@makc: I have considered that, and that's the main reason why a plug-in system like the one I have explained (but which would be disabled by default) is being considered. If for now you need to do this, then load your textures manually, resize them and map the texture URLs to bytearrays containing the resized images.
Cheers /R On Jun 22, 5:58 pm, makc <makc.the.gr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Just another nitpick before we're done > > On 21 Чер, 19:08, richardolsson <r...@richardolsson.se> wrote: > > > I don't see why (and > > I'm sure your product owner agrees) users should have to download > > textures that are often too big just to then have their CPU scale them > > down. Store and deploy them with the right size, which will decrease > > both loading and initialization time. > > Have you ever considered an opposite case where, say, 400x400 looks > awesome but 256x256 is crap, because of small details being blurred > out? You would have to scale it up to 512x512, and then your argument > causes users to download more, actually.
