On Dec 7, 2007 2:28 AM, Kevin Gillette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i think that's a bit overkill -- if we're doing splatting, the point is that > no one texel is easily distinguishable where the splatting occurs, thus if > we implement splatting, we *should* use simple POT dimensions for our > textures.
We will still need border to deal with linear and anisotropic filtering. > i agree that removing the rotational/mirroable seamless > requirement would be a major benefit to artists, which could focus on higher > quality and better looking textures that need only be tileably seamless. Making it easier for people who want to work on the game should be very high priority. > if there is interest in the splatting idea, i think we should plan a > deprecation schedule I and Dennis were thinking of automatically updating old maps to the new scheme. The current way maps are drawn can be expressed as a subset of the features available with splatted textures. > furthermore, i believe it would be prudent to consider a redinition of > mip-map levels by "pixel resolution" rather than "pixel dimension", so that > i could, for example, design a 2048x2048 "tile" that has a 128x128 "pixel > resolution" -- that way, a single terrain type would just have a large > texture repeat interval. this would conceptually be somewhere between > warzone's current discrete tiling system and megatexture < > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatexture>. of course, for such a system to > work well, a "smart" method of texture packing and binding (a 2048x2048 > texture would get its own bind, probably) would need to be proposed, as > would a method for detecting graphics processing capabilities and scaling > the amount of maximum detail to be appropriate to the machine warzone is > running on. I am not sure what exactly you want here and why. - Per _______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzonefirstname.lastname@example.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev