Ok, just to argue. Speed has never stopped progress at Sun before.
Although slow, as Java invariably is, a 3D system made from just Java is
advantageous to Sun. Speed never seemed to be a hindrance in the past e.g.
any intepreted language will run slower than a language run directly by the
machine. I think that a good pure Java3D is good based on its own merits.
If someone implements swing on a system, they should get Java3D. Although I
dont know anything about hardware accelerators, it is possible to write a
Java3D program without one.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy E. Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: [JAVA3D] Lightweight Java 3D
> The basic issue is this (as far as I grasp it):
>
> Heavyweight means that the virtual machine gets the native OS to do the
> drawing for a component. IE: VM: Draw me a button at this location.
>
> Lightweight means that the virutal machine does the drawing itself from
> something that *looks* like the native OS.
>
> Since the Java3D requires the use of a 3D accelerator; it HAS to go
through
> the native OS to get there. VM says draw me a 3D image in this space and
> the accelerator does so.
>
>
> You can write a 3D engine entirely in Java. I've done it. It's not pretty
> (and it was crude) and it was really slow.
>
>
> Now... What has kinda confused me is why not create a pseudo lightweight
> object. The lightweight panel could make requests of the 3D accelerator to
> pass back images that it writes to a lightweight component. (This might
> eliminate some video management stuff that I don't appreciate because I
> don't understand video acceleration all that well)
>
> Not eliminating the need for using hardware but at least being able to
> include a viewport in Swing.
>
> Just some thoughts of my own,
> Jeremy E. Denton
> Software Developer
> Galdos Systems Inc
>
> "The opinions expressed aren't my company's... and entirely my own... blah
> blah blah..."
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Is there anyone out there thinking about doing some kind of Java 3D to
Java
> 2D conversion?
> Maybe "conversion" isn't the right word. I've seen some 3D stuff done
with
> Java 2D. For what it was, it wasn't too bad. I am wondering if there is
> any thought about having an option in Java 3D to either use Hardware
> acceleration, as it does today, or switch to using software rendering
> (using Java 2D?) The performance may be horrible, but for very simple
scene
> graphs, you might get acceptable performance. Would this allow you to
have
> a lightweight version of Java 3D.
> Bob Gray
>
>
===========================================================================
> To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the
body
> of the message "signoff JAVA3D-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
>
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff JAVA3D-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
