On Thu, 2002-03-07 at 19:21, Brian Paul wrote: > Jose Fonseca wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2002-03-07 at 17:23, Brian Paul wrote: > > > ... > > > > > > You seem to have been confused by "texture levels" before. Looks like > > > you've figured it out now. It's basically the maximum number of mipmap > > > levels AND it's related to max texture size. > > > > > > -Brian > > > > Right after I started this thread I read carefully the OpenGL > > specification regarding this (which I confess I should had done before > > and not after) and there I found the explanation of texture levels as in > > "levels of detail", as I initially thought. > > > > Nevertheless I didn't found an explanation of why the maximum texture > > size was being derived from the maximum texture level in Mesa. In the > > specs it says that the the maximum allowable size of a texture must be > > _at least_ 2^(k-lod)-2*b_t , and not equal. > > On which page, please? > >
OpenGL Spec 1.3, page 121. > > Otherwise, where does it > > stay a card that's not capable of mipmapping but can hold textures > > bigger than 1x1? > > I don't understand. > > The spec seldom specifically talks cards/hardware. It's expected > that when a hardware implementation of OpenGL can't implement the > spec that software should be used instead. > This comment is of my own. I don't what's the 3d graphics cards panorama, but the way I see it Mesa can't describe the limitations of a card which is not capable of mipmapping, or can hold textures bigger than 2^MAXIMUM_TEXTURE_LEVEL, because intrinsicly associates maximum texture size with maximum texture levels. Again, I don't know if there is any other case besides mach64; and regardless of that, one can always pretend to support more texture levels and ignore/fallback for the images other than the base level. > -Brian > _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
