chris clepper wrote:
chars anyway). Also, an array width of 3 for normals is not valid according to the RedBook, so that is going to require truncation.
so what is then the valid array width for normals ?
So my vote is that the array widths should go back to there natural sizes as the very minor and rare benefits of equal lengths outweigh the negatives.
i understand this, however i would like to see some numbers on how much the increase of data really affects the performance. i mean, it is clear that there is a lot of space for SIMD-optimization; but what interests me is, how much it costs more to transfer 4 instead of 3 floats from ram to the gfx-card.
i really don't stick to this interchangibility thing (although i like the idea), but i would like to hear you say "on my machine using 4 floats as texture-coordinates eats half of the cpu" or something like that before we fix this forever.
and i am not sure at all, whether we gain something (but memory, which in turns decreases cpu-load) by using uchar instead of float for colors. wouldn't most gfx-cards convert them back to floats ?
while pixes are the bridge to pdp, i guess vertex-arrays might be the bridge to GridFlow.
mfg.a.sdr IOhannes