Hi,
I’m wondering if anybody knows why on a GeForce FX 5900, we can use only 4 textures simultaneously, while DirectX allows 8 textures on the same card.
Thanks.
this is only true for fixed pipeline stuff.(it’s just an API restriction)
when you are using fp’s you can use more textureunits.
That’s interesting, but if it’s a API restriction, how come I can go up to 8 textures on a Radeon? This is the same API…
Probably because that Radeon allows 8 textures in the fixed function pipeline.
It isn’t an API restriction. It is a restriction imposed by nVidia (for whatever reason).
nVIDIA didn’t want to expose 8 classical texture environments, with the texture crossbar and everything. Thus, they said “fixed function is a thing of the past (GF4 and below) and we only support up to that level.”
I can kind-of see where they’re coming from. If you need more textures, then you probably want to be doing fragment programs anyway.
That’s right, what I really wanna do is to use the fragment programs, but they are just way to slow to be usable for my kind of applications. So I’m stuck with fixed pipeline.
Hm, i can´t remember a single post of the last two months, where someone said something positive about the GfFX.
Does it have any real good feature the 9700 or 9800 doesn´t have?
It has a better driver (ATI one-s is still very buggy), but other than that…
Originally posted by vince:
It has a better driver (ATI one-s is still very buggy), but other than that…
Sorry, but I’ve just gotta ask: when was the last time you used ATI cards to come to that conclusion?
This morning…
Seriously, there are a few very anoying bugs in their driver, mostly if you use win2000. The winXP version seems a lot better.
I am not kidding, many of my friends have sworn they are not going to buy any ATI products… and they are all using and developing software on PCs for different applications(other than OpenGL)
Originally posted by vince:
[b]This morning…
Seriously, there are a few very anoying bugs in their driver, mostly if you use win2000. The winXP version seems a lot better.[/b]
Ah. . . ok. . . (Strange, though, since 2000 and XP use the same driver set. . .)
Originally posted by Ostsol:
Ah. . . ok. . . (Strange, though, since 2000 and XP use the same driver set. . .)
Sure, but they probably use different code path inside the driver. ATI could tell you better than I can though 
activetexture method seems a bit messy, can anyone provide some sample code or links different from the spec on how to get this to work?
[This message has been edited by tellaman (edited 09-05-2003).]
My radeon9800 is running flawlessly. Using the Catalyst 3.4 drivers (3.6 and 3.7 have a bugged OpenGL driver, where its forced 16bit, you cannot use 32bit rendering).
What are these problems youve been having with them?
I had problems on my 9800 when minimizing a window (crashing), large texture coordinates causes noticable pixelisation, txf fonts appear screwy, and some unknown conditions freezes my computer.
There was more with the catalyst 3.6, but ATI already fixed mos of them in what will be the 3.7. So the good thing is they’re progressing.
Well, we seem to be getting off topic, but as long as Vince is helping us to go off topic, I guess it’s ok. 
Anyway, it’s been mentioned before that it’s just forcing 16 bit textures when you don’t specify RGB8. If you do, it forces 32 bit. It seems that the “force 16 bit textures” option in ATI’s drivers merely tells OpenGL to default to 16 bit. It doesn’t really force it, as that would imply that there would be no way at all to get 32 bit textures.
Its to do with texture compression, and its not just when you dont specify RGB8.
From an ATI driver person;
It is a minor annoyance that only 16 people had reported to us!
When you go to high quality setting on the texture compression setting in the OGL control panel, we are mistakingly converting textures to 16 bit as opposed to 32 bit.
I have seen a fix today and we are at analyzing quality of the fix. It will be fixed next CATALYST release.
[This message has been edited by Nutty (edited 09-06-2003).]
> some unknown conditions freezes my computer
If you have a VIA based motherboard that’s based on KT333 or newer, it’s likely that the problem is with the VIA motherboard, not with the Radeon graphics card.
We’ve seen a lot of this, and that’s the diagnosis we’ve arrived at. My next computer’s an Intel! (unless those Athlon64s REALLY manage to convince me otherwise)