VTK supports 3d render windows as well as 2d render windows and 2d actors/mappers to visualize image data. So you are able to use several 2d actors to create layer based visualizations.
http://www.vtk.org/doc/nightly/html/classvtkActor2D.html If we are able to bring raster, volume and vector into VTK, we will be able to use the hundreds of VTK classes (image, volume and vector) to process grass data. http://www.vtk.org/doc/nightly/html/classes.html Which IMHO will bring us enormous benefit in form of parallel image processing and complex image-vector, vector-vector and vector-volume algorithms. Just my 2c Soeren 2008/2/25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > why not to use the python bindings of VTK (http://www.vtk.org) to do 3D > > rendering? It seems to me that VTK is a bit easier to handle than OpenGL > > directly, but my programming skills are not the best. > > WolfgangZ > > > Apart from the problem with limited coordinate ranges brought about by > OpenGL, VTK uses a visualization pipeline rather than layers. There is > nothing wrong with this per se, but GIS users are accustomed to layers > that cover each other in a pre-defined order, even if there is no > difference in the Z coordinates. VTK projects all objects into the same > 3D space, potentially giving unexpected results, e.g. when overlaying > vector outlines on a raster surface without raising the former a little > bit towards the zenith. > > Might be worth thinking about this. I don't know how easy or complicated > it would be to emulate a layer-based drawing on a VTK rendering > pipeline. > > Benjamin > > > > > _______________________________________________ > grass-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev >
_______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
