Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

[BUG] Seven 6720x6480 images crash GC

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • [BUG] Seven 6720x6480 images crash GC

    Title pretty much says it all. I have a grid of nine maps I am trying to load, but the GC crashes after trying to load the 7th one.

    I'm trying to load all of my images into one gcs file so that I can dump them all to the raw partition at the same time without having to worry about offsets and and all that for every single image.

    Attached is a 6720x6480 image that you can make 7 copies of and see the GC crash. Attached files

  • #2


    Pardon me for not even trying, but the math looks pretty bad to me.

    Windows is going to try and use 6720*6480*4 bytes of memory to store each image, mutiply that by 7 and you've got 1.2gb in use, just for Windows 'version' of the images.

    I'm not suprised that something breaks.

    Why not just come up with a 'fixed offset' scheme?
    Mark

    Comment


    • #3


      The math doesn't look that bad to me, according to my previously compiled gci files, seven of those images would be closer to 0.6GBs... regardless, what's the problem with it being that big? The error occurred when I was importing into the GC, shouldn't it at least be able to handle bringing it in?

      I don't know exactly what you mean by fixed offset scheme, I can keep record of all the offsets and sizes but I figured it would be easier to keep it all in one gcs file so that the GC would keep track of it all for me and I can I can dump to the sdcard in one shot.

      Comment


      • #4


        0.6gb is what it would take on uSD (as it is 2 bytes per pixel).

        For windows to store it internally so it can process it it would be twice that, as it is 4 bytes per pixel, plus windows will try to store it in 'graphics' memory, because it knows it is an image ('cause that's how it is imported).

        It would be a big job to fix, just can't see it happening in a reasonable time frame
        Mark

        Comment


        • #5


          So it all has to be able to load onto the memory in my video card? I guess I can live with that, would be cool if there was some way to make that work with the bigger sizes though.

          Comment


          • #6


            Well, that's not strictly true, but it's a good way to think of it.
            Mark

            Comment

            Working...
            X