Couldn't agree with you more, mason. All very valid points, and it's about time someone said it. But Riddokun also hit the nail on the head. Texture compression is easily AS IMPORTANT as size. If you make a 2048 x 2048 tex and save it at jpeg 8, it will be WORSE in quality than a 1024 x 1024 at jpeg 12. What's the point in making a huge texture if you use a crap compression factor on it? Here's what I do. All objects mapped properly, ie. NOT laid out neatly side by side on the template, but 'stacked' for maximum resolution (and also, wherever possible, scaled in proportion to each other). All scans done directly from the original materials at 4096 x 4096, then reduced in Photoshop. Maximum tex size (with some rare exceptions) 1024 x 1024, and all texs to the power of 2. All textures saved in Photoshop using 'Save for web' at maximum quality (100). mac