Re: [compiz] Direct and Indirect: Difference in rendering quality

2007-06-06 Thread Matt Russell
On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 16:47 -0400, David Reveman wrote:
 On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 18:01 +0100, Matt Russell wrote:
  Hi
  
  Why is the quality of scaled textures/objects using
--indirect-rendering
  much worse than direct rendering? Also, vsync does not work with
  indirect-rendering.
 
 Scaled texture quality problem might be caused by
 GLX_EXT_framebuffer_object extension not being supported when using
 indirect rendering. This means that mipmap filter can't be used with
 pixmaps bound to textures.
 
 GLX_SGI_video_sync extensions is used for vsync and that extension
will
 only work properly with direct rendering.
 
 -David
 

That's a shame - performance for me is better using indirect rendering
(for most things at least), although I'm sure a few months ago compiz
ran better with direct rendering...

Matt

___
compiz mailing list
compiz@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/compiz


Re: [compiz] Direct and Indirect: Difference in rendering quality

2007-06-05 Thread David Reveman
On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 18:01 +0100, Matt Russell wrote:
 Hi
 
 Why is the quality of scaled textures/objects using --indirect-rendering
 much worse than direct rendering? Also, vsync does not work with
 indirect-rendering.

Scaled texture quality problem might be caused by
GLX_EXT_framebuffer_object extension not being supported when using
indirect rendering. This means that mipmap filter can't be used with
pixmaps bound to textures.

GLX_SGI_video_sync extensions is used for vsync and that extension will
only work properly with direct rendering.

-David

___
compiz mailing list
compiz@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/compiz