Square textures?

I've just uploaded a simple 768 x 768 texture. It gets squashed down to a power of 2 dimension of 512 x 512 as expected. So it doesn't work, basically.

I'm not sure where you get that mangled maths from Eloise. There's no other way of defining power of 2. None of the dimensions you suggest actually work. All textures get resized in power of 2 aspect ratios as well. So you can only use 1:1, 1:2, 1:4, 1:8 ratios, etc.

The 'Integer multiples of powers of 2' you mentioned is also simply known as 'divisible by 2'

I used the RAM example because while its possible for RAM, its not possible for textures in SL. So the reason of some of the confusion.

I hope someone actually tries these dimensions instead of basing it on theory.

I wasn't basing it on theory. As I said before, I have uploaded 768's plenty of times and it has worked just fine. However, just to be thorough, I re-uploaded three of them just now to test if anything had changed. It appears that it has. I tested a 768x512, a 768x256, and a 768x64. The 768 side was resized to 512 each time.

That got me curious, so I also tested a 192x64, which is another size I have used successfully many times in the past. The 192 was resized to 128. Then for the hell of it, I decided to try a couple of oddball sizes, 200x64 and 250x64. The 200 became 128, and the 250 became 256.

So, it seems that multiples of powers of two are in fact no longer allowable, and that rounding behavior has been changed as well. Everything now rounds not simply to the nearest power of two like it used to, but rounds down unless up is rediculously close. If I were to guess I would say maybe this was done to save storage space, or some other mysterious benefit that LL seems always to think outweighs precision whenever they make rounding changes. (Hello, precision cuts, anyone?)

I really wish LL would announce when the pull stuff like this. It's bad enough they keep screwing with our ability to control our own work; the least they could do is tell us about it when they do. Not only would these silly arguments about what works and what doesn't be eliminated, but I think it goes without saying that we deserve to know today whether what worked yesterday will still work today.


As for your notion of "silly math", I really don't see why you can't understand this. 768 is a multiple of a power of two because it's a multiple of 256, and 256 as you well know IS A POWER OF TWO. It's not that it's simply divisible by two, as you keep trying to insist. 766 and 780 are also divisible by two, but no one's trying to call those power of two multiples. What we're talking about are numbers that are divisible by other numbers that are themselves fairly large powers of two (64, 128, 256, etc), not just by two itself.

I'm pretty sure that at no point of time you could have a texture with dimensions other that power of two in SL. To this day very few graphics cards support non-power of two texture sizes and it's an extension to OpenGL. Conventional OpenGL texturing is limited to images with power-of-two dimensions.

You don't need to get curious as though its some strange discovery. I don't pluck these things out from the sky. I learnt this tragic mistake when it was SL 1.7 when I was much newer here. LL didn't change anything. Only my own knowledge has changed and I stopped doing it quite some time ago. If I'm wrong, then let a Linden who has changed how textures are stored correct me. Think of all the stretched textures everyone has been uploading due to this misinformation or lack of information? I don't know who was the one disseminating this, but it certainly has affected people like Eloise for the worse.



I did not call this silly math. I said it was mangled, meaning it became incoherent. In the context of texture sizes, calling a number a 'multiple of a power of two' has no real usefulness or meaning beyond trying to justify the mistake of using wrong texture sizes.
If you extend that to prime numbers, I can say 6, 14 or 28 is a 'multiple of a prime number'. Whats the point in that? It doesn't really help with anything.

I can only report what I've seen, what I've done, and what I know. If you choose not to believe it, that's up to you.

I see little point in continuing this discussion since it's been established that as of now, everything must be in powers of two, regardless of who is or isn't willing to accept that numbers like 768 and 192 were allowable in the past. I'm sure you'd agree with that much at least.


Now you're telling me what I can and can't be curious about? Come on. Was it not you yourself who in your last post said you wished soemone would do some tests? There's no winning with you, is there? Talk about something that was true in the past, and I'm "basing it on theory". Test to see if it's still true and I'm "unnecessarily curious." Wow.

Look. I can promise you 768 and 192 were acceptable before. I often put the size of textures right into their names, and I've got plenty with those numbers in their titles. As it was I who pointed out using the texture console, does it not stand to reason that I would have used it in the past myself to verify my own texture sizes? I can assure you I did. I don't pluck things out of the sky either.

As I said though, there's little point in continuing this. If you choose not to believe what I know to be true, that's up to you. Believe what you want.


Okay, yes, you used the word "mangled", not "silly". Sorry for the misquote.

Anyway, I see no problem with referring 6, 14, and 28 as multiples of prime numbers. That's what they are. As for whether or not it "helps anything", that's entirely dependant on the context in which they are discussed.

