Re: [osg-users] Thoughts on Vulkan

Hi, Additionally to the book you can find very good tutorials and references here: https://vulkan-tutorial.com/ Robert, I'm quite interested and I'll be glad to help in the development of the new scenegraph :). I have some ideas for the new library regarding the similarities between Vulkan and

Re: [osg-users] Thoughts on Vulkan

I just wanted to mention that Jeremy ("osgWidget", "osgCairo", "osgPango") has been working on a scene graph named Heirograph with similar design goals. There is already an OpenGL ES2 backend implementation and our goal is, similar to Robert's, to make a Vulkan and a desktop non-FFP OGL3+ or OGL4

Re: [osg-users] Thoughts on Vulkan

​There aren't many sources, to be honest. If you like dead-tree type material, I was tech reviewer on this book: https://www.amazon.com/Vulkan-Programming-Guide-Official-Learning/dp/0134464540 It has good material, but the scope of the task is daunting no matter how you approach it.

Re: [osg-users] Thoughts on Vulkan

Hi Guys, Sorry to hijack this thread a little bit. What would you guys consider the best source of information for Vulkan? Primarily focusing on the fundamentals. Thanks, Sam On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 5:43 AM, Robert Osfield wrote: > On 13 February 2017 at 12:17,

Re: [osg-users] Thoughts on Vulkan

On 13 February 2017 at 12:17, Nickolai Medvedev wrote: > So, Robert, if you if you are going to use C++11, it means that > OpenThreads won't be used anymore(use std::thread)? One of the reasons to use C++11 is avoid the need to external dependencies such as OpenThreads.

Re: [osg-users] Thoughts on Vulkan

On 13 February 2017 at 12:13, Nickolai Medvedev wrote: > And it is good that you have ideas. > First of all, it is necessary to refuse opengl fixed pipeline. I don't understand your use of "refuse" here? For OSG-3.6 my plan is to attempt to have an automatic mapping of old

Re: [osg-users] Thoughts on Vulkan

So, Robert, if you if you are going to use C++11, it means that OpenThreads won't be used anymore(use std::thread)? -- Read this topic online here: http://forum.openscenegraph.org/viewtopic.php?p=70171#70171 ___ osg-users mailing

Re: [osg-users] Thoughts on Vulkan

Hi, Robert. And it is good that you have ideas. First of all, it is necessary to refuse opengl fixed pipeline. It is necessary to create shader-based lighting system. I already try to create deferred rendering with various models of lighting (phong, cook-torrance, etc.), but now it isn't a lot of

Re: [osg-users] Thoughts on Vulkan

On 12 February 2017 at 22:22, Nickolai Medvedev wrote: > Transition to Vulkan will be difficult. Partly because, that all graphics is > based on shaders. But I think that the new system for OpenSceneGraph - it is > good. > I will try to help, as far as I will be able. I've

Re: [osg-users] Thoughts on Vulkan

Hi, Robert. Transition to Vulkan will be difficult. Partly because, that all graphics is based on shaders. But I think that the new system for OpenSceneGraph - it is good. I will try to help, as far as I will be able. Cheers, Nickolai -- Read this topic online here:

Re: [osg-users] Thoughts on Vulkan

wow, serious fun! thxs for the road map On 2/11/17, Robert Osfield wrote: > On 11 February 2017 at 16:56, sduclos wrote: >> Perhaps using Vulkan as a backend to OpenGL ES2 (ex.: ANGLE) >> would not be as involving as rewriting OSG (outch!) > >

Re: [osg-users] Thoughts on Vulkan

On 11 February 2017 at 16:56, sduclos wrote: > Perhaps using Vulkan as a backend to OpenGL ES2 (ex.: ANGLE) > would not be as involving as rewriting OSG (outch!) Vulkan is very different to OpenGL/OpenGL ES. To make the most of Vulkan, to give all the flexibility and

Re: [osg-users] Thoughts on Vulkan

On 11 February 2017 at 12:15, Max Maslov wrote: > Thanks for answer. So, when you plan to start developing of Vulkan scene > graph? Maybe after 3.6? :) My plan is complete the OSG-3.6 stable release and then move to the new scene graph. My intention is for the core

