Re: speed question

[Frank C <li...@si...>]

On 13-Jul-04, at 1:36 PM, Keith Wiley wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Frank C wrote:
>
>> To get back to the original topic of this post, I think your reasoning
>> for wanting mipmapping may be flawed - it's probably faster to simply
>> _not_ use mipmapping at all, at the cost of image quality.
>
> By which you mean that I should use pixmaps and let the engine do it
> automatically, or you mean I shouldn't be decreasing resolution when an
> object is distant from the camera?

To not use mipmaps you create a mipmap texture and set it's 
useMipmapping field to false... (I know it sounds weird to use a mipmap 
texture when you don't want mipmaps but that's how it's done).

> The program I'm writing (a game) is going to push pretty hard on the
> hardware.  Right now I'm only working on the terrain engine, without 
> any
> objects at all in the world.  I'm trying to find a way to get terrain
> tiles in the distance to render with lower res textures.  I have 
> already
> experimented with manually inserting lower res textures for distant
> objects and I get significant speedups.

Depending on your needs this may indeed be faster than letting 
Quesa/OpenGL handle it, since you can control exactly how many textures 
to use whereas Quesa always uses a full set. I'm actually very 
surprised you see a speed up when using more textures rather than just 
using one, but maybe your full-size texture is a little much for your 
hardware, or it's being uploaded more often than it needs to be.

Frank.