Re: Problem: pf2.2 + Onyx2 + Layers

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

Sharon Clay (src++at++rose)
Mon, 9 Mar 1998 11:52:55 -0800

+>---- On Mar 9, 11:39am, Marcus Barnes wrote:
> Subject: Re: Problem: pf2.2 + Onyx2 + Layers
->From guest++at++holodeck Mon Mar 9 11:41:07 1998
->>machine.
->
->Running the same database on these two platforms gives dramatically different
->coplanar rendering results? Here we go again ... (hi sharon ;-)
->
->If you're using displacement, make sure you have a 23 bit depth buffer on the
->Onyx2. there have been problems where you don't get the FB you ask for ... see

Wait! This may not be necessary - first make sure you have patch 2919 or
later as there was a fix in that patch that could affect precision of
Z coordinates. Using 23 bits of Z means slower multisampled fill so you
do not want to do this unless you need it.
Also make sure that your near/far distance ratio is sane: 1/10000 is great,
1/30000 usuually is reasonable and smaller than that and you can get into
flashing.

->Rob Jenkin's previous posts.
->
->Try using STENCIL mode as a work around. It's not too much slower on IR. Enable
->it via the OpenFlight loader mode:
->
->{
-> if ( strcmp( pfGetMachString(), "IRL" ) == 0 ) /* ONYX2 IR */
-> pfdConverterMode ( "flt", PFFLT_LAYER, PFDECAL_BASE_STENCIL );
-> pfdLoadFile( "large.flt" );
->}

This is also reasonable.

src.

-- 
-----{-----{---++at++   -----{----{---++at++   -----{----{---++at++   -----{----{---++at++
Sharon Rose Clay - Silicon Graphics, Advanced Systems Dev.
src++at++sgi.com  (650) 933 - 1002  FAX: (650) 965 - 2658  MS 8U-590
-----{-----{---++at++   -----{----{---++at++   -----{----{---++at++   -----{----{---++at++
=======================================================================
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 - 17:57:00 PDT

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