On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Tateru Nino <tat...@taterunino.net> wrote: > Wouldn't we be making a network saving by omitting the discard levels > entirely? Granted, I don't have hard data about that - would the base > texture encoded in a lighter-weight format end up causing less data to > traverse for a given texture in the long-run than the more-efficiently > compressed j2c of the same texture including discard levels? My gut instinct > says 'probably', but I can't prove that with data. > > If it *does* then we would have a double-bonus of also saving on decoding > time.
The problem is that discard levels save us on more then just bandwidth. when you look at an object 300m away it will only be taking up a few dozen pixels on the screen so the viewer will just download up to the first or second discard level, say 32x32 or so, and that is all that will be stored on your video card. Switching to a format that doesn't support discard levels could give us big savings in decode time, but at the cost of having to always download the whole file. We'd be trading cpu time for vram, and the average users machine has a lot more of the former than the later _______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
