Skip to content

Conversation

@gchoqueux
Copy link
Contributor

@gchoqueux gchoqueux commented Oct 6, 2025

Description

This PR proposes a possible simplification of the loading process for rasterized tiles and mesh tiles.

Summary of changes

  • TileMesh instances are now created directly in TiledGeometryLayer, without using commands or providers.
  • TileMesh.pendingSubdivision has been removed.
  • TiledGeometryLayer#hasEnoughTexturesToSubdivide has been removed.
  • updateLayeredMaterialNodeImagery and updateLayeredMaterialNodeElevation have been merged into a single lightweight method.
  • TileProvider has been deleted.
  • Texture loading is now handled by RasterTile#load.

@gchoqueux gchoqueux changed the title Simplification of the loading process for **rasterized tiles** and **mesh tiles**. Simplification of the loading process for rasterized tiles and mesh tiles Oct 6, 2025
@gchoqueux gchoqueux force-pushed the refacto/simple_loading_tile branch 13 times, most recently from 489581c to afdfc01 Compare October 8, 2025 13:13
@gchoqueux
Copy link
Contributor Author

Rebased

@gchoqueux
Copy link
Contributor Author

I’ve come up with a possible way to simplify this — what do you think of these changes?

@gchoqueux gchoqueux force-pushed the refacto/simple_loading_tile branch from afdfc01 to 6f64fdf Compare October 10, 2025 09:24
@jailln
Copy link
Contributor

jailln commented Oct 10, 2025

It seems related to #2521 and #2525 which haven't been merged yet; but it goes a bit further, is that right? These PR where not merged because of #2530 . Do you have the same issue?

@gchoqueux gchoqueux force-pushed the refacto/simple_loading_tile branch 4 times, most recently from 2cec783 to 15dfa04 Compare October 13, 2025 11:12
@gchoqueux
Copy link
Contributor Author

gchoqueux commented Oct 13, 2025

It seems related to #2521 and #2525 which haven't been merged yet; but it goes a bit further, is that right? These PR where not merged because of #2530 . Do you have the same issue?

It doesn’t seem to have the same issue in the functional tests.
However, I did change the number of displayed tiles in the functional tests — maybe because this PR is not finished yet.

@gchoqueux gchoqueux force-pushed the refacto/simple_loading_tile branch 4 times, most recently from c7b4635 to 4bd5c32 Compare October 14, 2025 09:13
@gchoqueux
Copy link
Contributor Author

gchoqueux commented Oct 14, 2025

My bad, there's a issue with VIEW_EVENTS.LAYERS_INITIALIZED, but it is not the same, it's called very late, it's almost the opposite.
I'll investigate
solved

@gchoqueux gchoqueux force-pushed the refacto/simple_loading_tile branch from e9aab85 to 3d3be67 Compare October 14, 2025 15:48
@gchoqueux gchoqueux force-pushed the refacto/simple_loading_tile branch from 592d39a to 4bdf282 Compare November 20, 2025 15:21
@gchoqueux gchoqueux force-pushed the refacto/simple_loading_tile branch 6 times, most recently from e175c90 to ab558ea Compare November 28, 2025 16:52
@gchoqueux gchoqueux force-pushed the refacto/simple_loading_tile branch 3 times, most recently from eecc503 to 4c86123 Compare December 15, 2025 14:53
@gchoqueux gchoqueux force-pushed the refacto/simple_loading_tile branch from 4c86123 to 3d5de39 Compare January 6, 2026 13:41
@gchoqueux gchoqueux force-pushed the refacto/simple_loading_tile branch from a55f702 to 5235375 Compare January 6, 2026 16:09
@gchoqueux gchoqueux force-pushed the refacto/simple_loading_tile branch from 5235375 to 7a3ea9a Compare January 7, 2026 15:34
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants