Posts: 923
Threads: 7
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation:
47
Location: Argentina
Can you do a screenshot comparison?
Also, how about (127.0f/256.0f) instead of 0.45 ?
Posts: 923
Threads: 7
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation:
47
Location: Argentina
Nice, I was expecting some difference between 0.45 and 127/256. I would still prefer (127.0f/256.0f) since it differs less from the 0.5f.
Posts: 136
Threads: 13
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation:
1
i don't have that bug in x9 mode hw and its run more fast in 8 bit texture
i gess its just in the x10 and x11
Smile,Listen,Agree
And then do whatever you wanted to do anyway...
(sorry for my bad english, i am french
)
Posts: 1.672
Threads: 28
Joined: Mar 2011
Reputation:
49
Location: India
Yes Quite True. It just happens in Dx 10/11 Mode.
Posts: 195
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation:
5
I've worked something out for this. It seems to be a bug with point sampling (or rather I think it's a hackfix in the drivers or the cards for some issue they faced) on ATI cards.
It looks from my testing like they're adding 127/128 of a texel to all sampling coordinates, but I can't be sure this is actually the case. I do have a workaround (which doesn't involve subtracting 127/128 of a texel, that'd screw non-ATI users, nor does it involve messing with HalfTexel) and it'll probably be on svn later tonight.
This is the same issue I found with sampling palettes themselves (entries 254 and 255 got bad values or something) earlier. It also affects any unfiltered textures regardless of the 8 bit textures option.