[GEM-dev] 2textures + gemframebuffer
marius schebella
marius.schebella at gmail.com
Tue Apr 1 22:07:24 CEST 2008
ok, I tested now with the current gemversion. and it is working. did you
add any additional changes to gem to get this working?
I attach a screenshot to make sure (19kb)..., the flip problem is a
different story...
marius.
cyrille henry wrote:
>
>
> marius schebella a écrit :
>> Hi Cyrille,
>> I am using a gem version from some days ago. were there any changes
>> lately?
> i was using a 1 month old Gem, and recompiling it today does change things.
>
>> the patch you sent is only working for me, if I explicitely set the
>> pix_texture for shader1 and shader2 to mode 0, which I had to add to
>> the patch. for a help patch this should be included. (loadbang mode0).
> ok.
> mode 0 is the default here.
> i just add this loadbang to the CVS example.
>
>> I am using os x and ATI X1600 and this maybe defaults to rect mode??
>> I am not sure what you mean with "everything working now". do you mean
>> you can have 11->12, 21->22, 31->32, or is it still 11->21, 12->22,
>> 33->32. (I think you know what I mean...).
> yes, i can have 11-12 21-22 etc.
>
>> because the first version (which I would think is correct) still does
>> not work for me.
>
> could you please test the cvs version (of Gem and of the example) and
> tell me if it work?
>
> cyrille
>
>> marius.
>>
>>
>> cyrille henry wrote:
>>> hello,
>>> well, difference is quite obvious, as the "not working" patch
>>> generate only a black windows.
>>>
>>> so, i just update and recompile gem, and i've got diferent result now.
>>> in fact, everything work!
>>>
>>> sorry, i should have tested with latest build.
>>>
>>> so, i'll update the Gem example, in order to have the logic gemwin
>>> order.
>>>
>>> cyrille
>>>
>>> IOhannes m zmoelnig a écrit :
>>>> cyrille henry wrote:
>>>>> ok. here is a tar version (without the image).
>>>> i have checked your original version (with the images; which i
>>>> received in your direct mail; the mail to the list got stuck because
>>>> of the size...).
>>>> how obvious are the differences?
>>>> i cannot really see a difference between the 2 results in 320x240;
>>>> there are however very subtle differences when i rescale the image
>>>> to 640x480.
>>>>
>>>> is that's how it is meant to be?
>>>>
>>>> mcg.adsr
>>>> IOhannes
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> GEM-dev mailing list
>>>> GEM-dev at iem.at
>>>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/gem-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GEM-dev mailing list
>>> GEM-dev at iem.at
>>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/gem-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 07.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 19553 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/gem-dev/attachments/20080401/6043e81c/attachment.jpg>
More information about the GEM-dev
mailing list