Hi Mathias, 2011/6/21 Mathias Fröhlich <m.froehl...@science-computing.de>: > Yes, I was erasing my initial comment on that some minutes ago :). > From my personal point of view, I think that our code touches too much > internals of osg. > So, I think we need to change that in some way to make that more robust. > > For the CullVisitor that is subclassed - which is one of the potential > problems I fear for compatibility - there might be room for improovements in > osg.
When users attempt to do things is awkward ways, especially when grampling with lower level facilities, it's a warning sign to me that the OSG is make the problem more difficult and probably needs refactoring. Sometimes it's just the users overcomplicating things for little reason, but often there will be an underlying design issue that they are trying to workaround. It's doesn't always mean I can see a straight forward solution... but occassionally a small tweak to the OSG can make a big diffrence. > The problem is with the cull callback in a Geode during the cull stage. > > The cull callback in a geode cannot do much. It just calls an empty traverse > method in a geode. Then past that all drawables are *unconditionally* - from > the point of the geodes cull visitor - put into the render graph. This lies with Geode's having Drawable children that aren't Nodes so the usual traversal rules don't apply. One modification to the OSG that I have considered for a while is to make a Drawable a Node. This has a number of knock on effects though so something I'll need to consider rather carefully. > Anyway, now this is too late for 3.0. But may be we could think about that > past 3.0. Too later for 3.0 for sure. 3.2 a possibility though. Robert. _______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
