Re: [PATCH 0/3] MR7577: d3dx9: Implement D3DXSaveVolumeToFile{A,W,InMemory}().

[Matteo Bruni (＠Mystral)]

Matteo Bruni (@Mystral) commented about dlls/d3dx9_36/tests/volume.c:
> -
>            {
> -
>                check_image_info(&info, 16, 16, 2, 1, D3DFMT_A8R8G8B8, D3DRTYPE_VOLUMETEXTURE, D3DXIFF_DDS, FALSE);
> -
>                check_volume_readback_slice_quadrants(&volume_rb, 16, 16, 0, front_expected, 0);
> -
>                check_volume_readback_slice_quadrants(&volume_rb, 16, 16, 1, back_expected, 0);
> -
>            }
> -
>            else
> -
>            {
> -
>                check_image_info(&info, 16, 16, 1, 1, D3DFMT_A8R8G8B8, D3DRTYPE_TEXTURE, D3DXIFF_DDS, FALSE);
> -
>                check_volume_readback_slice_quadrants(&volume_rb, 16, 16, 0, back_expected, 0);
> -
>                check_volume_readback_slice_quadrants(&volume_rb, 16, 16, 1, empty_expected, 0);
> -
>            }
> -
>        }
> -
>        else
> -
>        {
> -
>            const D3DFORMAT expected_fmt = (tests[i].format == D3DXIFF_JPG) ? D3DFMT_X8R8G8B8 : D3DFMT_A8R8G8B8;
> -
>            const uint8_t max_diff = (tests[i].format == D3DXIFF_JPG) ? 40 : 0;

I guess I shouldn't be surprised about JPEG compression quality, but 40 sounds like a lot... Does it actually look that different? Could we tweak some quality knob to improve things?