TREES: Destructible vs Doodad?

[shadowmapper]

If foresting a map (TD, RPG) for scenic effect, and not requiring trees to be destructible, would it be more memory efficient to create a custom doodads or change the models of an existing doodads (like the Indestructible Barrens and Sunken Ruins trees) to that of the trees you wish to use?

In other words will copying the existing '(Indestructible)' Doodad trees and changing some models and pathing textures cut back on memory usage and load time vs just spamming the existing Destructible trees? Planning to plant quite a few trees, with and w/o pathing textures.

 

[Uberplayer]

Tree models use a replaceable texture. To use them as doodads you'd have to edit the models to directly use the tree textures you want.

 

[shadowmapper]

pwned

That definitely sounds not worth the effort now.

 

[tooltiperror]

But, there are a lot of tree models right here.

 

[shadowmapper]

Well I like the original trees, so ideally I'd just take 8-10 of the existing variation models and use the existing textures, like Uber said, so I'd only be adding the extra models. So lets say I added 50-80kb worth of models is it better to use doodads for trees instead of destructibles, is it that much less objects for the game to keep track of? Again, say we're talking about using something like 2,000 doodads vs 2,000 destructibles.