[Public WebGL] EXT_shader_texture_lod in WebGL2?
Sat Jan 21 14:01:42 PST 2017
Well we had the lengthy debate with a clear outcome, do not expose
capabilities that the hardware doesn't support, especially not when the
emulation has drastically different characteristics and leads to worse
outcomes than when it wasn't pretend supported. I'm guessing this then
falls under "WebGL1 is in maintenance mode and we won't fix it."?
On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Maksims Mihejevs <[email protected]>
> This suggests they haven't done it:
> We wanted to add ETC2 support, but currently blocked by this, as it is
> totally unacceptable path: more VRAM (comparing to alternatives) and more
> Download size.
> On 21 January 2017 at 21:46, Maksims Mihejevs <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Correct me if I'm wrong.
>> But ETC2 and EAC is mandatory on OpenGL ES 3.0+ and OpenGL 4.3+ right?
>> I could not find any information that Nvidia GPU actually supports ETC2
>> and EAC.
>> On Windows, using ANGLE, there is no OpenGL involved.
>> So why then we seeing 71% support of WEBGL_compressed_texture_etc on
>> Desktop Windows? And where there is OpenGL, such as Linux and OSX, we see
>> only 5% on Linux, and 0% on OSX? :)
>> I believe, they haven't actually decided anything, and wen't their way
>> regarding CPU path, unless there is somebody here to prove that I'm wrong.
>> On 21 January 2017 at 15:55, Florian Bösch <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Maksims Mihejevs <[email protected]>
>>>> We've seeing already many enormous issues. For example MSAA with ANGLE
>>>> has CPU path, and is unusable at all, as performance drops insanely. ETC2
>>>> was another case where CPU path was pushed a lot.
>>> Are you sure ETC2 is software decoded and put on the GPU plain? Because
>>> if so, we've had a lengthy debate in 2016 about ETC1 that ended with Jeff
>>> Gilbert stating:
>>> Update: The WG is planning on only exposing the extension where there
>>>> is 'native' support. (Not D3D, maybe not Desktop NV?) We feel this
>>>> best matches what devs expect when they see support for a compressed
>>>> texture extension. Compressed image formats are a better delivery
>>>> mechanism than compressed texture formats, if they're going to be
>>>> decompressed anyway.
>>> I don't believe we'll need to have this debate all over again... do we?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the public_webgl