[3ddesktop-dev] Re: 3ddesktop 0.2.2

On Sun, 25 Aug 2002, Steven W. Orr wrote:

=>
=>On Sat, 24 Aug 2002, Steven W. Orr wrote:
=>=>
=>=>On Fri, 23 Aug 2002, Brad Wasson wrote:
=>=>=>
=>=>=>Steven W. Orr wrote:
=>=>=>> Any idea what I can try? Clearly we're getting closer.
=>=>=>
=>=>=>Try a low --texturesize argument (64, 32, or 16).  I'm beginning to 
=>=>=>think that some cards can't handle large texturesizes.  I may be 
=>=>=>able to tile the gl quads so that textures sizes are no bigger then
=>=>=>64 but still have the same resolution.
=>=>It seems that 512 is the largets value that works with my Matrox card 
=>=>without getting the dreaded white panels. But it really doesn't look very 
=>=>impressive. 7 Quatloos to the man who can fix this problem!
=>
=>I just have one other comment to offer here: I can't say for sure that
=>this problem existed in the past because I just recently upgraded from a
=>Matrox Millenium II with 8 Meg to my current card which is a Matrox G450
=>with 32 Meg. So I'm not exactly sure if when it worked in the past, it was
=>with the older card or the new card. Does it make sense that the G450
=>would have this problem with the texturesize that the Millenium II did
=>not?

Sorry. One more followup: It *must* be the case that the last time I saw 
it working was with my G450 card, because, the Millenium II is not capable 
of doing 3d graphics. So, therefore I'm claiming that this must have 
worked a few moths ago on my G450.

Has anything changed that would cause this to be affected?

-- 
-Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a banana. Stranger things have -
-happened but none stranger than this. Does your driver's license say Organ
-Donor?Black holes are where God divided by zero. Listen to me! We are all-
-individuals! What if this weren't a hypothetical question? steveo@xxxxxxxxxxx

Other related posts: