On Sun, 2006-03-19 at 14:08 -0500, Timothy Miller wrote: > On 3/19/06, Richard Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > So what does "most of" OpenGL 1.3 mean wrt 3D? I went back throught > > > > the archives looking but didn't see anying (based on subjects) > > > > > > > Actually, IIRC, I think we pretty well have ALL of 1.3, with various > > > things from later revisions. > > > > So then is it accurate to say its a 3D engine just not a super high > > performance one? > > First and foremost, it is a 3D engine. Then I went in an identified > some missing things that would be good for 2D and hacked them in. > > The result is that some 2D things require a bit more setup than you'd > be used to because basically, you're just doing a 3D thing with some > of the features disabled. For instance, a 2D bitblt is just a 3D > texture operation without any distortion (or with, if you prefer).
If I understand, the direction is: "an OpenGl engine" (that doesn't mean only 3D, like demostrated by XGL) YuuuM... sounds good ! > > This isn't a new idea. The Permedia 2 had a unified 2D/3D engine. In > later models, they separated it out a bit for performance (bus > bandwidth) reasons. We'll eventually do something similar. > _______________________________________________ > Open-graphics mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics > List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com) > -- Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem Occam's Razor MiChele Carla` aKa Goldfinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
