I apologize for wrongly stating that "Java is invariably slow".
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle Wayne Kelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: [JAVA3D] Lightweight Java 3D
> 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".
>
===========================================================================
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".
