[GEM-dev] 2textures + gemframebuffer

[cyrille henry]

marius schebella a écrit :
> ok, I tested now with the current gemversion. and it is working. 
perfect!

>did you 
> add any additional changes to gem to get this working?
no, i did not. but someone certainly did!

> I attach a screenshot to make sure (19kb)..., the flip problem is a 
> different story...
i don't have this flip, otherwise it's ok.

cyrille



> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>