Talk:$seamless scale: Difference between revisions
m (Nesciuse moved page Talk:Multipage Base Pages Temp Storage/$seamless scale to Talk:$seamless scale without leaving a redirect: Moving back to proper place) |
|||
(4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
(Formula is <code>1/(texture size*desired scale)</code>, so you'd <strong>multiply texture size by desired scale and then divide 1 by the result</strong>)<br/> | (Formula is <code>1/(texture size*desired scale)</code>, so you'd <strong>multiply texture size by desired scale and then divide 1 by the result</strong>)<br/> | ||
(The easy way is described as "<strong>multiply the texture size by the desired scale, then divide 1 by the result</strong>")<br/> | (The easy way is described as "<strong>multiply the texture size by the desired scale, then divide 1 by the result</strong>")<br/> | ||
I'd recommend we remove one of them to avoid repeating ourselves. | I'd recommend we remove one of them to avoid repeating ourselves.<br/> | ||
[[User:Fayti1703|Fayti1703]] ([[User talk:Fayti1703|talk]]) 11:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC) | |||
:You're right, I removed it. I wrote it out quickly without thinking as I was excited to have figured out how it works. [[User:Nyronic|nyronic]] ([[User talk:Nyronic|talk]]) 03:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
===Matching scale confusion=== | |||
I propose an edit to this section. Firstly, the formula is correct, however the corresponding numbers are not. As it stands, the article states that: | |||
0.25 = 0.001953125 (1 / 256) | |||
0.50 = 0.0009765625 (1 / 512) | |||
0.75 = 0.00065104166 (1 / 768) | |||
1.00 = 0.00048828125 (1 / 1024) | |||
1.25 = 0.000390625 (1 / 1280) | |||
When the correct numbers are actually: | |||
0.25 = 0.00390625 (1 / 256) | |||
0.50 = 0.001953125 (1 / 512) | |||
0.75 = 0.0013020833333333 (1 / 768) | |||
1.00 = 0.0009765625 (1 / 1024) | |||
1.25 = 0.00078125 (1 / 1280) | |||
I have double checked in Hammer and my numbers seem to be the correct scale. | |||
Also, to avoid confusion I propose rewriting the way the equations are written. I'm sure most people (me included) would read "0.25 = 0.00390625 (1 / 256)" as "0.25 = 0.00390625 * (1 / 256)", which is not at all correct. | |||
Something like "0.25 is (1 / (1024 * 0.25)) = 1 / (256) = 0.00390625" would probably make more sense. | |||
Anyway, just thought I'd mention it. |
Latest revision as of 15:56, 15 July 2024
Remove 'easy way'?
As the described easy way in section Matching 0.25 scale
is the same process as the formula,
(Formula is 1/(texture size*desired scale)
, so you'd multiply texture size by desired scale and then divide 1 by the result)
(The easy way is described as "multiply the texture size by the desired scale, then divide 1 by the result")
I'd recommend we remove one of them to avoid repeating ourselves.
Fayti1703 (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- You're right, I removed it. I wrote it out quickly without thinking as I was excited to have figured out how it works. nyronic (talk) 03:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Matching scale confusion
I propose an edit to this section. Firstly, the formula is correct, however the corresponding numbers are not. As it stands, the article states that:
0.25 = 0.001953125 (1 / 256) 0.50 = 0.0009765625 (1 / 512) 0.75 = 0.00065104166 (1 / 768) 1.00 = 0.00048828125 (1 / 1024) 1.25 = 0.000390625 (1 / 1280)
When the correct numbers are actually:
0.25 = 0.00390625 (1 / 256) 0.50 = 0.001953125 (1 / 512) 0.75 = 0.0013020833333333 (1 / 768) 1.00 = 0.0009765625 (1 / 1024) 1.25 = 0.00078125 (1 / 1280)
I have double checked in Hammer and my numbers seem to be the correct scale.
Also, to avoid confusion I propose rewriting the way the equations are written. I'm sure most people (me included) would read "0.25 = 0.00390625 (1 / 256)" as "0.25 = 0.00390625 * (1 / 256)", which is not at all correct. Something like "0.25 is (1 / (1024 * 0.25)) = 1 / (256) = 0.00390625" would probably make more sense.
Anyway, just thought I'd mention it.