Hi John,
I’m sorry, I had no deals with such things before.
What does the RH-37095 mean and should i wait something here from you?
It’s the tracking number in McNeel’s bug tracking system. This page is publicly viewable, so if you click on the link you can see the bug report and if any progress has been made on it.
–Mitch
Hi Helvetosaur,
Ok, but i hope to get some info from McNeel guys. May be you know something about few questions below:
As i understand, the bug is planned to be fixed with next release #6, and it has “Platform Both” in description there.
Does it mean that the 2Gb limit is immanent to OS X version too?
If not, i’m going to buy iMac, but i’m not shure now.
No idea. You’ll have to wait for someone on the Mac development side to answer @dan , as I think this has only been documented and tested on the Windows platform.
–Mitch
Rhino 5 for Mac’s texture size will be limited by the Maximum texture size. In Rhino 5 for Mac, you can find this in Rhinoceros > About Rhinoceros > More Info > OpenGL (tab).
Did you see Jeff’s reply above?
The limitation is coming from Windows code.
The bug list item saves the information.
At this point, I don’t think there is anything we can do to work-around the limitation.
Hi Dan,
I do understand the limits of OpenGL, but i have a GPU with 6GB of RAM that shows 32768x32768 px in More Info > OpenGL in Windows and the texture of this dimension weights about 3GB and fails in Windows due to it’s internal limits.
I have to be assured that there is no such internal limits in OSX to urge my boss to buy Mac for that stuff.
I have no Mac now and can’t check the matter.
Hi John,
I accepted the idea there is no workaround. The matter is if I can use OSX instead.
You are wright at all for windows, but who knows for OSX? No one tryed.
And it would be great for someone to try.
Then, IMO, the largest texture you can have uploaded to the GPU is 32768 x 32768 x RGB[A], which will equate to 3GB for RGB and 4GB for RGBA images. If Rhino for Mac can successfully load the image using OSX’s internal mechanisms, then theoretically, it should be able to get it uploaded to the GPU.
@marlin Might know this off the top of his head, but I would recommend someone try it and confirm it before making any promises. I would do it right now, but my Mac development machine isn’t usable at the moment, and I can’t be distracted right now.
Note: You also have to keep in mind that the GPU is used for other things besides storing textures. All of the meshes, all of the frame buffers, all of the depth buffers, your screen and desktop, etc… all of that takes up space in GPU memory…so it’s quite possible that even though the hardware capabilities “say” it can support such a large texture, there is a pretty high probability that the GPU does not have 3GB or 4GB of “contiguous” free space…which is what is required for textures…they cannot be interlaced in between free chunks of memory…they must exist in one contiguous chunk.
-J
Hi Jeff,
Thank you don’t leave me alone 
).
Well, i hope some of your colleagues have a powerful Mac and we’ll get positive result.
I checked Nvidia website and found out the Mac should have a ‘Quadro K5000 for Mac’ GPU cause it has 4GB RAM and supposably it can operate with such textures.
For new ‘bowl’ Mac Pro it should have AMD Fire Pro D700 with 6 Gb RAM.
Hi Vic,
I have made some changes to the core bitmap handling code to allow loading these large bitmaps in a way that should allow us to get the information we need to pass to the display. There are a number of issues with this approach that will have to be addressed in the texture interface as well as the display. You can see the bug track issue for more detailed information.