I think Kevin outlined in his opening post what would be considered "out of scope".
However, I agree with you on the basic premise that, in general, the bar has been set way too low as to the potential use cases and performance of JavaFX. In fact, I firmly believe that games & complex visualisations etc. *should* be possible with JavaFX given that most of the heavy lifting is being done by the GPU. It's just that, at the moment, the scene graph rendering pipeline is significantly slower than it could be and it is for this reason that we don't find applications using advanced 3D graphics & animations etc. (like we see in games) being built with JavaFX. It's just not possible when the node count reaches even a very small threshold. This is a topic I have tried to discuss numerous times and also believe that I can improve the performance of the scene graph rendering in a very tangible way. If things pan-out as they are being described and becoming & being a contributor is simplified to the extent where it justifies me devoting a large chunk of my time to OpenJFX, this is probably what I would want to work on first. Graciously, John-Val Rose On 3 February 2018 at 14:07, Stephen Desofi <sdes...@icloud.com> wrote: > I don’t understand why discussing new graphics capabilities such as gaming > or WebGPU, etc is so off limits. Can you explain that? > > Steve Desofi > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Feb 2, 2018, at 8:51 PM, Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> > wrote: > > > > Looks like we have some good discussion so far. > > > > I see a few themes emerging (build/test, sandbox on GitHub, ease of > filing bugs, etc) along with some discussion on graphics performance (which > is fine as long as the discussion doesn't veer too far into discussing > specific graphics features). > > > > I'll let more folks chime in before I reply to anything specifically > (and I'll be offline over the weekend anyway). > > > > Thanks! > > > > -- Kevin > > >