SL Texture Question

Will you stop churning out the runny brown 'facts' please?
This may be off topic, but light wavelengths do not come in just three finite wavelengths of red, green and blue. It is a spectrum ranging from low to high. I wonder why you start off by discrediting yourself first before presenting your ideas.



Many are aware that JPEG2000 is capable of progressive transmission and display. We see it daily in SL and its really nothing to shout about. At best, the progressive images look smudgy, even at significantly long distances.

However, issuing multiple calls to the asset server requesting for the same texture several times at varying degrees of resolution whenever you zoom in a view is actually more damaging than downloading the whole file and keeping it in the cache. Bear in mind, most of our textures aren't that big after the jpg compression in the first place.

What most of us are seeing as texture lag has more to do with the client loading up the wrong sequence of textures than anything else. We get textures close by that download slowly, while some of the far ones come in first. The cache isn't working that well either, especially the world map that constantly needs to reload whenever its fired up. LL should sort those issues first.

I'd be happy if they employed some form of mipmapping on the client side. Or even having them keep preprocessed downsampled versions of all textures in the asset server so that users with lesser computers can have a choice of forcing the client to request for the lower res versions only.

Anything else, but not the progressive images, please.



If you personally wish to be judged this way, I think most of us already have a verdict.

I'm sorry, Cottontail, Your post seems to me to have elements of a flame to it, with substantial personal references, and I think it better not to reply in any detail. I previously drafted a long tutorial on color vision, but decided against posting it as it is off topic, and this is not the place for us to teach each other such things, or start qualifications and experience wars. If you really insist I might post it, but I think it much better not.

It's simply not constructive, and not relevant, and maybe even not friendly.

As regards the rest of your post, I will just say that you are in part accidentally misrepresenting my case, perhaps because I have not put it clearly enough. But I've tried my best, and decline any implicit invite to try again.

Perhaps we should just say that we strongly differ on at least one significant point, but that being calm rational people we should not be too surprised, and should respect each others right to differ.

No, I don't need to read a pictureless tutorial on colour spectrums and mammalian vision that you just googled and pasted together. Nice effort, thanks.




I know clearly what your case is. You're attempting to be helpful to LL and SL in general by suggesting methods which you have 'researched' from various scraps of information that may reduce the load on SL and its users. To the wrong audience, perhaps.

Many of the background information that you present to back up your case is undeniably wrong. They are not differences in opinions, but just plainly technically wrong, in a very boring kind of way. Its almost like saying, there are only 3 wavelengths of visible light.

Some, who are knowledgeable have presented their counter arguments to yours.

If you think what you have there is of value, write a whitepaper and submit it to LL as a suggestion to see what becomes of it. You can post it up in the Feedback section as well, for others to read, and might get more positive responses.