For this discussion, the term "multiples of powers of two" was relevant because numbers like 192 and 768 were the kinds of numbers we were talking about. Again, I can't understand why that's so hard for you to accept.

In any case, discussion over. As of now, powers of two are all that work. Whether you want to believe that their multiples were acceptable before or not is up to you. Knowing how Lindens have a propensity to change the acceptable math in SL at the drop of a hat, I don't see why it's such a stretch for you to believe, but it's your perogative.

Sure, discussion is over now. Since its harder to just say it was a mistake all along.

I believe what Candide said. Most who code for OpenGL apps don't ever use anything beyond those sizes. If you asked one, you'd get a proper explanation why.

Anyway, it sure takes a lot to get some simple message into that cranium of yours.

Chosen, have you re-downloaded any of your old odd-sized textures that you speak of and checked their dimensions? A simple screenshot or two might go a long way to resolving this little altercation for good.

It is resolved, Beatfox. Cottonteil doesn't want to believe what I know to be true. It's not the first time, and I'm sure it won't be the last. I'm really not concerned. It would be nice if she'd find a way to leave the insults at home, but one can only hope for so much. As I said, all I can do is report what I've experienced.

As for your screenshot suggestion, great idea, but if I had any screenshots of the texture console displaying 768 or 192, I would have posted them already. As I said, everything is now rounded to powers of two, even ones that had previously been multiples. So, all I can do is say I know what I saw. I use the texture console all the time. Had my 768's and 192's been showing up as 512's and 128's all along, I never would have continued uploading them. Afterall, I'm the one who's constantly talking about the advantages of scaling in Photoshop over letting SL do the scaling automatically.

The only way that makes it possible to have non power of two sized textures is using one of the OpenGL extensions. Extensions are new vendor provided technology that allows extra functionality to work along with OpenGL. Meaning, they won't work on all graphics cards or brands. By default, OpenGL does not support non power of two sizes. Here is a snippet from the OpenGL documentation direct from SGI.



Display of non power of two textures has some limitations, including not being repeatable.
The said OpenGL extension description can be found here.

http://oss.sgi.com/projects/ogl-sample/registry/ARB/texture_rectangle.txt

If you insist that you've used 768's and 192's before, it can only be confirmed by either a Linden or someone who has managed to download back their own texture TGAs in these sizes.

If it indeed was ever true, somebody at LL would have to have written a script to plough through every texture asset in the server and reconvert them. There could be a possibility also that the numbers displayed on the texture console were wrong at one point in time and subsequently corrected. Unless this is confirmed, I'd lump it under 'Ripley's Believe it Or Not'.

From the Answers forum:

Hmm, that was an interesting exchange, and to think I avoided this thread. Atleast it's settled now, unless ya'll think Kelly is wrong.

Key words in Kelly's quote are "to my knowledge". With all due respect to Kelly, she also said 2048's were not possible, but they are.

That's the last I'll be replying to this thread. This discussion is pointless. Those of us who have used 768's and 192's in the past know what we know. Those who haven't are welcome to believe whatever they want.

*leaves a small origami of a texture on Chosen's land*

You just generalised a person based on a single mistake that they made in the past and I resent that. By that same reasoning, I hereby declare you an absolutely unreliable source of information that serve only to mislead and obfuscate.

I've experienced something I didn't notice before: no matter how big my SL window is, if I take a Snapshot and upload it as texture immediately from the preview window, it always ends up being 512x512. Before, I might be remembering incorrectly, but I recall I had 1024x1024 snapshots via this method--this ring a bell with anyone?

Also, the other day I uploaded a 2048x2048 of watermelons. Not the first time I've done it--this follows up from earlier info from Karsten Rutledge where he told me such a thing was possible...

it took a long time to upload!

Since one is a power of two, one being two to the zero power, all integers are multiples of a power of two.

Positive integer multiples of (two to a positive integer power) would be the same set of numbers as positive integer multiples of two, and would just be the positive even numbers.

Ok, you lost me. But this might help some...

http://www.newdream.net/~sage/old/numbers/pow2.htm

She is basically saying that any positive integer number from 1 up to infinity can be defined as the infamous 'multiples of powers of 2'.

More info can be found here.

http://timstvshowcase.com/mattstar.html

I made a texture 24 horizontal and 8 vertical and SL rounded it down to 16 by 8.

24 is halfway between 16 and 32.

I would expect it to round up instead of down.

SL was not pleased by my 1 pixel by 1 pixel shape, nor the 2X2, nor the 4X4.

8X8 was the minimun square shape SL would take.