If any gfx people following me happen to know, a question I've had for a long time: why is the native MIP UV comp still the way it is? It seems like it's a bad way to do MIPs, because it doesn't work with borders or tiling. Why isn't the default like https://pages.jh.edu/dighamm/research/2004_01_sta.pdf …?
The MIP UV specification I referenced does not change that. It is strictly a scale+bias of the UVs per MIP level. The derivatives are calculated precisely as before.
-
-
its not quite tho? as the scale has to be towards the center of each chart, ie the bias depends in some complex way on where you are in the overall atlas… still, i would love it too :)
-
Just to be clear, I don't mean atlases. There are atlases in the paper but also a texture array alternative, which is what I meant. And it seems like it's the way you would normally want to do MIP'ing, because it allows borders and tiling.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.