Nick LaForge wrote:
In Plan 9, I work with rectangle images that translate throughout and
translate on-off the visable rectangle. Also, rectangle images
(should be able to) scale. Idealy, too, mathematical models could be
visualized in real time. Abstract things as this can be done
perfectly with our current bag of tricks, but any hack at potraying
reality should work with light particles: id est, it should trace
rays. And, could a 'raytracer' tackle abstract things just as well,
or better, too?
Implementing an OpenGL capable frame buffer / texture mapper gives
you exactly these capabilities. You have double buffering, fully
scalable rectangular images, and other 2D image capabilities such
as alpha compositing and arbitrary image warping. OpenGL is a more
powerful 2D rendering library than Xlib (Linux), GDI (Windows), or
QuickDraw (Mac).
All the next generation 2D graphics libraries are based on 3D
OpenGL capable hardware: Xrender/Xcomposite for Linux, Quartz
Imaging for Mac, Avalon or whatever it is now called for Windows.
First this project wanted just to work in two dimensions, the way
things were first, and seem to be going. (I use only cheap Matrox
silicon and plan to never again employ OpenGL.) The Intel
architecture great inertia -- it is here to stay. Is it beyond
redemption?
This issue is raised every six months or so on the list: "won't
it be easier to just implement 2D? We don't need all this 3D stuff!"
As mentioned above, modern graphics systems expect OpenGL capable
hardware. If the open-graphics card doesn't have OpenGL, it will
take *longer* to get software written for it because people won't
be able to just cut & paste.
The first open graphics card *won't* try to implement an entire 3D
pipeline, in particular there's no hardware T&L. So it is actually
much simpler and quicker to design and build than the monsters
that ATI and nVidia are selling.
Or will two, four, eight, ..., ad infinitum cores permit
real time 'raytracing'? Assume no and consider that 'video card'
developers have less constraints (also why we have a hard time using
stuff by Nvidia and ATI). I think 'raytracing' will be implemented by
'video card' developers.
With multiple cores, real time ray tracing becomes possible. But
it will still be useful IMNSHO to have a 'smart' framebuffer
that can do image resizing and compositing itself instead of
doing that on the CPU. So the open-graphics card will still be
useful.
Implemented by video card developers? I doubt it. What is more
likely is general purpose CPUs built onto the graphics card, so
you can download a raytracer at runtime.
--
Hugh Fisher
DCS, ANU
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
