| Time |
Nick |
Message |
| 01:16 |
|
celeron55 joined #minetest-dev |
| 06:43 |
|
EdB joined #minetest-dev |
| 07:45 |
|
rubenwardy joined #minetest-dev |
| 08:01 |
|
Calinou joined #minetest-dev |
| 09:27 |
|
PilzAdam joined #minetest-dev |
| 11:15 |
|
Calinou joined #minetest-dev |
| 11:19 |
* PilzAdam |
is away: Busy |
| 11:33 |
* PilzAdam |
is back (gone 00:14:09) |
| 11:40 |
celeron55 |
PilzAdam: kill your away messages |
| 11:41 |
celeron55 |
that is abuse of IRC |
| 11:42 |
PilzAdam |
sry |
| 11:43 |
VanessaE |
celeron55: your input is needed here: http://minetest.net/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=39678 |
| 11:44 |
VanessaE |
(namely, if you can explain what was "ugly" as mentioned in the source code) |
| 11:44 |
thexyz |
VanessaE: just make it optionable |
| 11:45 |
VanessaE |
thexyz: um. |
| 11:45 |
VanessaE |
dod YOU read the whole thread? |
| 11:45 |
VanessaE |
did* |
| 11:45 |
thexyz |
yes, i did |
| 11:45 |
thexyz |
now make it and send the patch |
| 11:45 |
thexyz |
somewhere… |
| 11:45 |
VanessaE |
then you should know that "make it optional" has already been discussed, and a patch already exists there in the first post. |
| 11:46 |
VanessaE |
but c55's input is not requested for the patch - it is requested for a subjective comment he left in the original source code. What in particular was ugly, so that we can work to avoid it? |
| 11:47 |
thexyz |
that's not the patch what will be accepted |
| 11:47 |
thexyz |
which* |
| 11:48 |
VanessaE |
let's let celeron55 decide what will or won't be accepted. |
| 11:48 |
VanessaE |
and besides, again, we just want to know what "ugly" meant. |
| 11:48 |
thexyz |
ok, just guessing |
| 11:50 |
VanessaE |
and knowing how c55 is trying to take a break from the game, I simply would not have asked the question here, but he is the only one who can answer it - lest we all learn to both time travel and read minds. |
| 12:03 |
celeron55 |
the problem with mipmaps is when you use them at the regular 16x textures |
| 12:03 |
celeron55 |
they start to downscale the resolution too early |
| 12:04 |
celeron55 |
you can see "borders" at where the scaling changes |
| 12:04 |
celeron55 |
try rails for example |
| 12:04 |
celeron55 |
(because they have clear single pixel detail) |
| 12:05 |
VanessaE |
right, we've seen that happen in our tests |
| 12:05 |
celeron55 |
that is what the ugly refers to; and it was not initiated by me but rather somebody else and i just threw the code in |
| 12:05 |
VanessaE |
however, that isn't happening with AF+MM alone, at least on my box. Add in bi-/tri-linear filtering and it does. |
| 12:05 |
celeron55 |
go blame whoever that was |
| 12:05 |
VanessaE |
not blaming you :-) just trying to understand the comment :-) |
| 12:06 |
VanessaE |
celeron55: at any rate the intent is to turn that 3 line change into a patch that we can submit to you later via github or so. |
| 12:07 |
VanessaE |
(with options to turn it all off, etc) |
| 12:14 |
Calinou |
"you can see "borders" at where the scaling changes" < and this is why we have linear mipmapping |
| 12:14 |
Calinou |
minetest used "nearest" mipmapping prior to 0.3; the mipmapping can be smoothed by using "linear" mipmapping |
| 12:14 |
celeron55 |
i guess that is the default of irrlicht |
| 12:15 |
VanessaE |
celeron55: also, on my system, fwiw, AF+MM, with or without bi-/trilinear has no effect on performance. |
| 12:35 |
VanessaE |
I have added excerpts of the above discussion to the forum thread managing this. |
| 14:16 |
|
Calinou joined #minetest-dev |
| 15:15 |
|
PilzAdam joined #minetest-dev |
| 16:06 |
|
VanessaE joined #minetest-dev |
| 16:07 |
|
VanessaE joined #minetest-dev |
| 16:16 |
|
VanessaE joined #minetest-dev |
| 18:25 |
|
sapier1 joined #minetest-dev |
| 18:26 |
sapier1 |
hello, is anyone here who knows how collision handling is done and supposed to behave? |
| 21:21 |
|
PilzAdam joined #minetest-dev |
