On Saturday 05 February 2005 17:49, Lourens Veen wrote: > On Saturday 05 February 2005 19:59, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > Right. The main problem for me in the past in trying to work with > > lower precision was in handling all possible ranges. Floating > > point in a few key places will really help that. > > > > The fleshed out render model is going to answer these questions > > perfectly, especially if hooked into Mesa. In that case, we could > > use my little game engine demo (among many other possible OpenGL > > programs) to run simulations. I'll hook in a replay mode so any > > defects somebody happens to stumble on interactively can be > > reproduced > > exactly. > > > > As far as C++ idioms go, operator overloading is not a big deal to > > me, it's just a pet peeve. However, hooking a render.cpp into Mesa > > might be tricky, have you considered the linking issues? > > Use Nicolai's model. Just hack a backend onto Mesa that writes to his > socket, then leave the engine and the C++ on the other side of that > connection. No linking required.
That's really overkill considering that the render simulation is a short piece of code that is trivial to translate. The point is not to emulate the hardware but to model the calculations. Pushing it all over a socket doesn't make sense, it's a _far_ bigger hack than I was planning, and I would like it to run faster than one frame a second when done. Regards, Daniel _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
