# Talk:\$seamless scale

### 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.