chris wrote:I'm just wondering: why did you decide to invent the new format?
Mmmmmhhhh. This is a hard question.
There are many reasons.
First) When I've started study Celestia code I've started from celtxf lib.
So I was a dummy about C++ and OpenGL and I get in a lot of trouble.
Second) I found txf internal format excessively complicated. In order to achieve a small optimisation of texture space occupation, many parameters was introduced: maxAscent, maxDescent, xoff, yoff.
Also the solution of using a raw lookUpTable instead of a more elegant <map> does not conviced me. Perhaps has a little bit better performance, but it is to demonstrate it.
Third) I've searched on the web for a while and I was not able to find a TXF generator, nor a collection of txf files, nor other resources.
Fourth) Searching on the web and in OpenGL.org I found glfont2 by Brad Fish. It seemed me a better solution than TXF. But I found that also the GLF format and the relative generator program was suitable for many improvements.
Fifth) For my celui I was trying to implement a new texture font class with a lot of improvements against the Celestia TextureFont. Those improvements was inspired by Steve J.Baker'PUI texture font management.
Sixth) Last but not least to improve my programming skills it was a very funny exercise because it is only a small part of my celui project. BTW I'm going to publish a small example of my uiFont classes.
chris wrote:It seems like txf would suffice, and would be immediately compatible with Celestia.
Indeed to save the ADF in the TXF format should be a future improvement of the ADGLFont creator.
Also if I think that if you are interested perhaps it should be easier to replace the current Celestia text management classes in order to support ADF format.
Chris wrote:This is just a question, not criticism.
Hey I'm very glad that you was interested and that you've posted your opinions and questions. I hope to will be able to give some contribution in the future.
Bye - Paolo