RM4s vs RM5s - Problem solved!

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

Daniel Stipe (dstipe++at++indy3.gstone.com)
Wed, 12 Feb 1997 15:34:12 -0800 (PST)

The problem was that our customer was running Performer 2.0 not 2.0.2 with
his RM5s.....

Thanks to all who contributed to my understanding of pixel depth.

New Question.
When loading a texture larger than 1k by 1k, is it correct for Performer to
report a texture usage based on actual size if the system averages the
image to a 1k size prior to loading? I would feel better if I knew how
much memory was actually consumed.

Confused in San Diego.

Dan

                       Dan Stipe - Sr. Staff Member
                      Tele: (619) 974-6300 ext. 176

 /\/\/\ GreyStone Technology, Inc. fax: (619) 974-6303
/ /\/\ \ 4950 Murphy Canyon Road e-mail: dstipe++at++gstone.com
\ \/\/ / San Diego, CA 92123-4325 web: http://www.gstone.com/
 \/\/\/

=======================================================================
List Archives, FAQ, FTP: http://www.sgi.com/Technology/Performer/
            Submissions: info-performer++at++sgi.com
        Admin. requests: info-performer-request++at++sgi.com

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Aug 10 1998 - 17:54:39 PDT

This message has been cleansed for anti-spam protection. Replace '++at++' in any mail addresses with the '@' symbol.