On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Ian Romanick wrote: > On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 11:41:00PM +0100, Dieter N�tzel wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 6. November 2002 23:23 schrieb Adam K Kirchhoff: > > > Hello all, > > > > > > These two links show screenshots of glaxium on two separate > > > machines, one with an r100 (original 64 Meg Radeon) and one with an r200 > > > (Radeon 8500). > > > > > > http://memory.visualtech.com/glaxium-r100.png > > > http://memory.visualtech.com/glaxium-r200.png > > > > > > You may notice that, quite frankly, the floor looks much nicer on > > > the r100 than on the r200. Can anyone explain why this would be the case? > > > Shouldn't the r200 support all the same extensions as the r100? > > > > Broken textures in the r200 branch? > > Have you tried with TCL disabled? > > > > Please try both with parsec. I see some texture corruption with the r200 > > there, too. > > I know that glaxium is, but is parsec using DOT3? If so, I believe that may > be the problem. I know that the R200 driver doesn't handle the scale factor > correctly for ARB_texture_env_dot3 (it always uses a 1x scale). However, I > don't think /that/ by itself would cause that problem. If that were the > case, then it would run unbearably slow on R100 (using a non-1x scale causes > a sw fallback on R100). > > Do we have any DOT3 tests? I didn't see any in glean.
I should point out that I've never seen parsec on an r100 card, so I don't know if the texture problems I saw were limited to the r200. Adam ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: See the NEW Palm Tungsten T handheld. Power & Color in a compact size! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?palm0001en _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
