Mipmapping where levels are 1+2^n in size and texels stack up directly over each other must Shirley have a name! http://pastebin.com/HYfF8dch
-
-
Replying to @tom_forsyth
@tom_forsyth Does this 1+2^n scheme actually help, though? I'm not sure why you still don't have to do texcoord fixups at each level.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@tom_forsyth Because in order to not introduce a "width seam", you'd have to still move the texcoords. I think 1+2^n and 2^n are the same.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@tom_forsyth Unless I'm missing something. It's not the size of the texture that's the problem, it's the addressing.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@tom_forsyth 2+2^n doesn't "work" either, right - the only reason texel borders worked is because _they affect the addressing_.2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cmuratori
@tom_forsyth So I'm not sure it matters at all what the size of the texture is, unless you care about the 1x1, which I don't think we do.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@tom_forsyth I think 2^n is just fine, and the problem all along has been that the addressing is busted!
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.