----- Original Message ----- From: "Melchior FRANZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 4:27 PM Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Re: crease patch and Dlists - maybe answer VBOs?
> * Martin Spott -- Friday 15 October 2004 13:29: > > Melchior FRANZ wrote: > > > I see no problem if fgfs/sg/plib tries to detect certain > > > capabilities and uses them if available, [...] > > > > Would this mean PLIB behaving as sort of an adaptive layer between FG > > and X11 or how would this work ? > > It would mean, that "we" could do with VBOs what we are doing with other > extensions already since a while: ask at runtime if they are available > and act accordingly. Actually, I'm not really interested in implementation > details. I just doubt that it is a good idea to let legacy XFree-4.3 > decide what fgfs supports or not. Time doesn't stand still. With extensions > specific to a certain producer (e.g. nvidia extensions) that's of course > a different matter. These would make me a bit nervous. :-) VBOs are supported by ATIs and Nvidias in latest drivers so don't worry about it Long time ago I asked list about transitions my shaders from nvidia to ati. flightgear maintainers said that we don't need this so if you choose three years old visual - it your decision > > m. > > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel > 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d > _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
