Another consideration I saw when I was looking at the requirements is the 128 width OR height limit in the texture loading with a 256 sized Bin.
If I load two 128x256 images, they would both fit in a 256x256 image, but in the code since it's > 128, they would each be given their own texture ID instead of being able to put it into 1. Maybe there needs to be smarter packing checks? On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 1:26:16 AM UTC-6, Benjamin Moran wrote: > > Hi guys, > > Thinking about this issue on the tracker: > https://bitbucket.org/pyglet/pyglet/issues/107/texture-atlas-sizes-too-small-for-most-gfx > Currently, the default texture size for a TextureAtlas is 256x256xRGBA. > The pyglet.resource module only places images into a TextureAtlas if it's > smaller than 128x128. > > Even for older cards, these numbers are very small. We should probably > bump this up so that it better fits current resolutions. This could cause > issues on some older laptop hardware, but maybe it can fall back to a lower > resolution if it throws an error. Doing a query for the maximum texture > size probably wouldn't work, since modern cards can support some > rediculously large textures. Perhaps we can do the following: > > 1. Raise the default size to something like 1024x1024, or 2048x2048, > (or?), and if there is a texture creation exception, we can fall back to > 512x512. > 2. Bump the minimum pyglet.resource size for adding to an Atlas to 256x256 > (or?). > > Any thoughts? > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pyglet-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/pyglet-users. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
