On Sunday, 2 January 2005 18:03, Christian Mayer wrote:
> I see no benefit in adding an dependancy to a library that effectively
> can do the same as OpenGL - but only in software.

The difference is a powerful text and vector library vs OpenGL primitives.
Have you ever tried rendering true type fonts in OpenGL?
It's a pain in the ass!
Under windows you have to use wiggle functions and I can't remember how it's 
done under other OS's.

> If OpenGL is too complicated for some cases, we can encapsulate the
> necessary functions in C/C++ code and offer that function.

I think that would be a good option.
I think a panel designer should be given a canvas/texture that they can 
"paint" on with easy to use text and vector functions.
The canvas and painting should be defined in 2D pixel co-ords.

MSFS actually do it this way using GDI+ (software rendered canvas) and 
although I don't feel we need to be copycats this method works well and keeps 
it simple for panel designers.

> An glass cockpit can be implemented by rendering the display content to
> an texture and using that dynamic texture in the 3D cockpit.

Yeah I know about off screen rendering to textures but I don't know of anyone 
who is willing to implement it for us.
There are several ways of doing it which nvidia have documented here : 
http://developer.nvidia.com/object/gdc_oglrtt.html

Paul

_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Reply via email to