Am 11.08.2016 um 07:48 schrieb Le_Forgeron:

>> Something along the lines of the latter. The internal data structures
>> for textures are a Crappy Complicated Clusterfuck(TM), which I'm
>> currently untangling to get a clear picture of how it even works.
> 
> If it can help, I modeled that back in 2005.
> 
> It is unlikely to have changed,

Not bad; and it does indeed still reflect the status quo -- though this
implies that it describes the picture at a very abstract level (which in
this case is a good thing), since I've already changed quite a lot of
details since 2005, especially in the pattern department ;)

Also, you clearly missed (or decided not to show separately) the
`material_map` mechanism. Which is effectively a patterned texture, but
for obscure reasons (probably plain legacy) uses its own data fields.

Well, it /used/ its own data fields, I should say :)


> but yes, it could be simplified (if you
> considers layering textures as a pattern, and you could also get ride of
> the texture at the storage level, the same way material is only a SDL
> container)

No, no -- that's not at all what I'm after. My goal is to make the
hierarchy more obvious, not eliminate it. Most notably, the box you
labelled `plain_texture` is now implemented as a dedicated
`TextureLayer` class.

Post a reply to this message