Re: [osg-users] Thoughts on Vulkan

Hi Robert, Perhaps using Vulkan as a backend to OpenGL ES2 (ex.: ANGLE) would not be as involving as rewriting OSG (outch!) Sylvain. On 2/11/17, Robert Osfield wrote: > On 11 February 2017 at 08:29, Max Maslov wrote: >> Any news about

Re: [osg-users] Thoughts on Vulkan

Thanks for answer. So, when you plan to start developing of Vulkan scene graph? Maybe after 3.6? :) -- Read this topic online here: http://forum.openscenegraph.org/viewtopic.php?p=70152#70152 ___ osg-users mailing list

Re: [osg-users] Thoughts on Vulkan

On 11 February 2017 at 08:29, Max Maslov wrote: > Any news about Vulkan in OSG? I continue to believe it is impractical to support Vulkan directly within the OSG, while technical possible it would require a massive rewrite which would break backwards compatibility and

Re: [osg-users] Thoughts on Vulkan

Any news about Vulkan in OSG? -- Read this topic online here: http://forum.openscenegraph.org/viewtopic.php?p=70148#70148 ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org

Re: [osg-users] Thoughts on Vulkan

robertosfield wrote: > > > This is not far from my own viewpoint.  I do have a rough plan in mind that > is still evolving. I'll open my own thoughts for discussion once OSG-3.4 is > out the door. > > What is the status of this white paper? I really would like to discus this.

Re: [osg-users] Thoughts on Vulkan

On 29 December 2015 at 23:30, Cor Jansen wrote: > What is the status of this white paper? Afraid I've been too busy with client work to write it yet. > I really would like to discus this. As a spare time activity I've begun design work exploring what a next gen scene graph

Re: [osg-users] Thoughts on Vulkan

Hi David, Chris et. al, On 14 April 2015 at 22:47, Chris Hanson xe...@alphapixel.com wrote: I think OSG is a bad fit for Vulkan. OSG has so much code to support FFP dataflows that Vulkan doesn't have. I personally think a Vulkan scenegraph could be made from the components of OSG (OSG 4.x?)

Re: [osg-users] Thoughts on Vulkan

I think OSG is a bad fit for Vulkan. OSG has so much code to support FFP dataflows that Vulkan doesn't have. I personally think a Vulkan scenegraph could be made from the components of OSG (OSG 4.x?) but bringing along all of OSG's legacy code into a Vulkan space would be counterproductive. ​ As

Re: [osg-users] Thoughts on Vulkan

Well Chris, I don't think that anyone has ruled out using Vulkan on OSG, it just that the verdict is out about adoption. Besides, as I have learned from my resent VR experience, sometimes early adoption is not the wise course of action. As for me, I will adopt Vulkan when I have a good

Re: [osg-users] Thoughts on Vulkan

Personally, my thought on Vulkan is that it present an opportunity to solve a number of long-standing problems that history has shown OpenGL now has as a result of graphics software and hardware evolving. OpenGL was intended as standardized moderately high-level abstraction layer. Today,

Re: [osg-users] Thoughts on Vulkan

Greetings! Neil Trevett has made it clear that OpenGL is in its prime and not going away, so I'm not rushing to buy my Vulkan red book just yet - like there is any! I see Vulkan as something that is geared to a gaming engines for the short term! Over time, who knows! Valve, Unity and Epic are

Re: [osg-users] Thoughts on Vulkan

On 16 March 2015 at 04:36, Chris Hanson xe...@alphapixel.com wrote: I'd be interested in seeing a draft of your white paper if you're willing to share. I'm not far enough along with the writing it all down to share yet. ___ osg-users mailing list

[osg-users] Thoughts on Vulkan

Hey all, Now that the Khronos group has announced Vulkan/SPIR-V, are there any plans to integrate it into OSG as an alternative back end? Preet ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org

Re: [osg-users] Thoughts on Vulkan

I've been kind of looking at it and not thinking it's a very good fit. We've been writing a couple of new minimal scene graphs for the non-FFP future (JAG, and another called Sobek), and are wondering if it makes sense to rewrite one of those to Vulkan and then just try to port the desirable