--- "Adam D. Moss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oliver Stieber wrote: > > The fallback is there because 1 bit stencil is the > > minimum required by the opengl specification, so > it is > > possible that somewhere there is a driver that > only > > supports 1 bit stencil. > > I understood that, I was simply saying that I don't > think > there's ever been a consumer graphics card that did > only > 1-7 bits -- they seem to universally do 0 or 8 bits > of > stencil (even the software-renderers), so the > fallback is > likely a waste of breath, though I appreciate > caution. > > Perhaps more to the point, does D3D only guarantee a > 1-bit stencil buffer? A 1-bit stencil buffer (most > especially one without GL_EXT_stencil_wrap) is of > very, > very limited use. I somewhat expect that no D3D > applications > (except maybe, just maybe, some very simple > test-apps) > will actually operate correctly with a 1-bit > unwrapped > stencil. >
I haven't come across any yet, but I've mainly been concentrating on d3d9. there's a good chance that some older applications may use a 1bit stencil to speed things up. applications that would generally be regarded as 2d can make use of a 1bit stencil buffer for masks and screen wipes. e.g. http://www.mvps.org/directx/articles/wipe/ http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/directx9_c/directx/graphics/programmingguide/advancedtopics/stencilbuffer/dissolvesfadesandswipes.asp I wouldn't expect someone with hardware that doesn't support 8bit+ stencils to be playing the latest games, but there's potential for them to be using other applications that require a simple stencil buffer, or simple 3D an no stencil at all, in which case they require some kind of fallback. > Cheers, > --adam > > > ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com