texture coordinates are defined in pixels (they are not normalized (between 0.0 and 1.0f), as people who are used to graphics programming would expect).
I use SFML 2.1 and I think it is fantastic. I use all parts of it and have not had any issues thus far.
texture coordinates are defined in pixels (they are not normalized (between 0.0 and 1.0f), as people who are used to graphics programming would expect).http://www.sfml-dev.org/documentation/2.1/classsf_1_1Texture.php#aa6fd3bbe3c334b3c4428edfb2765a82e
what about veretex, are there normalized texture coords? Think no , becouse I just copied that sentence directly from them documentation. Or its only in new version?
texture coordinates are defined in pixels (they are not normalized (between 0.0 and 1.0f), as people who are used to graphics programming would expect).http://www.sfml-dev.org/documentation/2.1/classsf_1_1Texture.php#aa6fd3bbe3c334b3c4428edfb2765a82e
what about veretex, are there normalized texture coords? Think no , becouse I just copied that sentence directly from them documentation. Or its only in new version?
What do you mean?
I've constructed a manual mesh in SFML before and the UV coordinates were always normalized. It's how graphics cards work.
And besides, you can just convert between them by dividing/multiplying by the width/height of the image.
I use SFML 2.1 as my primary C++ windowing library for OpenGL programs, and I quite like it. It requires no boilerplate because it uses RAII, which I really appreciate.
