not going to upgrade to 64 bit just to test unity out so a potential diamond could slip through the cracks.
Ps. I think you guys should seriously look at changing your pricing model unrealās taking a percentage seems like a much better way to earn a sustainable influx of cash for unity I know I would not begrudge unity a share of whatever profits my game might make. After all Unity is doing a huge amount of the heavy lifting only fair to get a piece of the pie if you provide many of the ingredients.
No, for sure, any version of Unity that works on 32bit today will continue to be available. Youād certainly be able to stay on something like 5.3, and probably some later versions as well, for as long as you like - youād just miss out on new fixes and features.
Well, itās not just āserious developersā - like you saw in the graph I linked, more than 90% of people using Unity on Windows are running 64bit systems already. I donāt think there are actually enough āserious developersā in the world to make up 90% of our user figures 
Weāve got a pretty sustainable influx of cash already, thanks 
but if you want to pay us money after your game is out, weād prefer that it be for us actually giving you a continued service, and helping to take your game and your business to whole new levels of success.
That been said any reason why unity has not dipped its toes into the steam,gog etc arena. Paying sites like steam 30 percent of profit for almost doing nothing but hosting is a bit of a ripoff. I would be more amenable to unity taking a cut that size and hosting my game. I mean the size of the asset store must be massive so why not take it a step further and offer a hosting site for unity games that the public can peruse and buy from.
Curious any examples of unity helping to take games and businesses to a whole new level other than providing the tools via the editor.