On Tuesday 22 July 2003 20:49, Miguel wrote: > I am back from my travels ... you may have seen that I did a few check-ins > to cvs.
Yes, I have. Long live the commits email list ;) > Part of the good news is that I was able to continue work on the 3D (2.5D) > graphics engine. How was your holiday? > - rendering performance of spheres (atoms) is faster > - I did a lot of work on higher-quality rendering of cylinders (bonds). > But I am still not satisified with the results. Yes, the endcaps, right? Saw something in the commit message... > Fabian, I would like to know what performance is like on your slower > machine. > > At this point I am having a hard time maintaining backwards compatibility > with the previous (java-based) graphics implementation. I think I have > asked these questions before, but I want to ask again: > > Assuming that performance is not an issue: > > How important is "boxes" rendering of bonds? > > How important is "quickdraw" rendering of atoms & bonds? > > How important is "wireframe" rendering of atoms? > > How important is "wireframe rotations"? These are not important. I.e. these do *not* have to be in the same renderer... Origanally, I envisioned this: Renderer3D.java, QuickdrawRenderer3D.java, etc... Wireframe rotation is a view people like, but only the atoms, normally, I think... so wireframe rendering of atoms is, AFAIK, much less important... Wireframe rotation... if performance is acceptable, then we can do without that too, I guess... Egon PS. I'll be online most of the day after 9:30 am CET... ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: VM Ware With VMware you can run multiple operating systems on a single machine. WITHOUT REBOOTING! Mix Linux / Windows / Novell virtual machines at the same time. Free trial click here: http://www.vmware.com/wl/offer/345/0 _______________________________________________ Jmol-developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-developers
