Gerrit Voss wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 08:32 -0500, Allen Bierbaum wrote: > >> Dirk Reiners wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> trying to think about what to do for OpenSG2 I've been thinking about >>> Allen's >>> idea of requiring a certain OpenGL version (like 2.0) to avoid having to >>> deal >>> with the extension cruft. Talking to Johannes at VR brought up the idea of >>> going >>> beyond that by going full-out shader, in anticipation of OpenGL 3. >>> >>> I don't want to require OpenGL 3(especially since it's very unclear when >>> drivers >>> will be available), but conceptually going full-blown shader by removing >>> support >>> for the fixed function pipeline has some appeal. It would add complexity by >>> having to have the shader composition framework up and running (Gerrit, can >>> you >>> give us an update on how that is coming along?), but it would simplify >>> probably >>> pretty much everything else. My goal would be to support an equivalent of >>> pretty >>> much the full fixed function pipeline, i.e. have most of the existing apps >>> still >>> working (for obvious reasons ;), but do it completely shader-based. >>> >>> In that step I would also remove immediate mode from the codebase. >>> Multi-indexing will be supported, but by creating temporary VBOs. >>> >>> It's a pretty radical step, though, and might delay moving forward on 2 >>> even >>> more than it is delayed right now, so I need some opinions on this one. >>> >> How much will it really delay the release? It seems to me that this >> change would add features that we already need to add anyway and would >> reduce the legacy cruft supported. >> >> Now, that said, the real reason I suggested requiring OpenGL 2.0 was to >> remove all the extension detection and loading. Will this help us at >> all with this part? Could we use a 3rd party project to help out with >> this so OpenSG doesn't have to manage extensions itself? >> > > we could try glew. IIRC they added something like a context so > different gfx cards with different capabilities in one machine might be > possible but I did not try it or look into it. And as I did not write > this OpenSG part there might be something else I overlooked. >
How many people actually use this capability of OpenSG. I admit it is a nice feature, but are we jumping through hoops to enable something that no one uses. I know that in our usage of OpenSG we would never suggest a customer uses multiple boards unless they are the same chipset and 99% of the time the exact same make and model. -Allen > > gerrit > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Opensg-core mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensg-core > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Opensg-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensg-core
