Hi Tim, Thanks for your patience and updating the submission. I haven't yet purchased myself a new card. I'll order one this week and finally I'll have the ability to test and dive into this topic.
Cheers, Robert. On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:14 AM, Tim Moore <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Robert, > I'm resubmitting my Uniform Object Buffer patch against the current sources, > as I fear the original may have gone a little stale. Also, I'm not sure if > you were waiting for me to implement more of the "to do" list I included; I > haven't done that yet, as I've been waiting on the patch to be committed :) > Thanks, > Tim > > On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Tim Moore <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Robert Osfield >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Tim, >>> >>> I haven't yet looked at the submission so can't comment too much on >>> the approach. I was a bit surprised that that it was a StateAttribute >>> approach, as I was expecting something more closely aligned to the >>> current osg::Uniform support. >>> >> Yeah, me too, but the the buffer bindings are global state and not >> something that needs to be set per program. >>> >>> However, I'm not too familiar with the uniform blocks so I wouldn't >>> worry about my own expectations too much - I will have to dive into >>> the OpenGL feature, your submission and gets some hardware+drivers >>> that support uniforms blocks to learn about them myself. Now that >>> NVidia have released a well balanced Fermi card I'll be upgrading to >>> get myself some fully capable hardware, then I'll just have to work on >>> the other distractions... >>> >> FYI, I'm doing the work on a 8600M. They are a core part of OpenGL 3.3, >> which is (well?) supported on that generation of cards. >> >>> >>> At my end I'm juggling a couple of different tasks, some client work >>> improving 3D text support, shader composition and family commitments - >>> it's school holidays now so lots days out of the office. >>> Unfortunately this does mean that I don't have many slots available to >>> dive into other topics. So if you feel comfortable with the approach >>> your taking go for it, I'll try to get back and review the changes as >>> soon as I can. >>> >>> Thanks for you patience, >>> Robert. >>> >> No prob. >> Tim >> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Tim Moore <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Hi Robert, >>> > I'm wondering if you've had any chance to take a look at this >>> > submission. I >>> > know that you're heads-down in shader composition and probably don't >>> > want to >>> > want to think about any large submission, especially one that touches >>> > state >>> > management. However, this doesn't touch State, StateAttribute etc. in >>> > any >>> > fundamental way. I ask because I'm thinking of going forward in two >>> > directions with this: filling in the missing features, and using the >>> > same >>> > approach to support transform feedback buffers. Do you have any >>> > comments on >>> > the basic approach? >>> > Thanks, >>> > Tim >>> > >>> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 9:07 AM, Tim Moore <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Hi, >>> >> Here is initial support for uniform buffer objects. The binding >>> >> between a >>> >> buffer object and an indexed target is implemented as a new >>> >> StateAttribute, >>> >> UniformBufferBinding. I've included an example program based on the >>> >> code in >>> >> the ARB_uniform_buffer_object specification. >>> >> A few things remain to do: >>> >> * The binding between a uniform block in a shader program and a buffer >>> >> indexed target number is fixed, like a vertex attribute binding. This >>> >> is too >>> >> restrictive because that binding can be changed without relinking the >>> >> program. This mapping should be done by name in the same way that >>> >> uniform >>> >> values are handled i.e., like a pseudo state attribute; >>> >> * There's no direct way yet to query for the offset of uniforms in >>> >> uniform >>> >> block, so only the std140 layout is really usable. A helper class that >>> >> implemented the std140 rules would be quite helpful for setting up >>> >> uniform >>> >> blocks without having to link a program first; >>> >> * There's no direct support for querying parameters such as the >>> >> maximum >>> >> block length, minimum offset alignment, etc. Having that information >>> >> available outside of the draw thread would make certain instancing >>> >> techniques easier to implement. >>> >> Tim >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > osg-submissions mailing list >>> > [email protected] >>> > >>> > http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-submissions-openscenegraph.org >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> osg-submissions mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> >>> http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-submissions-openscenegraph.org >> > > > _______________________________________________ > osg-submissions mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-submissions-openscenegraph.org > > _______________________________________________ osg-submissions mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-submissions-openscenegraph.org
