Angus Dorbie (dorbie++at++bitch.reading.sgi.com)
Wed, 1 Nov 1995 23:00:20 +0100
Try your image without mipmaping, if this is acceptable,
enlarge it to 1k x 1k before loading though.
If this is unacceptable split your texture to multiple files and
apply to your polygons accordingly. This should allow you to use
more texture at lower quality or at worst use the fast IMPACT
texture paging with a performance penalty.
I hope someone answers your question though, what's the real-time
maximum texture size on IMPACT with & without the extra TRAM,
mipmapped & non-mipmapped? Also with various numbers of
components & bits per component if it makes a difference?
I expect this just scales from RE numbers but I'd like to
be sure. Someone else asked me this today.
On Nov 1, 9:59am, bmcquear++at++dw3f.ess.harris.com wrote:
> Subject: Textures
>
> Hi Again,
>
> Thanks for the responses concerning texture with the Impact!
>
> One thing that I did notice is that the texture images being loaded in
> were 774 x 1024 images, so we scaled them down as Ran had mentioned (to
> 75% of orignal) and they were loaded in and displayed ok on the Impact,
> however, as expected, the resolution appears to degrad more
> significantly as you zoom into the terrain than the previous 1024 x
> 1024 images did.
>
> I am wondering if this image size is a limitation of the Impact in
> general, or our particular Impact configuration? Should more texture
> memory take care of this? Is our TRAM card providing additional texture
> memory, above the standard 1 Meg? Can I expect the same situation with
> the Maximum Impact, or should the two texture engines solve it?
>
>
> I know that I may have diverged alittle from Performer, but any info
> would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Bruce McQueary
>
-- Angus Dorbie, Silicon Graphics Ltd, UK dorbie++at++reading.sgi.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Aug 10 1998 - 17:52:00 PDT