home
products
contribute
download
documentation
forum
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
All posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
MediaPortal 1
Development
Improvement Suggestions
Do we really need Packed Textures?
Contact us
RSS
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tourettes" data-source="post: 415618" data-attributes="member: 10858"><p>Wrong, you still haven't understood why the packed graphics have implemented. When it was implemented we did barely have 64MB GPUs (of course skins were much less memory hungly, blame skinners on that <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Wrong again, the main purpose to have packed graphics is to REDUCE the GPU workload (of course this requires you to have sufficient amount of GPU memory to be available as swapping bigger textures between main RAM and GPU memory is much harder task than swapping the smaller textures).</p><p></p><p>I really would hope that all who are talking about the issue as telling whats wrong would read those documents I provided few months ago. Its not worth to argue with people who doesn't seem to have technical background to discuss with implementation details.</p><p></p><p>What comes to edterbak's results / observations they are really odd, as packed textures aren't making anything slower when you have HUGE amount of GPU memory available, unless you are using skins of something else that require 1GB memory (which I doubt). Maybe you have place fan art into wrong folder and that is filling up the GPU memory?</p><p></p><p><strong>edit:</strong> I remember some users telling that Moving Pictures / My TV Series plugins are behaving badly and storing their fan art into wrong folder (so that those are used to build the packed textures).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tourettes, post: 415618, member: 10858"] Wrong, you still haven't understood why the packed graphics have implemented. When it was implemented we did barely have 64MB GPUs (of course skins were much less memory hungly, blame skinners on that :)). Wrong again, the main purpose to have packed graphics is to REDUCE the GPU workload (of course this requires you to have sufficient amount of GPU memory to be available as swapping bigger textures between main RAM and GPU memory is much harder task than swapping the smaller textures). I really would hope that all who are talking about the issue as telling whats wrong would read those documents I provided few months ago. Its not worth to argue with people who doesn't seem to have technical background to discuss with implementation details. What comes to edterbak's results / observations they are really odd, as packed textures aren't making anything slower when you have HUGE amount of GPU memory available, unless you are using skins of something else that require 1GB memory (which I doubt). Maybe you have place fan art into wrong folder and that is filling up the GPU memory? [b]edit:[/b] I remember some users telling that Moving Pictures / My TV Series plugins are behaving badly and storing their fan art into wrong folder (so that those are used to build the packed textures). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
MediaPortal 1
Development
Improvement Suggestions
Do we really need Packed Textures?
Contact us
RSS
Top
Bottom