Hi Tim, On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Tim Moore <[email protected]> wrote: > I've been thinking about this too, but without the global cull. Are you > trying to avoid having a real scene graph on the local nodes and keep > lists of drawables and StateSets instead? I would think that broadcasting > the dynamic changes to the scene graph would result in less network > traffic than broadcasting lists of drawables, but I suppose it depends > very much on the application.
A fully distributed scene graph would probably be more efficient that a distributed render graph approach, but it'd be more intrusive to the scene graph design and implementation as all nodes would need an fomarlised update mechanism. OpenSG has such support but is a more complicated object model than the OSG, which makes it more involved to use and extend than the OSG. The distributed render graph approach is lighter weight as you are only tracking changes to the drawable leaves and state which is more constrained and well encapsulated than other parts of the scene graph. I believe it'll be much easier to implement this approach in a non intrusive way than a full blow distributed scene graph, which is really why I suggest it, we'd be able to get much of scalability of the cluster without the complexity that normally comes with doing a distributed application or distributed scene graph. Robert. _______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
