Sukender wrote: > There are many cons to such a competition, but I guess we all can agree with > this, can't we? IMHO, neither D3D nor OpenGL should die. > > And finally, about having OSG to support D3D... Well I'm not *that* happy > with it because D3D non-portability is an offence to the C++; but I think > that it should be done, and it should be done *after* or even *during* the > refactoring for an API agnostic code.
Sukender- I agree with everything you say. I would like to see support of multiple renderers for the same reason I like cross platform software. I don't understand how anybody can think being OS agnostic is good, but renderer agnosticism is bad (ideologically). I do understand however, that development resources are scarce and the programmers get to work on whatever they want to work on. It would be nice to decouple OSG from the renderer eventually. It's funny- I'm using OSG to replace a renderer agnostic 3d graphics library from 2000-2003 called Joey3D. It's hasn't been around for years but we have a source license and have been able to keep it working so far. Out of the box it supported OpenGL, D3D, Heidi(?), a custom software-only renderer and one or two others that I can't remember. I really don't expect any of our customers to care that we are dropping support for anything other than OpenGL though. Cory _______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
