Re: Problems with fading alphatexture in .flt

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

Jonas Andersson (jonasa++at++cs.umu.se)
Wed, 2 Dec 1998 00:03:48 +0100 (MET)


On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, Brett Chladny wrote:

> Jonas,
>
> My guess is that the difference is because the default internal texture
> format is different between the 3 computers. Some formats are not
> available on some computers. Read the pftexture man page for
> information on the internal formats. If you use PFTEX_RGBA_12 on the
> IR, you should not have the problem. Note that this format will use
> twice the texture memory as the default PFTEX_RGBA_4 format and take
> more time to render. Also make sure you are using Bi- or Tri- linear
> mip-mapping and play with the magnification filters.

I have tried doing what you suggested without any change. Also I
compared the pfTexture format and filters between the Onyx and Octane,
they are exactly the same.

There seem to be some default behaviour on the Octane that makes the
texture look perfect. This behaviour is not the default on the Onyx (It
would be strange if the Octane could produce better results than the Onyx,
wouldnīt it :)

So my problem remains:
What else except the filters and formats could make the difference?

Thanks again Brett for taking time.

-- Jonas

>
> Brett
>
> Jonas Andersson wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, Brett Chladny wrote:
> >
> > > Jonas,
> > >
> > > I read you letter and I don't think that Rob's reply was what you were
> > > looking for. I tried your file in Perfly on my Octane MXE and it worked
> > > just fine. What type of computer are you using?
> >
> > Hi Brett, and thank you very much for your letter!
> > Imagine my surprise when trying the file on our Octane, it looks perfect.
> >
> > On our Onyx IR2 it appears banded, and on our O2:s the texture isnīt shown
> > at all.
> >
> > Even if I put all filters to "none" in Multigen it looks perfect on the
> > Octane, but banded on the Onyx.
> >
> > What happens on the Octane that doesnīt on the Onyx?
> >
> > >
> > > It sounds like there is some sort of problem with the texture in texture
> > > memory. Have you had any other texture problem like this? Also, try
> > > changing the textures minification filter in MultiGen and view it agian
> > > in Perfly.
> > >
> > > Brett Chladny
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jonas Andersson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi pfAll,
> > > >
> > > > With Multigen I have created a square with a texture that is
> > > > smoothly fading from black to transparent.
> > > >
> > > > When loading it with perfly however, it looks like each pixel of the
> > > > texture is fading "in the opposite direction" of the fading texture.
> > > >
> > > > The result is vertical stripes, each stripe being more transparent than
> > > > itīs left neighbor, but each stripe being more transparent to the
> > > > left than to the right.
> > > >
> > > > It seems to me there are some kind of property I could use to fix this
> > > > problem, but I donīt know which. If you know, please let me know...
> > > >
> > > > Example files are attached in fadetest.tar.
> > > >
> > > > Thankīs in advance for any help.
> > > >
> > > > -- Jonas
> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
> > > > Jonas Andersson jonasa++at++acc.umu.se, http://www.cs.umu.se/~jonasa
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Name: fadetest.tar
> > > > fadetest.tar Type: Unix Tape Archive (APPLICATION/x-tar)
> > > > Encoding: BASE64
> > >
> >
> > -- Jonas
> > ________________________________________________________________________________
> > Jonas Andersson jonasa++at++acc.umu.se, http://www.cs.umu.se/~jonasa
>

-- Jonas
________________________________________________________________________________
Jonas Andersson jonasa++at++acc.umu.se, http://www.cs.umu.se/~jonasa


New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Tue Dec 01 1998 - 15:04:10 PST

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