Hi Nick, On 8/22/07, Nick Prudent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I too have been programming OpenGL for while (10 years) and I find learning > OSG to be quite humbling: very few of my OpenGL skills are immediatly > transferable. OSG is very much like what the MFC ins to Win32, however, with > MFC, there's always a way to use Win32 calls directly anywhere in the code. > OSG does not allow this, which is more elegant, but makes it harder to > "transition" from direct OpenGL.
I am curious about your experience. The OSG deliberately has quite a thin OO layer on top of OpenGL, the granularity of state is follows pretty closely to that of OpenGL, the naming convention of OpenGL has almost entirely been honoured so glTexGen is osg::TexGen etc. OpenGL modes are just a pass through and can be set directly on a StateSet. One of my intentions with this thin mapping was the ability to reuse OpenGL knowledge and documentation. The big difference between using the OSG and OpenGL really comes from the OSG being OO and having a retained model rather than immediate model like OpenGL, but its a scene graph so its rather comes with the territory. I would have thought of all the scene graphs in existence the OSG is probably the most OpenGL centric in its naming/granularity. So its it just the OO or scene graph aspect that is the stumbling point? Robert. _______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
