JP beat me to my reply. ;) On 12/6/2011 8:04 AM, J.P. Delport wrote: >> What advantage does an FBO have over a pBuffer? > Depends... It can stay on the GPU and you can do some processing there. > Output is a > texture that you can use in different ways. pBuffer should work with camera > nodes in the > graph too.
I like using FBOs as they are kind of the newer cleaner way of doing things, especially if the work stays on GPU. I don't know if FBO GPU->CPU read speed is any faster than PBuffer, I suspect they'd be the same. >>> Having many viewers means that you have a copy of all scene elements per >>> agent. >> I cannot share the same scene graph with multiple viewers (i.e. give each >> viewer a >> pointer to the same graph)? They have to be separate copies? > You can share the graph, but each viewer will create its own graphics > context. You can't > share OpenGL objects between them then. I'm not sure if you can share > contexts between > viewers. I know you can share them between views in a composite viewer, or > between cameras > in the scene. As JP says, you can share the graph(s) or portions of them. >> Ok, how do I control each camera? Can I put on the scenegraph under a >> transform node so >> that I can use a callback function to control each camera motion? Each camera is already a subclass of Transform: http://www.openscenegraph.org/documentation/OpenSceneGraphReferenceDocs/a00073.html -- Chris 'Xenon' Hanson, omo sanza lettere. [email protected] http://www.alphapixel.com/ Digital Imaging. OpenGL. Scene Graphs. GIS. GPS. Training. Consulting. Contracting. "There is no Truth. There is only Perception. To Perceive is to Exist." - Xen _______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
